態度量表的回答模式：以外來人口影響與兩岸統合兩題組為例

Response Styles in Attitudinal Scales: An Example of Immigrant and Reunification Attitudes

10.6683/TPSR.200712.11(2).3-51

杜素豪(Su-Hao Tu)；廖培珊(Pei-Shan Liao)

回答模式 ； 態度量表 ； 潛藏類別因素模型 ； response style ； attitudinal scales ； latent class factor model

台灣政治學刊

11卷2期（2007 / 12 / 01）

3 - 51

繁體中文

本文利用「台灣社會變遷基本調查四期四次國家認同組」面訪調查資料，探索台灣民眾在相關的兩個態度題組（包含外來人口影響與兩岸統合兩個五點量表）的回答模式。首先利用回答模式指標比較每一量表各種可能的回答模式。其次進一步作兩題組共九個題目的探索性因素分析，連續性指標之驗證性潛藏類別因素模型，以及包含與不含回答模式的類別性指標之潛藏類別因素模型分析；同時作各類分析的比較，進而確定可能影響測量誤差的回答模式。最後以多變量分析比較以上三種潛藏類別因素模型中態度類型的推估，尤其著重在包含回答模式與不含回答模式之間的差異。 結果顯示，四種回答模式指標指出非極端回答模式的傾向最高。三種因素分析結果顯示，利用類別性指標之四因素模型，產生兩個因素分別代表中立與極端兩回答模式，其模型適合度比兩因素模型比較理想。比較連續性指標兩因素以及類別性指標的兩因素與四因素共三種的潛藏類別因素模型之後發現，考慮到兩種回答模式的因果模式分析效果比較好。其中明顯容易產生中立回答模式者為男性、非大陸各省市的少數族群、中上層以上或下層階級、與小學及以下或專科以上教育程度者；而極端回答模式則較容易出現在女性、非大陸各省市的少數族群、國中及以下教育程度、中層及以上階級與29歲以下或60歲以上的受訪者身上。綜合各種潛藏類別因素模型的結論可發現若未將回答模式從原始的態度區辨出來，性別與自評社會階層的對國家認同態度的影響效果會是「虛假」的，換言之，回答模式在檢視受訪民眾的此兩種量表態度時是不應被忽略的。

This article explores different response styles by using two scales representing attitudes toward immigrants and reunion across the Taiwan Strait. Data were collected from a face-to-face survey-the 2003 Taiwan Social Change Survey. A response style index was first used to compare response style across scales. Exploratory Factor Analysis, Latent Class Factor Model-continuous indicators and Latent Class Factor Model-nominal indicators were then used to compare the response patterns (styles) of the nine attitudinal items. Multivariate analyses with and without including response styles were finally compared across the three factor analysis-type models. The results based on the response style index exhibited a tendency toward a mild response style. The three types of models indicated that the Latent Class Factor Model-nominal indicators for four latent factors provided a better fit than the others, while two response styles were derived from this model-the middle response style and the extreme response style. Concerning social-demographics, males, the ethnic minority in Taiwan, those who identified themselves as high, middle, or low class, and those with less than a primary school or more than a college education tended to choose middle points among the answering scales. On the other hand, females, the ethnic minority in Taiwan, those with less than a junior high school education, those who considered themselves to be middle or high class, and those who were less than 29 or more than 60 years old tended to choose extreme response categories. In conclusion, the identification of response styles revealed that the association between attitudes and two characteristics, namely, gender and social class, could be spurious. In other words, response styles should not be neglected in the examination of the two attitudes demonstrated in this article.

1. Bachman, J. G.,P. M. O`Malley(1984).Yea-Saying, Nay-Saying, and Going to Extremes: Black-White Differences in Response Styles.Public Opinion Quarterly,48,491-509.
2. Baumgartner, H.,J. E. M. Steenkamp(2001).Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation.Journal of Marketing Research,38,143-156.
3. Bech, M.,D. Gyrd-Hansen(2005).Effects Coding in Discrete Choice Experiments.Health Economics,14,1079-1083.
4. Bentler, P. M.,D. N. Jackson,S. Messick(1971).Identification of Content and Style: A Two-Dimensional Interpretation of Acquiescence.Psychological Bulletin,76(3),186-204.
5. Billiet, J. B.,M. J. McClendon(2000).Modeling Acquiescence in Measurement Models for Two Balanced Sets of Items.Structural Equation Modeling,7(4),608-628.
6. Cheung, G. W.,R. B. Rensvold(2000).Assessing Extreme and Acquiescent Response Sets in Cross-Cultural Research Using Structural Equations Modeling.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,31,187-212.
7. Cheung, M. W. L.,W. Chan(2002).Reducing Uniform Response Bias with Ipsative Measurement in Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis.Structural Equation Modeling,9(1),55-77.
8. Chun, K. T.,J. B. Campbell,J. H. Yoo(1974).Extreme Response Style in Cross-Cultural Research: A Reminder.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,5(4),465-480.
9. Clogg, C. C.,D. O. Sawyer(1981).A Comparison of Alternative Models for Analyzing the Scalability of Response Patterns.Sociological Methodology,41,240-280.
10. Crandall, J. E.(1973).Sex Differences in Extreme Response Style: Differences in Frequency of Use of Extreme Positive and Negative Ratings.Journal of Social Psychology,89,281-293.
11. Feick, L. F.(1989).Latent Class Analysis of Survey Questions that Include Don`t Know Responses.Public Opinion Quarterly,53,525-547.
12. Greenleaf, E. A.(1992).Measuring Extreme Response Style.Public Opinion Quarterly,56,328-351.
13. Greenleaf, E. A.(1992).Improving Rating Scale Measures by Detecting and Correcting Bias Components in Some Response Style.Journal of Marketing Research,26(May),176-188.
14. Grimm, S. D.,A. T. Church(1999).A Cross-Cultural Study of Response Biases in Personality Measures.Journal of Research in Personality,33,415-441.
15. Hamilton, D. L.(1968).Personality Attributes Associated with Extreme Response Style.Psychological Bulletin,69(3),192-203.
16. Hui, C. H.,H. C. Trandis(1989).Effects of Culture and Response Format on Extreme Response Style.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,20(3),296-309.
17. J. P. Robinson,P. R. Shaver,L. S. Wrightsman(1990).Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
18. Jackson, D. N.,S. Messick(1958).Content and Style in Personality Assessment.Psychological Bulletin,55,243-252.
19. Javeline, D.(1999).Response Effects in Polite Cultures: A Test of Acquiescence in Kazakhstan.Public Opinion Quarterly,63(1),1-28.
20. Johnson, T. R.(2003).On the Use of Heterogeneous Thresholds Ordinal Regression Models to Account for Individual Differences in Response Style.Psychometrika,68(4),563-583.
21. Knowles, E. S.,C. A. Condon(1999).Why People Say 'Yes': A Dual-Process Theory of Acquiescence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(2),379-386.
22. Landsberger, H. A.,A. Saavedra(1967).Response Set in Developing Countries.The Public Opinion Quarterly,31(2),214-229.
23. Lazarsfeld, P. F.,S. A. Stouffer (eds.)(1950).Measurement and Prediction.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
24. Magidson, J.,J. K. Vermunt(2001).Latent Class Factor and Cluster Models, Bi-Plots, and Related Graphical Displays.Sociological Methodology,31,223-264.
25. Magidson, J.,J. K. Vermunt,H. Bozdogan (ed.)(2003).Statistical Datamining and Knowledge Discovery.Boca Raton:Chapman and Hall/CRC CRC Press.
26. Marin, G.,R. J. Gamba,B. V. Marin(1992).Extreme Response Style and Acquiescence among Hispanics: The Role of Acculturation and Education.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,23(4),498-509.
27. McCutcheon, A. L.(1987).Latent Class Analysis.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
28. Mirowsky, J.,C. E. Ross(1991).Eliminating Defense and Agreement Bias from Measures of the Sense of Control: A $2 X 2$ Index.Social Psychology Quarterly,54(2),127-145.
29. Moors, G.(2004).Facts and Artifacts in the Comparison of Attitudes among Ethnic Minorities: A Multigroup Latent Class Structure Model with Adjustment for Response Style Behavior.European Sociological Review,20(4),303-320.
30. Moors, G.(2003).Diagnosing Response Style Behavior by Means of a Latent-Class Factor Approach: Socio-Demographic Correlates of Gender Role Attitudes and Perceptions of Ethnic Discrimination Reexamined.Quality & Quantity,37,277-302.
31. Rorer, L. G.(1965).The Great Response-Style Myth.Psychological Bulletin,63,129-156.
32. National Pride in Cross-National Perspective
33. Smith, T. W.,S. Kim(2006).National Pride in Comparative Perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,18(1),127-136.
34. Taylor, M. C.(1983).The Black-and-White Model of Attitudes Stability: A Latent Class Examination of Opinion and Nonopinion in the American Public.American Journal of Sociology,89,373-401.
35. van Herk, H.,Y. H. Poortinga,G. M. M. Verhallen(2004).Response Styles in Rating Scales: Evidence of Method Bias in Data from Six EU Countries.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,35(3),346-360.
36. Vermunt, J. K.,J. Magidson(2005).Latent Gold 4.0 User`s Guide.Belmont, MA:Statistical Innovations Inc..
37. Vermunt, J. K.,J. Magidson(2005).Technical Guide for Latent Gold 4.0: Basic and Advanced.Belmont, MA:Statistical Innovations Inc..
38. Watkins, D.,S. Cheung(1995).Culture, Gender, and Response Bias: An Analysis of Response to the Self-Description Questionnaire.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,26(5),490-504.
39. Watson, D.(1992).Correcting for Acquiescent Response Bias in the Absence of a Balanced Scale: An Application to Class Consciousness.Sociological Methods & Research,21(1),52-88.
40. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J.,B. Billiet,B. Cambre(2003).Adjustment for Acquiescence in the Assessment of the Construct Equivalence of Likert-Type Score Items.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,34(6),702-722.
41. Wong, N.,A. Rindfleish,J. E. Burroughs(2003).Do Reverse-Worded Items Confound Measures in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research? The Case of the Material Values Scale.Journal of Consumer Research,30,72-91.
42. Worthy, M.(1969).Note on Scoring Midpoint Responses in Extreme Response-Style Scores.Psychological Reports,24,189-190.
43. Yamaguchi, K.(2000).Multinomial Logit Latent-Class Regression Models: An Analysis of the Predictors of Gender-Role Attitudes among Japanese Women.American Journal of Sociology,105,1702-1740.
44. 楊宜音、張志學譯(1997)。性格與社會心理測量總覽。台北:遠流出版社。

1. 杜素豪(2012)。社會距離與平衡型態度量表的回答模式。調查研究：方法與應用，27，113-156。
2. 廖培珊(2010)。態度量表之選項標示語：調查資料之潛藏類別分析。調查研究：方法與應用，24，91-134。
3. 廖培珊、杜素豪(2007)。知識量表中題目次序與選項設計的訪答效應。調查研究：方法與應用，22，89-127。
4. 劉嘉薇、陳陸輝、耿曙(2009)。打破維持現狀的迷思：台灣民眾統獨抉擇中理念與務實的兩難。臺灣政治學刊，13(2)，3-56。
5. 楊仕樂、李宜芳(2018)。兩岸九二共識的台灣不共識？網路問卷調查研究。國際關係學報，45，47-95。
6. 楊婉瑩、張雅雯(2016)。她們不是我們？分析台灣的民族主義者反大陸移民之態度。東吳政治學報，34(2)，1-59。
7. 俞振華、林啟耀(2013)。解析台灣民眾統獨偏好：一個兩難又不確定的選擇。臺灣政治學刊，17(2)，165-230。
8. (2009)。務實也是一種選擇—台灣民眾統獨立場的測量與商榷。臺灣民主季刊，6(4)，141-168。