CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT: THE CULTURAL BORDERS OF MEANING

Antonio Alaminos1
University of Alicante

ESS is, probably, one of the most significant efforts to improve social survey methodology.
No doubt, the best practices spirit aims it. In that sense, to put at work extensively the
manuals of social survey methodology may be considered a qualitative jump in quantitative.
Certainly, offer an optimal starting point to excellence. This paper point out some translations
problems that emerges for construct comparability. Even with the right questionnaire design
or the best translation procedures. As example, the concept of government will be used. It
gives no problems tested by interaction analysis. The main reason is the Enthymeme effect.
This rhetoric mechanism affect the visibility of this kind of troubles. At the same time, shows
the limitations of testing and choosing items for measurement in a one-country base. The
intervention of the government in the economy is not a content that can be employed
cross-culturally to compare left-right ideological dimensions.
Keywords. Translation. Interaction analysis. Enthymeme effect. Construct cross-cultural
comparability. Ideological dimensions.

1.

THE LEFT AND RIGHT MEASUREMENT

When considering the methodological approach to the measurement of left and right
orientations developed by Curtice, J. and Bryson, C., it is easy appreciate an optimal design.
Curtice, J. and Bryson, C. (1993) posed As we are trying to measure abstract value
orientations, it is cognitively too demanding to measure them directly with one or two
questions (which good survey practice should always steer against). Rather, a set of questions
should be administered, all of which are designed to tease out how far a respondent expresses
support or opposition to different dimensions of the underlying value. From these, scales can
be constructed which summarise respondents answers to the set of questions. Of course, in
developing scales, we need to apply stringent tests to ensure that they are indeed reliable
measures of a single underlying value. The latent nature of the measurement take us to the
usual differentiation between structure and contents. The structure is the more lasting form of
a system of attitudes and believes. In this case, the left and right dimension as a coordinating
system of different values and perceptions of society. The contents are those themes that help
to identify and recover the latent dimension. In empirical research, the wording and contents
of the items employed to measure. This items contents affects the subdimentions or the
order of the latents variables. These contents express special topics that are of interest to
1

I want to acknowledge the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) as the data archive and distributor
of the ESS data and the Central Co-ordinating Team for European Social Survey 2002/2003, London: Centre for
Comparative Social Surveys, City University.
Correspondence about this paper : alaminos@ua.es

society. Themes may change over time. Disappear or be substituted by others. However, the
under laying structure remains. Several authors (Ray, 1973; Kerlinger, 1967) observed that
the left and right positions are independent in relations with some contents. Some themes are
of interest for leftist but are uninterested for the right. One of the consequences of this is that
the left and right dimension has to be reach by themes that produce opposition in the
worldviews. Obviously, some contents may find agreement in left and right position (for
example, opposition to an international war) and should not be used to operativize the left and
right dimensions.
After an extensive review of contents, Curtice, J. and Bryson, C. (1993) concluded that
There are in fact two related but distinct elements of left-right values. One is sympathy or
otherwise for greater economic equality in society. The other is sympathy or otherwise for
government intervention in the operation of the market. For simplicity, we refer to these two
elements as egalitarianism and interventionism respectively. Egalitarianism and
interventionism may define here two first order dimension oriented to reach one second
order dimension (left and right orientations). But it seems that Curtice, J. and Bryson, C. take
another approach when affirms So while it is important that any left-right scale includes
items that capture both elements, and their intercorrelation is assessed, it is not clear that two
separate scales will be required.. In other words, egalitarianism and interventionism are
considered two basic contents to be worded by several items, defining one first order
dimension. This methodological orientation is less flexible because may introduce noise in the
final measurement. If an unadvised analyst apply this two souls in one body construct, may
reach the conclusion that left and right ideology does not work. Just because the construct is
unbalanced in a comparative perspective. As Salzberger (2000) notice Comparison may also
be understood in a broader sense and refer to the structure of the construct rather than to mean
values of cultures on the construct under scrutiny. Consequently, in the case of construct
comparison, the very meaning of the construct is investigated, i.e. item discrimination and
item location, i.e. the degree of the construct that is represented by the item and thereby the
meaning of the item content, are compared across cultures. It is really important to clarify the
limits of the left and right construct previously to be used for explanations or means
comparison.
From a theoretical point of view, interventionism is the weak contents in this
construct. The main agreement it is about the content equality, expressed in several topics.
Equality has the higher power of discrimination between left and right ideological positions.
We may take two examples from two authors with different ideological perspectives. Ray
(1973), (leftist) is one that states a preference for innovation in an egalitarian or humanitarian
direction whereas a conservative thinks we are egalitarian enough already and change might
be dangerous (/) The prominence in conservative beliefs of preference for hierarchical
social structures is clearly contradictory to the liberal's preference for equality. The support
of equality is, precisely, the main content to differentiate between left and right for N. Bobbio
(1996). He used two main content, equality and inequality and freedom and authority to
conclude that only the first one may be considered intrinsic to the left and right dimension.
Apart form theoretical discussions, the measurement of the left and right dimension in
the ESS has two main methodological problems. These problems arrives with the use of two
concepts: interventionism and government. The mixture becomes a crossroad of meanings.
This ambiguity comes from three main factors: enthymeme effects, political parties
orientation and changes in the relation government and economy. In several papers Curtice, J.
and Bryson, C. suggested items and wording that could have avoided the errors. However, as
we will consider, the outcome in the final questionnaire, is far away from their reasonable
considerations.

1.1.

The Entymema Effect

An Enthymeme is a syllogism in which one or more premises are supplied by the audience
and therefore, sometimes, unexpressed. Any one of the premises may be omitted, but in
general, is that one which is most obvious or most naturally present to the mind. In the case of
Government, differences of opinion may occur because different societies define certain
words differently. In that sense, we may consider the Ongena test of the questionnaire based
on interaction analysis. This controls do not detect the problem because relay on problems.
By far the most frequently occurring respondent problematic behaviour is a mismatch
answer. This is an answer that is not directly scorable but at best resembles the answer
alternatives. As is illustrated by the following example most days is considered as a
mismatch answer, as the original question required an exact number between zero and seven.
The method relay in consider the problems. Interaction analysis of the ESS questions showed
that some questions heavily rely on the interviewer to correct problematic respondent
behaviour. We may also say that the interviewer correct problematic researcher social
knowledge. Different political cultures and political systems are in the backyard of. the
meaning of government. But interaction analysis can not detect the Enthymeme effect.
Something obvious between researchers that misfit with reality can be reach by interaction
analysis. Something obvious for researcher but also obvious for public opinion cannot be
reach. It looks obvious the meaning of government. But the meaning of government to public
opinion from a comparative approach is something to be explored. In that sense, the real
problem is the absence of troubles. Paraphrasing the writer E.A. Poe, the easiest way to hide a
meaning is in the obvious words. In fact, government is not considered in the Summary of
problematic questions outlined by Ongena. When asking, The less that government
intervenes in the economy, the better it is for [country] we are dealing with an old phantom
hosted in cross-cultural research. The difficulties in the cross-cultural equivalence of the word
government are a classic. Appear in Almond y Verba (1963), when considering the
alternative to ask for the Uruchurtu Government instead of Local Government in Ciudad de
Mxico. The CSES network recently explores more about this meanings. Government has
different meaning depending on the political cultural and political system.
1.2.

Political Parties Orientation

Other problem is when public opinion confuse government and political party identifications.
This ambiguity very probably interact with the former one: the political culture. Lewis Beck
(1988), point out how Inglehart and Klingemann (1976) have extensively explored the
partisan character of this ideology item, concluding that Left-right self-placement
corresponds very closely to political party identification everywhere except in Ireland. Other
researchers have even suggested that, for these Western European systems with many parties,
ideological identifications is the preferred conceptualization of long-term partisanship. Lewis
Beck quoted van der Eijk and Niemoller (1983) where parties constitute real world entities
which allow a person to approximately express his own ideological position.
In that sense, it is clear that the attitude towards the government may depend upon the
attitude toward the political party in charge of the government. One of the consequences is to
evaluate the intervention of the government depending on the political party. Government is
not necessarily a synonym of State or Administration

1.3.

Changes on Government Economic Interventions

The question about the intervention of the government is based upon the presumption that
people from the left want the government to intervene and people from the right do not want.
However, this intervention depends on context. For example, right government intervenes to
reduce the welfare state. People from the left may do not like this kind of intervention. The
intervention of the government, as a reference by itself, is an old fashion myth. Both right
government (privatization, reduction of welfare state, deregulation of labour market, etc.) and
left governments intervenes economy.
This is one of the main problems on the item wording. When Curtice, J. and Bryson,
C. considers the different items for interventionism, all of them worded a specific politic.
For example, the EVS (1990) ownership of business and industry, the ISSP It is the
responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income between people with
high incomes and those with low incomes, The government should provide a job for
everyone who wants one or The government should provide everyone with a guaranteed
basic income. The British Election Study Private enterprise is the best way to solve
Britains economic problems., Major public services and industries ought to be in state
ownership and It is the governments responsibility to provide a job for everyone who
wants one. The Middendorp studies Are you in favour of or against the government taking
radical measures to reduce the differences in income levels?, The government should firmly
control prices after wage increases, The government should allow for the minimum income
to rise more sharply than other income levels, The government should nationalise large
industries and firms. In all of these items, the government do something. This allows the
respondent to evaluate a specific politic.
Curtice and Bryson proposed two main items for interventionism: Private enterprise
is the best way to solve Britains economic problems, and Major public services and
industries ought to be in state ownership. The table one shows the final selected items.
Table 1.

Items To Measure Left and Right Ideology

The less that government intervenes

in the economy, the better it is for
Britain
The government should take
measures to reduce differences in
income levels
Workers need strong trade unions to
protect their working conditions and
wages

Agree
strongly

Agree

Neither
agree
nor
disagree

Disagree

Disagree
strongly

(Dont
know)

Source: European Social Survey. First round. Version 5.

For the authors, The first item represents the interventionist orientation, the other two the
egalitarian orientation but a different aspect of it.
There is a fundamental difference when comparing the review of items and the
proposal from the author with the final version. As we said, the first shows specific political

orientations. The final version in the questionnaire has not content. The less that government
intervenes in the economy do not have a unique meaning. The intervention on the economy
in which directions? To Keep the welfare state like in Norway or intent to destroyed it like in
other countries?. Something similar goes with change society. Both right and left government
try to change society. But in a different direction.
The government intervention on economy mean different in different countries and
depending on the ideology of the government. There are many questions to answer when
considering the outcome of the pilot study: Although for this topic one factor was expected
the analysis indicated that two factors better described the data. One factor represents more or
less the egalitarian orientation with items 2,3 and 6 while the other factor represented more an
interventionist orientation. One interesting question is why keep two dimension when one
was expected?. The final intention is to measure one dimension (left and right ideology), not
two. The conclusion continue Since the single items had a higher reliability than the scale it
was suggested to use in the first wave of the ESS only single items from the different factors.
This is even more curious. Why continue with two content when do not define one construct,
the left and right dimension?
2.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

The empirical analysis of the left and right construct develop in the ESS survey will
consider the former ideas. That is, intervention in economy has no clear political directions, as
the intervention of the government maybe considered from a political party perspective. At
the same time, the concept government open even more the possible meaning of the items.
We will follow the Salzberger (2000) consideration where Consequently, if mean
comparisons are intended, a structural comparison has to be made unless empirical studies
have already investigated the structure of the construct across cultures and established a crossculturally valid instrument. While the construct comparison refers to the measurement
instrument and its properties, the mean comparison is a comparison of person or group
measures provided by the measurement instrument. The close relationship of construct and
mean comparison is reflected by appropriate approaches of testing for construct similarity
which define several levels of similarity with the highest being the prerequisite of mean
comparability. In that sense, we will check how items covariate with how respondent
positioned in the left and right variable.
Table 2 shows the means of the respondents in the variable placement on left and
right scale, disaggregated by their opinions on the government intervention on economy and
countries. Because the intervention items is supposed to express ideology, the expected order
is a higher mean in the agree category and a lower one in the disagree category. This
pattern is expected in all the countries, if the construct allow for comparative analysis. Spain,
Italy and Portugal do not behave as expected. In fact, they act the opposite as expected. Other
countries, like Ireland, shows low levels of discriminations. In general, many countries show
low ideological differences in relation to interventionism. There is several reason, as we
know. As point out I. Stoop (2002), it is important to evaluate the turnover in a number of
countries from a leftist government to a rightist (Denmark, Portugal). In the Spanish case,
with a conservative government when the survey was done, the agreement or disagreement
with the intervention of the government only show political party identification. When people
from the left are against the intervention is just because they do not like the political
orientation of the intervention, not because the intervention itself.

Table 2.

Means Of Placement On Left and Right Scale By Intervention Item By country

The less government intervenes in
economy, the better for country
Agree

Country

Disagree

Mean

Neither
agree nor
disagree
Mean

Mean

Austria

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(4,7)

(4,2)

Belgium

Placement on
left right scale

(5,0)

(4,9)

(4,7)

Switzerland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,3)

(4,9)

(4,4)

Czech Republic

Placement on
left right scale

(6,0)

(5,3)

(5,1)

Germany

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(4,4)

(4,2)

Denmark

Placement on
left right scale

(5,9)

(5,6)

(5,4)

Spain

Placement on
left right scale

(3,9)

(4,4)

(4,6)

Finland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,9)

(5,6)

(5,5)

France

Placement on
left right scale

(5,1)

(4,6)

(4,6)

United Kingdom

Placement on
left right scale

(5,4)

(5,1)

(4,9)

Greece

Placement on
left right scale

(5,9)

(5,7)

(5,4)

Hungary

Placement on
left right scale

(5,0)

(5,1)

(4,9)

Ireland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,4)

(5,2)

(5,5)

Italy

Placement on
left right scale

(4,7)

(4,6)

(5,0)

Luxembourg

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,0)

(5,0)

Netherlands

Placement on
left right scale

(5,6)

(5,2)

(5,2)

Norway

Placement on
left right scale

(5,8)

(5,5)

(5,1)

Poland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,3)

(5,1)

(5,0)

Portugal

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(4,7)

(5,1)

Sweden

Placement on
left right scale

(5,9)

(5,1)

(4,1)

Slovenia

Placement on
left right scale

(4,7)

(4,7)

(4,6)

Source: European Social Survey. First round. Version 5.

In summary, the intervention item is not ideologically well ordered for the different
countries and do not allow for construct means comparison. Actually, this items in the ESS
contributes with noise to the cross-cultural use of the left and right dimension. One of the
main reasons is the mixture of concepts. Liberals government also intervenes in economy. As
Ray point out, after the welfare state, conservatives try to change society. This intervention is
oriented to apply a set of politics. In that sense, left political orientation does not want a
conservative government to intervene. The measurement of intervention has to be worded
with concrete political orientation
In the case of the equalitarian factor, the concept government is qualifying adequately
by a specific politic. To reduce inequality is one of the main contents that discriminate in this
dimension. In that sense, the extreme options (agree or disagree) are ideologically ordered as
was theoretically expected. The exception is Slovenia. Certainly, more research is needed for
the eastern societies.

Table 3.

Means Of Placement On Left and Right Scale By Equalitarian Item By country

Government should reduce
differences in income levels
Agree

Country

Disagree

Mean

Neither
agree nor
disagree
Mean

Mean

Austria

Placement on
left right scale

(4,5)

(4,9)

(4,9)

Belgium

Placement on
left right scale

(4,7)

(4,9)

(5,3)

Switzerland

Placement on
left right scale

(4,6)

(5,2)

(5,4)

Czech
Republic

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,3)

(6,4)

Germany

Placement on
left right scale

(4,4)

(4,6)

(5,0)

Denmark

Placement on
left right scale

(5,0)

(5,5)

(6,0)

Spain

Placement on
left right scale

(4,3)

(5,0)

(4,7)

Finland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,4)

(6,0)

(6,8)

France

Placement on
left right scale

(4,5)

(5,9)

(6,2)

United
Kingdom

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,2)

(5,7)

Greece

Placement on
left right scale

(5,6)

(5,7)

(6,2)

Hungary

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,2)

(5,7)

Ireland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,3)

(5,4)

(5,8)

Italy

Placement on
left right scale

(4,7)

(5,0)

(5,5)

Luxembourg

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,2)

(5,2)

Netherlands

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,4)

(6,0)

Norway

Placement on
left right scale

(5,0)

(5,8)

(6,4)

Poland

Placement on
left right scale

(5,0)

(5,4)

(5,8)

Portugal

Placement on
left right scale

(4,9)

(5,3)

(6,2)

Sweden

Placement on
left right scale

(4,4)

(5,8)

(6,4)

Slovenia

Placement on
left right scale

(4,7)

(4,8)

(4,3)

Source: European Social Survey. First round. Version 5.

Another interesting point is to consider the dimensionality of the construct. As we

have considered, the left and right ideological position construct has three items in the ESS.
Two of them consider the content of equality and one the content of interventionism.
Table 4.

Items Dimensionality When ESS Measure Left and Right Ideology

Numbers of dimensions
Country
Austria
Germany
Spain
France
Greece
Belgium
Portugal
Italy
Switzerland
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Finland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Hungary
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovenia

* B43 <.5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*B43 <.3
*B43 <.6
*
*B43 <.4
*B43 <.6
*B43 <.3
*
*B43 <.4
*
*
*
*B43 <.5
*B43 <.5
*B43 <.5

2
-

*B43
*B43
*B43
*B43
*B43
-

*B43
-

*B43
-

*B43
*B43
*B43

Source: European Social Survey. First round. Version 5.

If we test the three items that measure equality and intervention of the government, we
observed that contains different latent constructs for different countries. Table 4 show the
presence or absence of dimensionality in the different countries. Austria or Germany show the
possibility of one dimension (Germanic civic culture cluster), while Spain, France, Portugal,
Greece, and others Napoleonic Civic Culture shows two dimensions. These Items has no
configural invariance.
This lack of configural invariance in the ESS construct on left and right dimension
means that cannot be used for comparison between countries or cultures. The coordination
with the left and rights positions are low in the case of the government intervention. In the
opposite, the expected contents of equality for the left right position are, as Bobbio proposed,
one of the main indicators.
More research is needed to clarify this crossroad on the different perception about
government. Many factors contribute to the ambiguity. The unclear distinction in some
political culture between party and government (party orientations and government
evaluation), parliamentary versus presidential systems of government (Government versus
President), or the different political and civic cultures that shape Europe. At the same time,
the concept of intervention is problematic. For example, the perception and evaluation of the
government intervention in economy is different in Scandinavian countries or in the former
communistic countries. Government intervention has to be associated to concrete policies if
has to be employed for measure properly left and right dimensions.
3.

REFERENCES

Alaminos, A. (1994). Left and Righ in Europe: Values structure and actual contents. In
Tezanos, JF. Global new trends: Values and identities. Madrid: Ed. Sistema
Almond y Verba (1963) The Civic Culture. Princeton University Press.
Bobbio N. (1996) Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Curtice, J. and Bryson, C. (1993) The measurement of socio-political orientations. In
Development of the Questionnaire. Chapter 6. p. 237. ESS web page.
Horn, John L. and J.J. McArdle. (1992). A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement
Invariance in Aging Research Experimental Aging Research 18 (3):117-144.
Inglehart, R. and Klingemann, H. (1976) Party identification, ideological preference and the
Left-Right dimension among Western mass publics. In Budge, I et atl. (ed.) Party
Identification and Beyond. 243-273. London: Wiley.
Jowell J. and the Central Co-ordinating Team, European Social Survey 2002/2003: Technical
Report, London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University (2003)
Kerlinger, F. N. (1967) Social attitudes and their criterial referents: A structural theory.
Psychol. Rev. 74, 110-122.
Lewis-Beck, M. (1988) Economics and elections. The major western democracies. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Ongena, Y. Pre-testing the ESS-questionnaire using interaction analysis. Document on
Questionnaire development report. ESS web page.
Ray, J. (1973) Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A Review and Empirical
Study. In G.D. Wilson ed. The Psychology of Conservatism. London: Academic.
Salzberger T. (2000): Intercultural Construct Validity in Emic and Etic Research. 2000
Multicultural Marketing Conference (AMS), September 17-20.
Stoop, I. (2002) ESS. Context and Event data Guidelines for National Coordinators. ESS web
page.

10

van de Vijver, Fons J.R. and Kwok Leung. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for CrossCultural Research. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.

11