Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:17:53.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquiescence Response Bias — Yeasaying and Higher Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2015

Shane Costello  and
John Roodenburg
Shane Costello*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
John Roodenburg
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Shane Costello, Krongold Building, Faculty of Education, 57 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton Campus, Monash University VIC 3800, Australia. Email: shane.costello@monash.edu
Get access

Abstract

Acquiescence response bias is the tendency to agree to questionnaires irrespective of item content or direction, and is problematic for both researchers and clinicians. Further research is warranted to clarify factors relating to the confounding influence of acquiescence. Building on previous research that investigated the interaction between acquiescence, age, and secondary education, the current study has considered the role of adult higher educational achievement and acquiescence. Using the Big Five Inventory (BFI), acquiescence scores were calculated for a sample of 672 Australian adults (age M = 41.38, SD = 12.61). There was a significant inverse relationship between the variance in acquiescence scores and formal education. The greatest difference was found between the lowest education groups and the highest education groups, with the variance of the lower groups more than twice as large as the higher groups. The confounding influence of acquiescence was demonstrated using the BFI and targeted rotation to an ideal matrix, where worse model fit was found in the lower education group compared to the higher group. Implications for both researchers and clinicians are explored.

Keywords

acquiescenceresponse biaseducationmeasurement errorBig Five inventory
Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , December 2015 , pp. 105 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, P. (2005). Person-target profiling. In Beauducel, A.et al. (Eds.), Multivariate research strategies: A festschrift for Werner Wittmann (pp. 63–118). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Barrett, P. (2006). Orthosim 2.01. Auckland NZ: Author.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 16, 296–298.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M., Jackson, D.N., & Messick, S. (1971). Identification of content and style: A two dimensional interpretation of acquiescence. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billiet, J.B., & Davidov, E. (2008). Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociological Methods and Research, 36, 542–562. doi:10.1177/0049124107313901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catell, R. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. (1963). Acquiescence response set in personality questionnaires. Life Sciences, 2, 144–147. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-3205(63)90026-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, S.L., Feinstein, L., Link, B.G., Wadsworth, M.E.J., & Richards, M. (2007). The continuing benefits of education: Adult education and midlife cognitive ability in the British 1946 birth cohort. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, S404–S414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, A.A. (1997). The construction of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hofstee, W.K.B., ten Berge, J.F., & Hendriks, A.A. (1998). How to score questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, C.J., & Donnellan, M.B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346. doi:10.1177/1088868310361240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, P.W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33, 309–329. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01389.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Javeline, D. (1999). Response effects in polite cultures: A test of acquiescence in Kazakhstan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 1–28. doi:10.1086/297701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John, O.P., Robins, R.W., & Pervin, L.A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, R.J.A., & Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R., Herbst, J.H., & Costa, P.T. (2001). Effects of acquiescence on personality factors structures. In Riemann, R., Spinath, F.M., & Ostendorf, F. (Eds.), Personality and temperament: Genetics, evolution, and structure (pp. 217–231). Berlin, Germany: Pabst Science.Google Scholar
McCrae, R., Zonderman, A., Costa, P., Bond, M., & Paunonen, S. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539–1550. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S., & Frederiksen, N. (1958). Ability, acquiescence, and ‘authoritarianism’. Psychological Reports, 4, 687–697. doi:10.2466/pr0.1958.4.3.687Google Scholar
Morf, M.E., & Jackson, D.N. (1972). An analysis of two response styles: True responding and item endorsement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 329–353. doi:10.1177/001316447203200210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulaik, S. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pigott, T.D. (2001). A review of methods for missing data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rammstedt, B., & Farmer, R.F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1137–1145. doi:10.1037/a0033323CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L.R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53–61. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rammstedt, B., & Kemper, C.J. (2011). Measurement equivalence of the Big Five: Shedding further light on potential causes of the educational bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 121–125. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J.C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Lets learn from cows in the rain. PLoS One, 8, e68967. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2014). Quest for the best non-cognitive predictor of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 34, 1–8. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.858908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J.F. (1986). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross validation of component weights across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41–64. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2101_3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ten Berge, J.F., & Hofstee, W.K.B. (1999). Coefficients alpha and reliabilities of unrotated and rotated components. Psychometrika, 64, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, M. (2000). MonteCarlo PCA for parallel analysis. State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates.Google Scholar