Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Detecting gender item bias and differential manifest response behavior:

A Rasch-based solution☆
Thomas Salzberger a,⁎, Fiona J. Newton b, 1, Michael T. Ewing b,⁎⁎
a
WU Wien, Institute for Marketing Management, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria
b
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145 Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although gender is a salient variable in consumer research, researchers largely overlook whether, and how, it
Received 1 March 2011 influences consumer response to indicators measuring latent variables. The authors therefore extend the
Received in revised form 1 November 2011 framework of measurement equivalence assessment to the largely overlooked issue of differential item
Accepted 1 March 2012
response behavior between men and women. This paper demonstrates the efficacy of using item response
Available online 21 March 2013
theory to investigate the presence of gender item bias. This methodological approach affords researchers
Keywords:
the means of objectively disentangling actual gender differences and gender bias. Ignoring the possibility
Gender item bias of gender item bias has the potential to bias means and thereby compromise any substantive gender-based
Measurement bias mean comparisons. The authors conclude with solutions to address gender item bias both pre and post
Item-response theory survey construction.
Differential item functioning © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Rasch modeling

1. Introduction
The comparability of measures of latent variables requires psy-
chometric evidence of measurement equivalence (Steenkamp &
Baumgartner, 1998). Although widely acknowledged among cross-
cultural researchers, awareness of other criteria possibly modifying
the response process and altering the relationship between a mani-
fest indicator and the latent variable is either limited or nonexistent.
Gender is a case in point. Despite perennial interest in gender differ-
ences in consumer behavior (Dahl, Sengupta, & Vohs, 2009; Melnyk,
van Osselaer, & Bijmolt, 2009; Moss, 2009; Wolin, 2003), the extant
marketing literature typically fails to examine whether gender influ-
ences participant responses to survey instruments. This is a major
theoretical gap, given the rich body of research indicating gender dif-
ferences in terms of information processing and social behavior
(Eagly, 1987, 1993; Halpern, 1989; Putrevu, 2001; Wood & Rhodes,
1992). In practical terms, there is obvious potential for gender-item
bias in survey research (Dean & Edwardson, 1996; Fleishman,
Spector, & Altman, 2002; Gelin, Carleton, Smith, & Zumbo, 2004;
☆ The authors acknowledge and are grateful for the comments by Harmen Oppewal,
Joshua Newton and Carla Taines (Monash University) to an earlier draft of this manu-
script. The authors alone are responsible for all limitations and errors that may relate to
the study and the manuscript.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1313364609; fax: +43 131336732.
⁎⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 39903 2563; fax: +61 39903 2974.
E-mail addresses: Thomas.Salzberger@wu.ac.at (T. Salzberger),
Fiona.Newton@monash.edu (F.J. Newton), Michael.Ewing@monash.edu (M.T. Ewing).
1
Tel.: +61 39903 2563; fax: +61 39903 2974.
Orhede & Kreiner, 2000) which plays a crucial role in marketing re-
search (Steenkamp, De Jong, & Baumgartner, 2010). This omission is
likely to emanate from a lack of awareness of the problem itself.
Authors typically proceed on the assumption of items functioning in
the same way for females and males; and reviewers rarely, if ever,
ask for evidence to support this supposition. It is feasible that lack
of familiarity with appropriate psychometric methods also contrib-
utes to researchers overlooking this issue in marketing research out-
side the field of cross-national or cross-cultural research. In fact, even
in international research, limited awareness of the problems and
ignorance of proper analytical approaches are still commonplace as
evidenced by He, Merz, and Alden (2008).
The present study therefore examines gender as a potential contrib-
utor to differential item response behavior between men and women.
The study first establishes a theoretical foundation of differential item
functioning (DIF; otherwise termed item bias) and discusses the differ-
ent types of DIF resulting from respondent characteristics. The sug-
gested method to test for DIF not only allows for the identification of
DIF but also helps establish a common metric of measures across
males and females should DIF occur. Empirical examples illustrate the
different ways in which gender can influence participants' responses
to surveys and the possible consequences of ignoring the issue.
2. Differential item functioning (DIF)
Although invariance of measurement is crucial, researchers typi-
cally assume that the items mean roughly the same thing to all re-
spondents within a particular population. Yet a variety of factors

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.045
 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607
may lead respondents to interpret and consequently respond to the
meaning of the items in different ways, thereby threatening measure-
ment equivalence and comparability across groups. The scientific
community readily acknowledges this issue in cross-cultural applica-
tions by requiring appropriate empirical analyses to assess measure-
ment equivalence rather than relying on fortunate coincidence.
However, the potential for gender invariance in participant response
patterns remains unknown despite extensive evidence indicating
gender-based differences in social behavior and personality (Eagly,
1987, 1993; Eagly & Wood, 1991, 1999; Hall, 1984, 1987; Wood &
Rhodes, 1992); cognition (Halpern, 1989, 1992), learning (Severiens
& Ten Dam, 1998) and information processing (Putrevu, 2001).
Explanations for gender differences include evolutionary (Buss,
1995a, 1995b; Luxen, 2007), biological (Alexander, 2003; Williams
& Meck, 1991) and sociological (Bem, 1981) influences. There are
also potentially methodological explanations for gender differences.
This paper focuses specifically on the latter. Evidence suggests that
implicit cues in response formats can influence response patterns. In
a study of jealousy in relation to infidelity, for instance, DeSteno and
colleagues (DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002; DeSteno
& Salovey, 1996) argue that men and women interpret stimuli differ-
entially. These gender differences, however, are not present in re-
sponse formats designed to remove implicit cues (DeSteno et al.,
2002). Moreover, the power of implicit cues to influence participant
responses links to respondents' inherent desire to understand the
true purpose of the experiment and then conform to what they
think researchers expect of them (Orne & Whitehouse, 2000).
When assessing differences between men and women in compar-
ative research, there is a need for researchers to disentangle true and
artificial effects by properly investigating gender-related invariance
of measurement. This involves a careful examination of gender effects,
which is a collective term for any impact caused by gender as an inde-
pendent variable on a dependent variable of interest. A gender effect
may consist of two components. First, gender may have a true impact
on the measured variable (i.e., an actual substantial difference be-
tween males and females exists). Second, a gender effect can result
from differential response behavior when measuring the dependent
variable (i.e., a methodological artifact requiring identification and
correction). In practice, gender effects may also result from a combi-
nation of true substantial effect and measurement bias. In this latter
situation, the effects can work in opposite directions, with the possi-
bility that DIF will mask a true effect. Alternatively, an observed mean
difference can appear to be larger than it actually is due to DIF.
Despite this, researchers often ignore the issue of gender measure-
ment invariance. For example, Melnyk et al. (2009) analyze differ-
ences between men and women regarding customer loyalty across
three separate studies. Although their third study uses four attitudinal
and behavioral intention indicators to measure loyalty, an assessment
of measurement invariance in terms of gender is not undertaken. Sim-
ilarly, Seock and Sauls (2008) investigate gender effects on shopping
orientation (operationalized by 18 items covering six dimensions)
and evaluation of apparel retail stores (measured by 15 items loading
on three different factors). The authors, however, do not subject the
data set to an invariance assessment. Thus, the higher importance of
all three store evaluation factors for females (identified on raw score
comparisons) could be at least partly due to DIF. Likewise, de
Gregorio and Sung (2010) in their exploration of gender effects on at-
titudes toward product placement do not test for measurement arti-
facts. Although Richard, Chebat, Yang, and Putrevu's (2010) study,
published in the Journal of Business Research, constitutes a commend-
able exception, in that they do assess measurement equivalence
across genders using multi-group structural equation modeling, the
power to identify DIF is limited since seven out of the ten latent vari-
ables are measured using only two or three items.
Finally, Snipes and Thomson (2006) use the term gender bias
when actually testing for gender differences on the service quality
599
assessment and service fairness in the higher education service indus-
try. Specifically, the authors analyze the effect of gender using hierar-
chical regression analyses with gender among the independent
variables and service quality and fairness acting as the respective de-
pendent variables. These authors use items based on SERVQUAL to
measure service quality and a single item to assess service fairness
and find no effect for service quality. However, they report gender im-
pacts on service fairness. Since the study does not test measurement
invariance, the lack of effect in the case of service quality and the ef-
fect in service fairness could result from any combination of a true im-
pact and measurement bias. The Snipes and Thomson (2006) study
also highlights the potential limitations of relying on single-item
measures. Specifically, the use of a single item to measure service fair-
ness not only rules out the possibility to test for invariance but also
increases the likelihood that bias will at least partially account for
the alleged gender difference.
These examples of failure to test for gender-based DIF are by no
means exhaustive, but rather serve to illustrate how consumer re-
searchers often disregard the potential for gender to impact on the
measurement models used to assess latent variables. The current
paper addresses this oversight by providing proof of concept that
Rasch measurement theory (Rasch, 1960) is an effective way to inves-
tigate whether gender-based measurement invariance is present. The
paper also provides insights into how researchers can properly ac-
count for gender bias, thus facilitating their ability to objectively dis-
tinguish between actual gender differences and gender bias.
3. Methodological approaches to examining item DIF
As DIF is a manifestation of non-invariance of the measurement
model, the same methods utilized to test for invariance in cross-
cultural research (Cheung & Rensvold, 1999; De Jong, Steenkamp, &
Fox, 2007; Schaffer & Riordan, 2003; Singh, 1995; Steenkamp &
Baumgartner, 1998) lend themselves as approaches to investigate
gender-based DIF. Although both confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
and item response theory (IRT) offer means of assessing measurement
equivalence or DIF (Embretson & Reise, 2000; Ewing, Salzberger, &
Sinkovics, 2005; Schaffer & Riordan, 2003), the current paper utilizes
the latter, namely the Rasch model (Andrich, 1978a, 1978b, 1988;
Rasch, 1960; Salzberger, 2009).
The defining characteristic of a Rasch measurement model is the re-
quirement of invariance, which implies the independence of item pa-
rameters from respondent characteristics, for example gender. This
property makes it a powerful method for identifying DIF. Unlike general
IRT models (Singh, 2004), the Rasch model uses only location parame-
ters (item location) to model item characteristics but no discrimination
parameters. The location parameters specify the position of the item and
the item's response categories on the continuum of the latent variable.
Thus, item parameters and person measures are directly comparable
as they are on the same metric. Furthermore, the Rasch model (Rasch,
1960) is without a number of the limiting assumptions associated
with CFA. First, unlike CFA, the Rasch model does not assume that man-
ifest item scores are interval-scaled. Second, the relationship between
the latent variable and the manifest item score is non-linear. This
means that the model accounts for any floor and ceiling effects, since
the probability of choosing extreme response categories approaches 0
and 1 respectively, at infinity. Third, the Rasch model does not depend
on any assumptions as to the distribution of the latent measures of re-
spondents. This is particularly helpful as gender-based DIF can be inves-
tigated using samples that are not representative or which deviate from
being normally distributed.
Since marketing research typically utilizes multi-categorical re-
sponse scales, the polytomous Rasch model for ordered categories
(e.g., the rating scale model, Andrich, 1978a, 1978b; the partial credit
model, Andrich, 1988; Masters, 1982) is of more interest than the di-
chotomous model (Rasch, 1960). Multi-categorical items require
600 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607

m − 1 threshold location parameters where m equals the number of
response categories. A threshold parameter (τij) indicates the transi-
tion point between two adjacent response categories j and j + 1
within item i, where two adjacent categories are equally likely. The
average of the threshold parameters represents the overall location
(δi) of the item. Eq. (1) depicts the probability of choosing a category
scored x (with x going from 0 to m) depending on the person param-
eter βv, the item overall location δi and the threshold locations τij,
which are stated as deviations from their overall mean (Andrich,
1988, p. 366). The denominator γ is the sum of the numerators across
all response categories. The numerator of scoring in the lowermost
category (0) is 1. Expression of parameters is in logits, or log-odds
to agree to an item.

1995a, 1995b, 2010; Andrich, de Jong, & Sheridan, 1997). In a five cat-
 e ∑j¼1 −τij þx⋅ðβv −δi Þ
x
 egory item, a proper ordering of the threshold parameters τij exists
P avi ¼ xjβv ; τij ; j ¼ 1…m; 0 b x ≤ m ¼
γ
where:
 
x
m ∑j¼1 −τij þk⋅ðβv −δi Þ
γ ¼ 1þ ∑e :
k¼1
The s-shaped item characteristic curve ICC (see Fig. 1a) graphically
depicts each item. In the dichotomous model, the curve represents
the probability of a positive response depending on the person loca-
tion. Polytomous items require a set of curves (the category charac-
teristic curves); with one curve for each response category (see
Fig. 1b). In the polytomous case (see Fig. 1c), the ICC refers to the
expected item score. The juxtaposition of the theoretical ICC and the
empirical ICC showing the actual item mean scores from groups of re-
spondents with similar location estimates (see Fig. 1d) exposes
whether the item fits or not. Statistical tests of fit allow for determin-
ing the significance of the size of the residuals.
The current paper draws upon a straightforward comparison of
expected and observed responses to check whether the Rasch
model accurately explains the data. This process involves grouping
respondents into m homogeneous classes along the continuum.
Within each group, the standardized differences between the
expected item score and the observed mean score summate to provide
an approximation to a chi-square distributed test statistic, where
df = m − 1 (see Andrich, Sheridan, & Luo, 2004, p. 21; Hagquist &
Andrich, 2004, p. 961). A non-significant chi-square supports item
fit. Summing the individual item chi-square values yields an overall
fit statistic for the entire instrument. Data analysis has to address all
requirements embodied in the Rasch model: unidimensionality
(Christensen, Bjorner, Kreiner, & Petersen, 2002; Smith, 2002); local
independence (Andersen, 1982); parameter invariance (DIF); and
person fit (Smith, 1986). Furthermore, a comprehensive Rasch analy-
sis comprises the investigation of the threshold order (Andrich,
ð1Þ when τi1 b τi2 b τi3 b τi4. However, if for example the estimate of
τi2 is greater than that of τi3 then the thresholds become disordered,
signaling that the rating scale is not working as intended. Collapsing
categories and scoring them equally is a post hoc remedy to account
for disordered thresholds. User-friendly software like RUMM 2030
(Andrich, Sheridan, & Luo, 2010) not only estimates model parame-
ters but also provides a range of diagnostic opportunities capturing
deviations of the actual data from the theoretical ideal. A meaningful
interpretation of the item locations and the person measures depends
upon demonstration of adequate fit of the data the model.
3.1. DIF as a type of misfit
Differential item functioning represents a type of misfit because an
item affected by DIF lacks invariance with regard to the latent vari-
able. For example, an item affected by gender-based DIF lacks invari-
ance with regard to measures for men and for women. There are two
types of DIF—uniform and non-uniform. Uniform DIF by gender
implies that the item location differs for males and females. If the
analysis fails to account for DIF, it provides one common item location
estimate that is incorrect for either gender. Consequently, the person
measures inferred from manifest responses are biased. Fig. 2a

(a) Item characteristic curve (ICC) (b) Category characteristic curves (CCC)
for a dichotomous item for a polytomous item
1 1

0 5
P(avi=1)

P(avi=1)

0.5 0.5
4
1 2 3

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
βv, δi βv, τij

(c) Item characteristic curve (ICC) (d) Theoretical and empirical item
for a polytomous item characteristic curve (ICC)
for a polytomous item
Expected value of avi

Expected value of avi

5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
βv, δi, τij βv, δi, τij

Fig. 1. Item characteristic and category characteristic curves in the Rasch model.
 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607
(a) No presence of DIF
P (a vi=1) 1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1
βv, δi
common ICC male and female
(c) Non-uniform DIF
P (a vi=1)1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1
βv, δi
expected common ICC ICC male
Fig. 2. Item operating equally for males and females (a); item affected by uniform DIF (b), by non-uniform DIF (c), and by uniform as well as non-uniform DIF (d), respectively.
illustrates the situation where the item displays no DIF, while Fig. 2b
shows an item exhibiting DIF. When DIF is present, a proper repre-
sentation of the item requires two separate ICCs: one for males and
one for females. Estimating one common ICC implies that the item fa-
vors males (in the example in Fig. 2b) who score higher than females
truly located at the same position on the latent dimension. Therefore,
the estimated measures for males and females will differ even though
they have the same true measures. In the case of uniform DIF, a quan-
titative difference in the functioning of the item exists between gen-
ders. Splitting the item in the data analysis permits accounting for
this difference. If an item favors males, the item location for males
will be smaller than the location for females, since males more likely
agree with the item than females located at the same point on the la-
tent continuum. By contrast, non-uniform DIF is a type of model vio-
lation that offers less possibilities of compensation. Non-uniform DIF
means that the slope of the ICC is different for males and females
(see Fig. 2c), whereas the location can be the same. Up to the item lo-
cation, the item favors males, whereas subsequently females score
higher than males. This type of DIF represents a qualitative difference
and suggests that the item fails to be a proper indicator of the latent
variable for at least one gender, possibly for both. Finally, uniform
and non-uniform DIF may occur simultaneously (see Fig. 2d). The
consequences parallel those of non-uniform DIF.
DIF requires special attention since ordinary tests of fit do not nec-
essarily reveal this type of model violation, unless DIF is extreme or
involves a strong non-uniform component. One way to explicitly
test for the presence to DIF is to undertake a two-way analysis of var-
iance (Ewing et al., 2005). As per the assessment of item fit, the anal-
ysis involves grouping the respondents into several classes according
to their location. Hence, the class interval is the first factor, which es-
sentially captures general fit. The second source of variation repre-
sents the DIF factor, which in the current context comprises the
categories of male and female. Under the null-hypothesis, all differ-
ences between the expected scores and the actual scores are zero
and, so, all ANOVA effects should be non-significant, including the in-
teraction term. Uniform DIF implies that residuals are mostly positive
601
(b) Uniform DIF
P (a vi=1)1
0.75
0.5
0.25
2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
βv, δi
expected common ICC ICC male ICC female
(d) Uniform and non-uniform DIF
P (a vi=1) 1
0.75
0.5
0.25
2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
βv, δi
ICC female expected common ICC ICC male ICC female
for one group but predominantly negative for the other. In this con-
text, the DIF factor is significant. The Rasch model easily accounts
for this type of DIF by estimating one item location for males and an-
other for females. Although at a technical level, this requires splitting
the item into a male-version and a female-version during the analysis,
it does not add to the proliferation of scales in marketing since the
separation only occurs during the analysis. The administration of
the scale itself typically remains unaltered. The same is true when re-
searchers retain non-uniform DIF items for one gender but discard
these items for the other gender during the analysis.
4. The role of DIF by gender
A key issue is deciding when to test for gender-based DIF. If the
theoretical underpinnings of a study give reason to anticipate
gender-based DIF, a proper investigation of DIF is (or rather should
be) a matter of course. The situation parallels the assumption and
the assessment of unidimensionality. Even though thorough qualita-
tive investigations and extensive pretests precede a scale develop-
ment project, proper assessment of unidimensionality is still an
integral part of scale analysis. Furthermore, the fact that unidimen-
sionality has been established once does not exempt future re-
searchers from rigorously reestablishing unidimensionality.
Neglecting the issue of gender-based DIF implies the possibility of
distorted, biased measures. Specifically, measures for females and
males may lack comparability resulting in biased p-values for mean
comparisons. Disregarding non-uniform DIF can result in invalid items
contributing to the estimation of measures for males or females. Al-
though the biased DIF items may balance out if some items favor
males while others advantage females to the exactly same amount
(Andrich & Hagquist, 2012), this line of argument comes with serious
qualifications. First, it requires a proper investigation of DIF in the first
place since the cancelation is confined to a specific scale and very likely
to a particular context. Transferring the instrument from one context to
another might completely invalidate DIF cancelation. Second, cancel-
ation cannot account for non-uniform DIF. Third, cancelation of DIF
602 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607

can be deceptive in situations where there is incomplete data or very Table 1

specific patterns of missing values. Fourth, the non-reporting of DIF Item location estimates for items from two subscales of the Fear of Death Scale.

can result in other researchers pre-emptively assuming an absence of Column 1 2 3

DIF. This assumption may be incorrect if the context is different or the
Subscale: The death of others Location Fit (p) Location
researchers use a subset of items or a shortened version of a scale. Ignore DIF Account
Thus, the potential problem of gender-DIF requires a multi-stage for DIF
approach. First, researchers should test for gender-based DIF, ideally I: Losing someone close to you −0.84 0.09 −1.01
in any empirical study but specifically in studies aiming at the assess- 2: Having to see the person's dead body Misfit 0.002a
ment of gender differences. Contemporary measurement models 3: Never being able to communicate −0.46 0.08 −0.63
based on Rasch measurement theory or confirmatory factor analysis with the person again
4: Regret over not being nicer to the 1.20 0.01 0.62(M)
allow for straightforward tests for DIF. Flagging items exhibiting DIF person when he or she was alive 1.24(F)
properly informs fellow researchers who want to utilize the instru- 5: Growing old alone without the person 0.09 0.05 −0.07
ment in the future. Moreover, revealing gender-based DIF, if any, in- 6: Feeling guilty that you are relieved Misfit 0.002a
forms theory development and thereby provides the basis for that the person is dead
7: Feeling lonely without the person 0.01 0.11 −0.15
advancing our understanding of the role of gender in substantive the-
Items favoring females 0 0
ories. In the longer term, evidence of comprehensive DIF-analyses Items favoring males 1 0
will provide insight to the scientific community into how serious Overall fit (p) 0.0006 0.009
the threat actually is. Second, a subsequent analysis should account PSI (Reliability) 0.83 0.83
for DIF either by discarding items showing DIF or by splitting such Mean difference female–male (absolute) 0.80 0.94
Effect size mean difference 0.53 0.62
items in the analysis. Third, researchers may wish to compare the Effect size mean difference female–male 100% 117%
original analysis and the analysis considering DIF to ascertain the ex- (relative)
tent to which gender-based DIF matters in their given context. p-Value 0.00002 0.000006

Subscale: The dying of others Location Fit (p) Location

5. Case analyses
1: Having to be with someone who is dying 0.80 0.82 0.53(M)
This paper uses three cases to illustrate the different ways in 0.84(F)
2: Having the person want to talk about 1.49 0.33 1.38
which gender can influence participant response to questionnaire death with you
items. The aim is to examine the potential impact of gender-based 3: Watching the person suffer from pain −1.72 0.17 −1.817
DIF on research outcomes. All analyses utilize RUMM 2030 (Andrich 4: Seeing the physical degeneration of the −0.48 0.02 −0.57
et al., 2010). person's body
5: Not knowing what to do about your grief 0.13 0.57 0.04
at losing the person when you are with
5.1. Case One: The fear of death scale him or her
6: Watching the deterioration of the −1.04 0.33 −1.13
The first case pertains to the Collett–Lester Fear of Death scale person's mental abilities
(Lester & Abdel-Khalek, 2003), which is an established instrument 7: Being reminded that you are going to go 0.82 0.03 0.72
through the experience also one day
assessing fear of death and dying. Measures of fear of death have par- Items favoring females 0 0
ticular utility across a range of marketing contexts. In social market- Items favoring males 1 0
ing settings, the relevance of fear of death measures stem from their Overall fit (p) 0.04 0.12
proven ability to predict intentions to perform health related behav- PSI (Reliability) 0.88 0.88
Mean difference female–male (absolute) 0.299 0.361
iors as varied as communicating wishes about posthumous organ do-
Effect size mean difference 0.19 0.23
nation with family members (Newton, Burney, Hay, & Ewing, 2010) Effect size mean difference female–male 100% 121%
and performing physical exercise (Arndt, Schimel, & Goldenberg, (relative)
2003). In more general marketing contexts, fear of death is intrinsi- p-Value 0.10 0.04
cally linked with terror management theory (Routledge & Juhl, M = Location for male version of the item when accounting for DIF during analysis.
2010), a theoretical account that explains the ‘urge to splurge’ that F = Location for female version of the item when accounting for DIF during analysis.
a
underpins much of modern consumer behavior (Arndt, Solomon, Refers to an earlier analysis including this item.
Kasser, & Sheldon, 2004). The scale consists of 28 items in total
assessing four different dimensions: one's own death, one's own a male and a female version during the estimation), the effect size of
dying, the death of others, and the dying of others. Each dimension the mean difference increases from 0.53 to 0.62 (see columns 1 and 3
comprises seven items. in Table 1). In essence, Item 4 partially masks the effect and when
The sample comprises 404 respondents. Two subscales (one's own accounted for, increases the effect size by 17%. In the current context,
death and one's own dying) show no signs of gender-based DIF. How- the mean difference between females and males was sufficiently large
ever, the dimensions capturing the death and the dying of others that this item does not mask the overall finding that females score
exhibit DIF, such that one item in each subscale favors males. The higher on this subscale than males.
lack of gender neutrality of these two items threatens the validity of The second 7-item subscale, the dying of others, also shows evidence
the assessment of gender differences (see Table 1). of gender-item DIF which, when unaccounted for, will lead to errone-
With respect to the 7-item death of others subscale, females are more ously accepting the null hypothesis. Specifically, Item 1 (Having to be
reluctant than males to admit that they experience regret over not being with someone who is dying) implies higher scores for males compared
nicer to the person when he or she was alive. Column 1 in Table 1 refers to to females given the latent variable. Again, DIF does not become mani-
an analysis that ignores DIF. Since DIF does not adversely affect item fit fest in the item fit statistics as the p-value is insignificant (see the
(see column 2 in Table 1), it is likely to go unnoticed unless the analysis p-value of 0.82 in column 2 in Table 1), but requires specific analyses fo-
explicitly tests for gender-based DIF. Despite Item 4 favoring males, cusing on invariance. In contrast to the prior subscale (death of others),
overall, females show a much higher level of fear of death of others the mean difference between genders is smaller. When not accounting
with the effect size mean difference (Cohen's d, Cohen, 1988) for DIF, the effect size is 0.19 (see column 1 in Table 1) and the p-value
amounting to 0.53. Accordingly, the p-value is extremely small (p = of 0.10 militates in favor of the null-hypothesis. However, the analysis
0.00002). After properly accounting for DIF (by splitting the item into properly adjusting for DIF proves this conclusion wrong (see column 3
 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607 603

in Table 1). When considering DIF, the effect size goes from 0.19 to 0.23,
an increase by 21%, which is enough to bring the p-value down to 0.04.
Consequently, a seemingly negligible amount of gender-based DIF re-
verses the result of hypothesis testing.
5.2. Case Two: The self-report altruism scale
The second example utilizes the 20-item self-report altruism scale
by Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981) and a convenience sample
of 409 respondents. Some items embody behavior that requires phys-
ical strengths, for example helping a stranger push a car, which po-
tentially favors males. Other items implicate a safety hazard that
may disadvantage females, for example giving a stranger a lift in
one's car. Furthermore, the content of some items seemingly aligns
to traditional female roles, for example looking after a neighbor's
pets or children. In total, eight items are plausible candidates for
gender-based DIF. In fact, a Rasch analysis reveals DIF in six of these
eight items, while one of these items fits weakly (see Table 2). No
item shows DIF without a justifiable reason.
As in the previous example, the ordinary item fit statistics do not in-
dicate DIF. Only the two-way ANOVA is sensitive to the violation of in-
variance. Since the number of items favoring females and males,
respectively, is balanced, it is unlikely that DIF will dramatically distort
the means of females or males. Nevertheless, DIF does not completely
cancel out and therefore p-values of mean comparisons are somewhat
biased whenever DIF is present. For example, when ignoring DIF, the
mean difference between females and males is small, with males scor-
ing slightly higher (−0.016 on the logit scale, which translates to an
effect size of −0.02, p-value of 0.82; see column 1 in Table 2). When ac-
counting for DIF in all six DIF-affected items (see column 2 in Table 2),
the means change direction suggesting that females are slightly more
altruistic than males (0.018 on the logit scale, effect size of 0.02,
p-value of 0.64). Two interrelated factors contribute to DIF becoming ir-
relevant in this case. First, the mean difference between females and
males is extremely small. Therefore, a switch from the null hypothesis
of no mean difference to the alternative hypothesis requires a great dis-
tortion of the measures. Second, the DIF cancels out almost completely.
However, the latter is only true provided the measures derive from the

Table 2
Item location estimates of items of the self-report altruism scale.

Column 1 2 3 4 5

Altruism scale items Location Fit (p) Location Location Location

Ignore Account 3 DIF items 3 DIF items
DIF a for DIF b omittedc omittedd

1: I have helped push a stranger's car that had broken down. 1.59 0.54 2.13(F) Omitted 1.53
0.51(M)
2: I have given directions to a stranger. −3.10 0.14 −3.27 −2.87 −3.22
3: I have made change for a stranger. 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.51 0.15
4: I have given money to a charity. −2.27 0.42 −2.44 −2.03 −2.32
5: I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it). 0.97 0.84 0.82 1.25 0.89
6: I have donated goods or clothes to a charity. −2.06 0.71 −2.11(F) −1.85 Omitted
−1.28(M)
7: I have done volunteer work for a charity. 0.30 0.01 0.14 0.56 0.22
8: I have donated blood. 1.48 0.12 1.32 1.75 1.40
9: I have helped carry a stranger's belongings (books, parcels etc.). 0.75 0.18 0.59 1.03 0.67
10: I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger. −1.78 0.99 −1.96 −1.55 −1.87
11: I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a line-up −1.53 0.01 −1.70 −1.29 −1.61
(at a photocopy machine, in the supermarket).
12: I have given a stranger a lift in my car. 2.23 0.19 2.41(F) Omitted 2.16
1.54(M)
13: I have pointed out a clerks error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in 0.58 0.60 0.42 0.85 0.50
undercharging me for an item.
14: I have let a neighbor whom I didn't know too well borrow an item of some value to me. 1.45 0.12 1.31 1.73 1.35
15: I have brought ‘charity’ Christmas or greeting cards deliberately because I 0.27 0.39 −0.02(F) 0.53 Omitted
knew it was a good cause. 0.62(M)
16: I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment 0.03 0.90 −0.13 0.28 −0.06
when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.
17: I have, before been asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbors pet or children 0.39 0.61 0.08(F) 0.65 Omitted
without being paid for it. 0.90(M)

Altruism scale items Location Fit (p) Location Location Location

DIF DIF 3 DIF items 3 DIF items
ignoreda consideredb omittedc omittedd

18: I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street. 0.75 0.01 0.61 1.04 0.66
19: I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing. −0.84 0.49 −1.00 −0.58 −0.93
20: I have helped an acquaintance move households. 0.55 0.57 0.71(F) Omitted 0.48
−0.27(M)
Items favoring females 3 0 3 0
Items favoring males 3 0 0 3
Overall fit (p) 0.007 0.003 0.002 b0.001
PSI (Reliability) 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.79
Mean difference female–male (absolute) −0.016 0.018 0.200 −0.19
Effect size mean difference −0.02 0.02 0.20 −0.20
Effect size mean difference female–male (relative) 100% −111% −1185% 1178%
p-Value 0.82 0.64 0.08 0.09

M = Location for male version of the item when accounting for DIF during analysis.
F = Location for female version of the item when accounting for DIF during analysis.
a
Location parameters when DIF not taken into account for the 6 items that displayed DIF.
b
Location parameters when DIF is taken into account for the 6 items that displayed DIF.
c
Location parameters when omitting 3 items that favor males.
d
Location parameters when omitting 3 items that favor females.
604 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607

complete set of all 20 items or, at least, from a subset of items
safeguarding a balance of items favoring females and males. This high-
lights the need to exert caution when selecting subsets of items to
shorten the length of a survey, as often occurs in both academic and
commercial survey research. In situations such as these, and where re-
searchers are exploring gender differences, a sensitivity analysis pro-
vides valuable insight in terms of how much undetected (and
unaccounted) DIF may distort the measures. Two additional analyses
are therefore undertaken to illustrate the potential impact of ignoring
gender DIF when selecting items for a shortened scale.
The first analysis omits the three items that favor males but re-
tains the remaining 17 items from the altruism scale. As expected,
the mean difference shifts in favor of female respondents (0.20 on
the logit scale, effect size of 0.20, p-value of 0.08; see column 4 in
Table 2) and approaches near significance. By contrast, the alternative
analysis excluding the three DIF items that favor females (see column
5 in Table 2), the reverse occurs (− 0.19 on the logit scale, effect size
of − 0.20, p-value of 0.09). Thus, when analyses do not properly ac-
count for DIF, there is at least a tenfold inflation of the effect size in
either direction. Importantly, this sensitivity analysis is still conserva-
tive. Subsets of, say, six items with half of them showing unbalanced
DIF would certainly result in even more extreme differences between
females and males.
5.3. Case Three: The NEP scale across three countries
The third example uses Dunlap and Van Liere's (1978) twelve-
item New Environmental Paradigm scale (NEP). The construct has
attracted attention in terms of gender differences (e.g., Zelezny,
Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). The data set comprises respondents from
the United States (N = 501), the United Kingdom (N = 500) and
Australia (N = 502). In all three countries, the reverse coded items
show strong misfit (see column 2 in Table 3). Therefore, subsequent
analyses use only the positively worded items. In addition, Item 11
misfits in Australia but functions properly in the US and the UK.
In both the UK and US samples, none of the NEP items displays
gender-based DIF and the mean differences between females and
males are insignificant (p-value of 0.38 in the UK and 0.74 in the
US). Moreover, the effect sizes are small (− 0.08 in the UK with
males scoring higher on the NEP than females; 0.03 in the US with fe-
males scoring slightly than males). By contrast, in Australia one item
(Item 9) lacks invariance in terms of gender. Males more readily
agree with the statement that the earth is like a spaceship with only
limited room and resources. As a result, the analysis ignoring DIF dis-
closes males as being more environmentally concerned than females,
with a p-value of 0.06 (see column 1 in Table 3). In fact, reliance on a
traditional exploratory factor analysis (principal axis method) leads
to significantly different factor scores (p-value of 0.047, see column
4 in Table 3). In the analysis that properly accounts for DIF, the
p-value increases to 0.17, which supports the null hypothesis. Thus,
DIF in just one item out of seven accounts for 27% of the effect size in-
ferred from the first analysis ignoring DIF. While DIF partly masks a
true effect in the first case using the fear of death scale, the third
case illustrates that DIF may also enhance the mean difference. Ignor-
ing DIF in the case of the NEP scale suggests that a gender difference
seems to occur in Australia while no such difference prevails in the
USA and the UK. This finding might invoke the notion of cultural dif-
ferences between the countries investigated. However, this explana-
tion is without substance, since a methodological artifact accounts
for the identified difference.
6. Discussion
This study explores the potential for males and females to respond
differentially to the same survey items. The paper presents three
cases to establish proof of the concept that gender-based DIF can

Table 3
Item location estimates of the NEP scale.

Column 1 2 3 4 5 6

Country AUS AUS AUS AUS UK USA

NEP Items Location Fit(p) Location EFA (PA)a loading Location Location

1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people that the earth can support. 0.51 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.19 0.46
2. The balance of the earth is very delicate and easily upset. −0.18 0.63 −0.15 0.63 0.12 0.36
3. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs (reversed). Misfitb
4. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature (reversed). Misfit b
5. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences. 0.38 0.24 0.41 0.56 0.49 −0.10
6. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans (reversed). Misfit b
7. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a ‘steady-state’ economy where 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.58 0.05 0.02
industrial growth is controlled.
8. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive. −0.60 0.15 −0.58 0.65 −0.70 −0.35
9. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources. −0.15 0.00 0.08(F) 0.74 0.04 −0.11
−0.39(M)
b
10. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit Misfit
their needs (rev.).
11. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand. Misfit c 0.24 0.21
12. Mankind is severely abusing the environment. −0.11 0.01 −0.08 0.73 −0.43 −0.49
Items favoring females 0 0 0 0 0
Items favoring males 1 0 1 0 0
Overall fit (p) 0.00006 0.0003 0.02 0.002
PSI (Reliability) 0.75 0.75 0.82d 0.76 0.81
Mean difference female–male (absolute) −0.248 −0.182 −0.16e −0.109 0.046
Effect size mean difference −0.17 −0.12 −0.08 0.03
Effect size mean difference female–male (relative) 100% 73%
p-Value 0.06 0.17 0.047 0.38 0.74

AUS = Australia; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America.

M = Location for male version of the item when accounting for DIF during analysis.
F = Location for female version of the item when accounting for DIF during analysis.
a
Exploratory factor analysis (Principal axis method).
b
Reverse coded items showing strong misfit across all countries and therefore excluded from further analysis.
c
Positively worded item that functions properly for USA and UK samples but not for AUS sample.
d
Cronbach's α.
e
Mean difference of factor scores.
 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607
exist within survey data. As such, it extends current knowledge and
best practice with respect to item response theory in cross-cultural
contexts to the under-researched issue of gender.
The first case presents gender-related differences in the responses
to items measuring fear of death and the dying of others. The findings
support the contention that the wording and the content of survey
items can mean different things to men and women. The example il-
lustrates that DIF in just one item in a scale comprising seven items
has the potential to reverse the decision when testing the hypothesis
that females and males differ with respect to their scores on the dying
of others subscale. By comparison, under the more favorable condi-
tions of the dimension fear of death of others, the conclusion proves
robust. In both cases, the item displaying DIF partly masks a true
effect.
The second example focuses on a commonly used measure of altru-
ism. This case underscores the importance of evaluating gender-based
DIF on a case-by-case basis in that although six out of twenty items
display gender-based DIF, the conclusions from a mean comparison
remain relatively stable. This robustness emanates from a situation
whereby the three items favoring females balance the distortion aris-
ing from the three items advantaging males. However, this outcome
crucially depends on the usage of the entire set of twenty items. A sen-
sitivity analysis demonstrates that, even under relatively conservative
conditions of fourteen gender-invariant items, three items exhibiting
DIF in the same direction strongly increase the effect size altering a
virtually non-existent mean difference into a near-significant test sta-
tistic. The second case therefore demonstrates how DIF can produce
mean differences that are substantially meaningless but statistically
significant.
A similar situation occurs in the third example. Gender-based DIF in
just one item in a set of seven positively worded NEP items shifts the
mean difference between female and male respondents in Australia
from a value firmly in line with the null hypothesis to a near-
significant difference when ignoring DIF. Since no mean differences
occur in the samples from the US and the UK, where all items turn out
to be invariant regarding gender, the purported effect in Australia ap-
pears to reflect a cross-cultural difference, while in fact it is solely due
to a measurement artifact.
6.1. Implications of gender item bias
The examples provide evidence that gender-based DIF can mask
true differences as well as inflate actual mean differences. Under ad-
verse conditions that are by no means extraordinary, DIF can actually
reverse the decision in favor of the null or the alternative hypothesis
of a mean difference between women and men. Such spuriously sig-
nificant results may give rise to substantial explanations that are un-
founded. There is a codicil to this argument. If there are a relatively
large number of items and distortions operate in opposite direction
such that they cancel each other out, the mean differences and,
consequently, substantial conclusions may prove relatively robust
against DIF. However, an a priori reliance on the presence of such a
serendipitous cancelation of DIF is contrary to fundamental scientific
principles. Bearing in mind that marketing research often uses rela-
tively short scales, relying on effects balancing out is risky. Even
under favorable conditions, accounting for DIF is advisable, since ef-
fect sizes and p-values are more accurate.
Furthermore, ignoring DIF because of an apparent lack of conse-
quences in a particular study may have implications with respect
to future research endeavors. For example, although a difference be-
tween a p-value of, say, 0.20 and 0.80 is perhaps meaningless in the
context of a single study, in a meta-study, the last-mentioned differ-
ence in the p-value (and, as a consequence, of the effect size)
matters. Thus, accurate parameter estimates that adjust for DIF
are desirable. Moreover, flagging items showing gender-based DIF
in a particular context provides invaluable feedback in terms of
605
advancing a scale and determining its range of applicability. This is
critical when relying on subsets of items or selecting items from
multiple scales to form an instrument considered suitable for use
in a given setting.
Finally, DIF may also add to the theoretical understanding of a
construct and its embeddedness in a nomological network. In princi-
ple, gender-based DIF implies a qualitative difference in the very
meaning of a construct between women and men. Notwithstanding
the fact that in many cases it is possible to account for this difference
quantitatively, the substantive theory of the construct should take the
role of gender into consideration. The latter is particularly true when-
ever non-uniform DIF is present, where the item is a suitable indica-
tor for one gender but not for the other. In turn, the presence of DIF
should also provoke theoretical considerations as to why DIF occurs.
Although we limit our discussion to the technical aspects of DIF,
there is a need for substance-driven studies to extend beyond statis-
tical procedures and shed light on the mechanism(s) responsible for
gender-based DIF.
6.2. Addressing gender-based DIF in research design
Since a lack of invariance is a serious type of item misfit, a compre-
hensive validation of a scale should include proper assessment of DIF.
Ideally, measurement instruments should be free of gender-based
DIF. During the development of new scales, the substantial theory of
the construct governing the process of item generation should con-
sider whether gender influences the relationship of the latent vari-
able and the item. As noted earlier, the body of research regarding
gender differences represents a rich source of theoretical input. More-
over, gender should always be a matter of concern when screening
and selecting items during the purification phase of scale develop-
ment (see Schulz, 1990). Even small pilot studies are generally capa-
ble of revealing response anomalies caused by gender (see Schulz,
1990). With large item pools, the option exits to eliminate items af-
fected by DIF. However, more often than not, the number of appropri-
ate indicators is relatively small, thus raising the possibility of
changing the wording of DIF items as an attempt of avoiding DIF. In
this situation, the resulting items would then have to be re-assessed.
Given that marketing researchers are often more concerned with
applications of measurement instruments than scale development
or advancement, the question arises as to what extent possible
gender-based DIF requires attention in these contexts. First, the in-
vestigation of DIF is dispensable whenever the theory of the construct
is devoid of any reference to gender and the researchers have no rea-
son to assume that the interpretation of the items differs between
genders. However, when this is not the case, researchers should un-
dertake a DIF analysis to rule out the presence of biased (differential)
item responses between males and females. Gender-specific informa-
tion processing is an example where DIF considerations are worthy of
investigation. Second, when a study investigates and tests for gender
differences, proper assessment of DIF is essential regardless of the
construct under scrutiny. Finally, a DIF analysis is appropriate for
pooled data analyses (i.e., analyses based on pooled male and female
responses), when there is reason to assume that the construct differs
structurally between genders. A different structure means that the
order of the item locations is different or that the distance between
the item locations is not the same for males and females. In these sit-
uations, this is indicative of DIF being present.
In summary, an informed appraisal of the extent to which mea-
surement instruments actually suffer from a gender bias requires
the utilization of appropriate methods to assess gender-based DIF.
Extending scale analysis by testing for DIF is advisable in any applica-
tion of a scale whenever gender-based DIF appears likely. Where
there is evidence of DIF, splitting the item lends itself as a straightfor-
ward way to account for the distortion of measures.
606 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607
6.3. Limitations and future research
The focus of this study is on providing proof of concept that
gender-based DIF can be present in survey items and that it has the
potential to impact data interpretation in different ways depending
on whether the bias is uniform, non-uniform, balanced or unbal-
anced. Accordingly, the study design does not attempt to explore
the underlying reasons for the identified differences in item response.
Nor does it examine the substantive reasons for a potential interac-
tion between culture and gender in response patterns. These issues
may benefit from further exploration, especially given that gender
roles are contingent on culture.
The aforementioned arguments highlight the need for empirical
studies to routinely test for measurement invariance in terms of
gender. Currently, gender-related research in marketing lags behind
cross-cultural research in this respect. When seeking theoretical ex-
planations of DIF, researchers should note that cross-cultural research
has only recently shifted from merely identifying cross-national dif-
ferences (with nationality used as a surrogate for culture) to theoret-
ically explaining substantial differences based on theories of culture.
As such, the dissemination of testing for gender DIF should follow
the model of cross-cultural research.
References
Alexander, G. M. (2003). An evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy preferences:
Pink, blue, and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(1), 7–14.
Andersen, E. B. (1982). Latent trait models and ability parameter estimation. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 6, 445–461.
Andrich, D. (1978a). A rating formulation for ordered response categories.
Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.
Andrich, D. (1978b). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories
which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2,
581–594.
Andrich, D. (1988). A general form of Rasch's extended logistic model for partial credit
scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(4), 363–378.
Andrich, D. (1995a). Models for measurement, precision and the non-dichotomization
of graded responses. Psychometrika, 60(1), 7–26.
Andrich, D. (1995b). Further remarks on non-dichotomization of graded responses.
Psychometrika, 60(1), 37–46.
Andrich, D. (2010). Understanding the response structure and process in the
polytomous Rasch model. In M. L. Nering, & R. Ostini (Eds.), Handbook of
polytomous item response theory models (pp. 123–152). New York, NY and Hove,
East Sussex, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Andrich, D., de Jong, J. H. A. L., & Sheridan, B. E. (1997). Diagnostic opportunities with
the Rasch model for ordered response categories. In J. Rost, & R. Langeheine
(Eds.), Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences
(pp. 145–151). Münster: Waxmann.
Andrich, D., & Hagquist, C. (2012). Real and artificial differential item functioning. Jour-
nal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(3), 387–416.
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B. S., & Luo, G. (2004). Displaying the Rumm 2020 analysis.
Working Paper. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B. S., & Luo, G. (2010). Rumm 2030: Rasch unidimensional mea-
surement models [computer software]. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
Arndt, J., Schimel, J., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2003). Death can be good for your health: Fitness
intentions as a proximal and distal defense against mortality salience. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 33(8), 1726–1746.
Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge to splurge: A terror
management account of materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14(3), 198–212.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psycholog-
ical Review, 88, 354–364.
Buss, D. M. (1995a). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological
science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30.
Buss, D. M. (1995b). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.
American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.
Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A
reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25(1),
1–27.
Christensen, K. B., Bjorner, J. B., Kreiner, S., & Petersen, J. H. (2002). Testing unidimen-
sionality in polytomous Rasch models. Psychometrika, 67, 563–574.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Dahl, D. W., Sengupta, J., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Sex in advertising: Gender differences and
the role of relationship commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 215–231.
de Gregorio, F., & Sung, Y. (2010). Understanding attitudes toward and behaviours in
response to product placement. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 83–96.
De Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & Fox, J. -P. (2007). Relaxing measurement
invariance in cross-national consumer research using a hierarchical IRT model.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 260–279.
Dean, K., & Edwardson, S. (1996). Additive scoring of reported symptoms: Validity and
item bias problems in morbidity scales. European Journal of Public Health, 6(4),
275–280.
DeSteno, D. A., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in
jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1103–1116.
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy?
Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367–372.
Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in human social behavior: Metaanalytic studies of
social psychological research. In M. Haug, R. E. Whalen, C. Aron, & K. L. Olsen (Eds.),
The development of sex differences and similarities in behaviour (pp. 421–436). London,
England: Kluwer Academic.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A
meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306–315.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior:
Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ewing, M. T., Salzberger, T., & Sinkovics, R. (2005). An alternate approach to assessing
cross-cultural measurement equivalence in advertising research. Journal of Adver-
tising, 34, 17–36.
Fleishman, J. A., Spector, W. D., & Altman, B. M. (2002). Impact of differential item func-
tioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journal of Gerontology:
Social Sciences, 57B(5), S275–S284.
Gelin, M. N., Carleton, B. C., Smith, M. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2004). The dimensionality and
gender differential item functioning of the mini asthma quality of life question-
naire (MiniAQLQ). Social Indicators Research, 68(1), 91–105.
Hagquist, C., & Andrich, D. (2004). Is the sense of coherence-instrument applicable on ad-
olescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch-modelling. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 955–968.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive
style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of nonverbal communica-
tion. In P. Shaver, & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender: Review of personality and
social psychology, Vol. 7. (pp. 177–200)Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Halpern, D. F. (1989). The disappearance of cognitive gender differences: What you see
depends on where you look. American Psychologist, 44, 1156–1158.
Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
He, Y., Merz, M. A., & Alden, D. L. (2008). Diffusion of measurement invariance assess-
ment in cross-national empirical marketing research: Perspectives from the litera-
ture and a survey of researchers. Journal of International Marketing, 16(2), 64–83.
Lester, D., & Abdel-Khalek, A. (2003). The Collett–Lester fear of death scale: A correc-
tion. Death Studies, 27(1), 81–85.
Luxen, M. F. (2007). Sex differences, evolutionary psychology and biosocial theory:
Biosocial theory is no alternative. Theory and Psychology, 17(3), 383–394.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2),
149–174.
Melnyk, V., van Osselaer, S., & Bijmolt, T. (2009). Are women more loyal customers
than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service providers.
Journal of Marketing, 73, 82–96.
Moss, G. (2009). Gender, design and marketing. How gender drives our perception of
design and marketing. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Newton, J. D., Burney, S., Hay, M., & Ewing, M. T. (2010). A profile of Australian adults
who have discussed their posthumous organ donation wishes with family mem-
bers. Journal of Health Communication, 15(5), 470–486.
Orhede, E., & Kreiner, S. (2000). Item bias in indices measuring psychosocial work environ-
ment and health. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 26(3), 263–272.
Orne, M. T., & Whitehouse, W. G. (2000). Demand characteristics. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 469–470). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association and Oxford University Press.
Putrevu, S. (2001). Exploring the origins and information processing differences
between men and women: Implications for advertisers. Academy of Advertising
Science Review, 10, 1–14.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago:
MESA (Reprint 1980, Danish Institute for Educational Research).
Richard, M. -O., Chebat, J. -C., Yang, Z., & Putrevu, S. (2010). A proposed model of online
consumer behavior: Assessing the role of gender. Journal of Business Research,
63(9–10), 926–934.
Routledge, C., & Juhl, J. (2010). When death thought leads to death fears: Mortality
salience increases death anxiety for individuals who lack meaning in life. Cognition
and Emotion, 24(5), 848–854.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the
self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293–302.
Salzberger, T. (2009). Measurement in marketing research: An alternative framework.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research
Methods, 6(2), 169–215.
 T. Salzberger et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 598–607
Schulz, E. M. (1990). DIF detection: Rasch versus Mantel–Haenszel. Rasch Measurement
Transactions, 4(2), 107.
Seock, Y. -K., & Sauls, N. (2008). Hispanic consumers' shopping orientation and apparel
retail store evaluation criteria. An analysis of age and gender differences. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(4), 469–486.
Severiens, S., & Ten Dam, G. (1998). Gender and learning: Comparing two theories.
Higher Education, 35(3), 329–350.
Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619.
Singh, J. (2004). Tackling measurement problems with item response theory: Principles,
characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example. Journal of Business
Research, 57(2), 184–208.
Smith, R. (1986). Person fit in the Rasch model. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 46(2), 359–372.
Smith, E. V. (2002). Understanding Rasch measurement: Detecting and evaluating the
impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component
analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–230.
607
Snipes, R. L., & Thomson, N. F. (2006). Gender bias in customer evaluations of ser-
vice quality: An empirical investigation. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(4),
274–284.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance
in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., de Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable re-
sponse tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2),
199–214.
Williams, C. L., & Meck, W. H. (1991). The organizational effects of gonadal steroids on
sexually dimorphic spatial ability. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16(1–3), 155–176.
Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertising: An oversight synthesis of research:
1970–2002. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 111–129.
Wood, W., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Sex differences in interaction style in task groups. In C.
L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 97–121). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. -P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.