Extreme Response Style and the Measurement of Intra-Individual Variability in Affect

Abstract

Extreme response style (ERS) has the potential to bias the measurement of intra-individual variability in psychological constructs (Baird, Lucas & Donnellan, 2017). This paper explores such bias through a multilevel extension of a latent trait model for modeling response styles applied to repeated measures rating scale data. Modeling responses to multi-item scales of positive and negative affect collected from smokers at clinic visits following a smoking cessation attempt revealed considerable ERS bias in the intra-individual sum score variances. In addition, simulation studies suggest the magnitude and direction of bias due to ERS is heavily dependent on the mean affect level, supporting a model-based approach to the study and control of ERS effects. Application of the proposed model-based adjustment is found to improve intra-individual variability as a predictor of smoking cessation.

Estimation of Response Styles Using the Multidimensional Nominal Response Model: A Tutorial and Comparison With Sum Scores

“…However, we note that researchers have done little to make comparisons among the plethora of extant response style models. A few examples provide some evidence for modeling approaches similar to what we use here (e.g., Deng et al, 2018;Schneider, 2018), but it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. The question of how to best disentangle response style from the construct(s) of interest thus remains an important issue, and we hope that the current manuscript will facilitate future comparisons with such alternatives.…”

Emotional intelligence and its effects on biomarkers of workplace stress

“…Soldiers and other high-risk occupation employees, for example, are trained in pain-tolerance tactics, and are encouraged to ignore physical and psychological negativity (Driskell et al, 2008). Bias might be introduced due to self-reporting being conducted after the fact (Walentynowicz et al, 2015;Redelmeier et al, 2003), and it often agrees with perceived expectations of a researcher (Kirsch, 1997) according to predefined responses (Epel et al, 2018), with some respondents clustering measurements either in the middle or extremes of a scale (Deng et al, 2018).…”

“…Biases are particularly prevalent and problematic in stress research, where individuals are inclined to report in socially desirable ways (Judge et al, 2000;Moorman, & Podsakoff, 1992;Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Other limitations of self-report measures discussed in this thesis include acquiescence bias (Paulhus, 1991), extreme and central tendency responses (Deng et al, 2018), the influence of state negative affectivity (Chen & Spector, 1991), temporal distance between event and stress reporting (Redelmeier et al, 2003;Walentynowicz et al, 2015), response expectancy (Kirsch, 1997), impression management, a reluctance to admit to negative emotions (Gudjonsson, 1981), and poor insights into or the ability to communicate stress states accurately. Objective biological markers are, therefore, more conducive to stress measurement, particularly among individuals who have an interest not to report accurately due to expectations of their work, gender, or culture.…”

“…Several researchers (Deng, McCarthy, Piper, Baker, & Bolt, 2018) report a tendency to respond at extremes. For example, when potential responses range from 1 to 5, the respondent might report perceptions using only ones or fives, or cluster responses at the centre.…”

“…Most research on the effects of incivility uses subjective, self-report measures of stress (Cortina & Magley, 2009;Cortina et al, 2001;Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018;Lim, Cortina, Magley, 2008;Taylor, Bedeian, Cole, & Zhang, 2017). Several biases interfere with results obtained from self-report measures, including acquiescence (Paulhus, 1991), extreme and central tendency responses (Deng et al, 2018), state negative affectivity (Chen & Spector, 1991), and response expectancy, during which a respondent appraises what a researcher is investigating and responds accordingly (Kirsch, 1997). At work, some individuals do not feel comfortable disclosing stress states (APA, 2016), a reluctance due to fear of stigmatisation, particularly in men, or biases of cultural impression management, in which individuals do not feel it is appropriate to report a stress state in public (Kurlansik & Maffei, 2016).…”