The authors investigated at the country level the effects of four cultural orientations identified and studied by Hofstede on two commonly recognized response biases: extreme response style and acquiescent responding. Data are presented from approximately 18,000 survey questionnaires completed by employees in 19 nations on five continents (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Malaysia, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Hong Kong, France, and Italy). Hierarchical linear modeling was employed to examine the associations between personlevel response styles and country-level cultural orientations. Consistent with theoretical expectations, power distance and masculinity were found to be positively and independently associated with extreme response style. Individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity were each found to be negatively associated with acquiescent response behavior. Further research is needed to identify how question characteristics might interact with cultural orientations to influence response behavior.

No abstract

Three experiments were designed to clarify the mechanisms underlying Eagly, Chen, Chaiken, and Shaw-Barnes’s (1999) meta-analytic demonstration that attitudinally congenial information has typically not been more memorable than uncongenial information. Participants remembered congenial and uncongenial messages equally well, despite their disapproval of the uncongenial information. This null congeniality effect was obtained regardless of whether (a) messages pertained to abortion or gays in the military or presented information on both sides or only one side of the issue; (b) recognition or recall measures were administered soon after the message or 2 weeks later; and (c) participants were or were not activists on the issue, had stronger or weaker attitudes, had more prior knowledge of counterattitudinal (vs. proattitudinal) arguments, or did or did not have their attention constrained to the message. Process findings suggested that participants’ thoughtful counterarguing of the uncongenial messages enhanced their memory for them.

Social psychologists have usually hypothesized that attitudinal selectivity biases people's memory in favor of information that is congenial to their attitudes, because they are motivated to defend their attitudes against uncongenial information. However, our meta-analysis found that such effects have been only inconsistently obtained. One reason for these inconsistencies is that the defense of attitudes against attacks does not necessarily entail avoiding the uncongenial information. As shown by our experiments, people often expose themselves to attitudinally uncongenial information, attend to it, scrutinize it carefully, encode it accurately, and remember it fairly well, even though they dislike the information and are not persuaded by it. Given sufficient motivation and capacity, people mount an active defense that enhances memory for the information.

This research examined the hypothesis that gender gaps in voting stem from differences in the extent to which men and women agree with candidates' issue stances. Two initial experiments portraying candidates by their sex and attitudes and a third experiment that also included information about political party produced the predicted attitudinal gender-congeniality effect: Participants of each sex reported greater likelihood, compared with participants of the other sex, of voting for the candidate who endorsed positions typically favored more by their own sex than the other sex. In addition, this gender-congeniality effect was present among Republican and independent participants but absent among Democratic participants because Democratic men as well as women favored candidates who advocated the positions typically favored by women. Interpretation invoked the importance of group interest based on gender as an influence on women's voting.