Introduction

The article chosen is  a on cultural differences in careless responding to a study that was done by Ina Grau, Rainer Banse, and Christine Ebenner. According to the study of careless responding, which mostly occurs when participants in a study respond without following instructions, or without reading the content item, threatens the validity of any survey data. Although in most cases careless responding is treated at an individual level, the study aimed at investigating it at the country level and comparing it across cultural dimensions. Many authors claim that careless responding respondents help to improve the results of the study by moderating the correlation between the variables.

The purpose of this study was to ensure an introduction offering a comparison between the facets and well-established facets of respodent’n of the composite index of careless responding by combining the five facets to illustrate its correlation with the variables like the respondent’s education level and the Big 5personbality traits. The study also aimed at offering a comparison between the careless response facets and facets of the respondents’ response style, an an attempt to demonstrate any possible overlap between the response style and the careless response.

The study was based n three hypotheses. One of the hypothesis was that careless response has a negative correlation with the level of education, agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness and. The second hypotheses were that careless response has a positive correlation with GII and PDI, and negatively correlated with IDV and HDI. The study also hypothesized that the CR index has a positive correlation with acquaintances,extreme answers and mid-point answers as well as a negative correlation with social desirability.

The methodology for obtaining members for the study used for this study was the sampling method, where the sample selected constituted of 8320 members as the study samples size. This sample was selected from a total of 34 countries, who were married couples, but only one couple member per couple participated in the study to avoid the problems of anonymity. Among the participants,54.23% were female while 45.77% of the total population was male.

The study found out that CR score was lower in individuals with a lower education level that those with higher levels of education. Except for the treait of opennessm, all the other traits of the Big 5 personality traits indicated that high score in agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness.This confirmed the study hypothesis . The study found a high correlation between extreme and midpoint answers of the respondents.The Carelessness response at country level revealed a high correlation with the indicators used for cultural emancipation. The study, therefore, concluded that carelessness response has a negative correlation with the education level, the cultural orientation of the participants and Big 5 personality traits an individual level while the correlation is positive at country level.

The knowledge about a culture that this study added was the concept of emancipation and its effect on the careless response in individuals and country level. According to the study, emancipation has a negative correlation with the careless response at the individual and country level. The topic and the knowledge from the topic is both relevant and significant to daily lie, especially during research. It helps in understanding individual and cultural factors that can contribute to carelessness response among participants in a study; hence researcher can strive to avoid them. However, the topic and the review left me wondering if many of the researches have high levels of CR and can the credibility and validity of the results based on such responses guaranteed? And are the concussions true as they appear because they are based on careless responses?

References

Ina Grau,, Rainer Banse, & Christine Ebenner. (n.d.). Cultural Differences in Careless Responding. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 50(3), 336-357.