Harzing, AW; Baldueza, J; Barner-Rasmussen, W; Barzantny, C; Canabal, A; Davila, A; Espejo, A; Ferreira, R; Giroud, A; Koester, K; Liang, YK; Mockaitis, A; Morley, MJ; Myloni, B; Odusanya, JOT; O'Sullivan, SL; Palaniappan, AK; Prochno, P; Choudhury, SR; Saka-Helmhout, A; Siengthai, S; Viswat, L; Soydas, AU; Zander, L

2009

August

International Business Review

Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research?

Published

()

Cross-national research Research methods Response style differences Language bias Survey research CULTURAL ACCOMMODATION HONG-KONG STYLE VALUES PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS ISSUES IMPACT

18

4

417

432

We propose solutions to two recurring problems in cross-national research: response style differences and language bias. In order to do so, we conduct a methodological comparison of two different response formats-rating and ranking. For rating, we assess the effect of changing the commonly used 5-point Likert scales to 7-point Likert scales. For ranking, we evaluate the validity of presenting respondents with short scenarios for which they need to rank their top 3 solutions. Our results - based on two studies of 1965 undergraduate and 1714 MBA students in 16 different countries - confirm our hypotheses that both solutions reduce response and language bias, but show that ranking generally is a superior solution. These findings allow researchers to have greater confidence in the validity of cross-national differences if these response formats are used, instead of the more traditional 5-point Likert scales. In addition, our findings have several practical implications for multinational corporations, relating to issues such as selection interviews, performance appraisals, and cross-cultural training. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0969-5931

10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.03.001