Ensuring the validity of private forest owner typologies by controlling for response style bias and the robustness of statistical methods

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 29, Issue , 2014, Pages 210-223

  Ficko, Andrej ^a   Bončina, Andrej ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

acquiescence; Monte Carlo simulation; non industrial private forest owners; response style bias; structural equation modeling; survey

Indexed keywords

CLUSTERING ALGORITHMS; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE; MONTE CARLO METHODS; SURVEYING; SURVEYS;

ACQUIESCENCE; EXPECTATION-MAXIMIZATION ALGORITHMS; MANAGEMENT INFORMATION; NON-INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS; PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS; PROBABILISTIC CLUSTERING; RESPONSE STYLE BIAS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING;

FORESTRY;

EQUATIONS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; SIMULATION; SURVEYS;

EID: 84912150490     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2013.837194     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bachman JP, O'Malley PM. 1984. Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: black-white differences in response styles. Public Opin Quart. 48:491–509. 10.1086/268845
2. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J. 2001. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J Market Research. 38:143–156. 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840
3. Bentler PM. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psych Bull. 107:238–246. 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
4. Bentler PM. 2005. EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino (CA): Multivariate Software.
5. Billiet JB, McClendon MJ. 2000. Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Struct Equ Model. 7:608–628. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5
6. Bollen KA. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
7. Creswell JW. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
8. De Beuckelaer A, Weijters B, Rutten A. 2010. Using ad hoc measures for response styles: a cautionary note. Qual Quant. 44:761–775. 10.1007/s11135-009-9225-z
9. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc. 39:1–38.
10. Egan A, Jones S. 1993. Do landowner practices reflect beliefs? Implications of an extension–research partnership. J For. 91:39–43.
11. Egan A, Jones S. 1995. The reliability of landowner survey responses to questions on forest ownership and harvesting. Northern J Appl For. 12:184–186.
12. Ficko A, Boncina A. 2013a. Accounting for uncertainty in non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owner segmentation. In: Eriksson LO, editor. Decision support systems for Sustainable Forest Management. Conference proceedings; 2013 April24–26; Umea: SLU.
13. Ficko A, Boncina A. 2013b. Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties. Forest Policy Econ. 27:34–43. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.11.001
14. Ghazoul J, McAllister M. 2003. Communicating complexity and uncertainty in decision making contexts: Bayesian approaches to forest research. Int For Rev. 5:9–19.
15. Greenleaf EA. 1992. Improving rating-scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. J Market Res. 29:176–188. 10.2307/3172568
16. Hill T, Lewicki P. 2007. Statistics: methods and applications. Tulsa (OK): StatSoft.
17. Hofstede G. 2001. Culture's consequences. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
18. Hu L, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 6:1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118
19. Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Hanninen H, Virkkula O. 2009. Family forest owners’ perception of decision support. Scand J Forest Res. 24:448–460. 10.1080/02827580903140679
20. Johnson T, Kulesa P, Cho YI, Shavitt S. 2005. The relation between culture and response styles – evidence from 19 countries. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 36:264–277. 10.1177/0022022104272905
21. Jöreskög KG, Sörbom D. 1993. Lisrel 8: structural equation modeling with the Simplis command language. Hilsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Kangas AS, Kangas J. 2004. Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. Forest Policy Econ. 6:169–188. 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00083-7
23. Kuuluvainen J, Karppinen H, Ovaskainen V. 1996. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Sci. 42:300–309.
24. Magidson J, Vermund J. 2002. Latent class cluster analysis. In: Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL, editors. Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 89–106.
25. Mardia KV. 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 57:519–530. 10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
26. McDonald RP, Ho MR. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis. Psychol Methods. 7:64–82. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
27. Mirowsky J, Ross CE. 1991. Eliminating defense and agreement bias from measures of the sense of control – a 2x2 index. Soc Psychol Quart. 54:127–145. 10.2307/2786931
28. Newit J, Hancock GR. 2001. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model. 8:353–377. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2
29. Paulhus DL. 1991. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press; p. 17–59.
30. Reynolds N, Smith A. 2010. Assessing the impact of response styles on cross-cultural service quality evaluation: a simplified approach to eliminating the problem. J Serv Res. 13:230–243. 10.1177/1094670509360408
31. Savalei V, Bentler PM. 2006. Structural equation modeling. In: Grover R, Marco Vriens M, editors. The handbook of marketing research: uses misuses and future advances. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; p. 330–364.
32. Shaikh SL, Sun L, Cornelis van Kooten G. 2007. Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments. Ecol Econ. 62:115–125. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.016
33. Smith PB. 2004. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 35:50–61. 10.1177/0022022103260380
34. Steenkamp J, De Jong MG, Baumgartner H. 2010. Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. J Market Res. 47:199–214. 10.1509/jmkr.47.2.199
35. Steiger JH. 1990. Some additional thoughts on components and factors. Multivar Behav Res. 25:41–45. 10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_4
36. Tucker LR, Lewis C. 1973. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 38:1–10. 10.1007/BF02291170
37. Ullman JB. 2006. Structural equation modeling. In:Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, editors. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; p. 653–771.
38. Vale CD, Maurelli VA. 1983. Simulating multivariate non-normal distributions. Psychometrika. 48:465–471. 10.1007/BF02293687
39. Van Herk H, Poortinga YH, Verhallen TMM. 2004. Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 35:346–360. 10.1177/0022022104264126
40. Van Vaerenbergh Y, Thomas TD. 2012. Response styles in survey research: a literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. Int J Public Opin Res. 25:195–217. 10.1093/ijpor/eds021
41. Watson D. 1992. Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale – an application to class-consciousness. Socio Meth Res. 21:52–88. 10.1177/0049124192021001003
42. Weijters B. 2006. Response styles in consumer research [dissertation]. Belgium: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
43. Welkenhuysen-Gybels J, Billiet J, Cambre B. 2003. Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 34:702–722. 10.1177/0022022103257070
44. Wedel M, Kamakura W. 1999. Market segmentation. Conceptual and methodological foundations. 2nd ed. Boston (MA): Springer.