Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2025, 61(3): 301-321 | DOI: 10.13060/csr.2024.013

The Tendency to Agree with Items in Social Survey Regardless of Their Content as a Possible Source of Bias

Patrik Havan ORCID...1, Peter Halama ORCID...2, Michal Kohút ORCID...2
1 Ústav experimentálnej psychológie, Centrum spoločenských a psychologických vied SAV, v. v. i., Bratislava
2 Filozofická fakulta, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave

Acquiescence is defined as the tendency of respondents to shift their answer towards agreeing rather than disagreeing with items, regardless of the items’ content. As a response style, it can be a significant factor in distorting research results. This article examines the nature, predictors, and consequences of this response style and the possibility of identifying and controlling it. The results of time stability and domain/method specificity of acquiescence suggest that it is more a participant-related than situational-related construct. Two categories of correlates or predictors of acquiescence were identified: a high level of social deference/conformity and a low level of cognitive processing on the part of respondents. The two most common approaches used to estimate acquiescence are the manifest approach, which involves computing the deviation from the median of the response scale, and the latent approach, which uses confirmatory factor analysis with a bifactor model. The advantage of the manifest approach is its technical simplicity when certain criteria are met, but its ability to cleanse the results of the effect of acquiescence is rather limited. The more technically demanding latent approach, by contrast, is useful for its ability not only to identify acquiescence bias but also to reduce bias. In a model analysis using the latent approach, the results were cleansed of the effect of acquiescence.

Keywords: acquiescence, response styles, bias, assessment

Received: August 9, 2023; Revised: February 15, 2024; Accepted: April 8, 2024; Prepublished online: June 6, 2024; Published: September 1, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Havan, P., Halama, P., & Kohút, M. (2025). The Tendency to Agree with Items in Social Survey Regardless of Their Content as a Possible Source of Bias. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 61(3), 301-321. doi: 10.13060/csr.2024.013
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Aichholzer, J. (2014). Random intercept EFA of personality scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.001 Go to original source...
    2. Aichholzer, J. (2015). Controlling acquiescence bias in measurement invariance tests. Psihologija, 48(4), 409-429. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1504409A Go to original source...
    3. Baumgartner, H. a Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840 Go to original source...
    4. Bentler, P. M., Jackson, D. N. a Messick, S. (1971). Identification of content and style: A two-dimensional interpretation of acquiescence. Psychological Bulletin, 76(3), 186-204. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0031474 Go to original source...
    5. Beuthner, C., Friederich, M., Herbes, C. a Ramme, I. (2018). Examining survey response styles in cross-cultural marketing research: A comparison between Mexican and South Korean respondents. International Journal of Market Research, 61(3), 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318762015 Go to original source...
    6. Biderman, M. D., McAbee, S. T., Chen, Z. J. a Hendy, N. T. (2018). Assessing the evaluative content of personality questionnaires using bifactor models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(4), 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1406362 Go to original source...
    7. Biderman, M. D., McAbee, S. T., Hendy, N. T. a Chen, Z. J. (2019). Validity of evaluative factors from Big Five and HEXACO questionnaires. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.04.010 Go to original source...
    8. Billiet, J. B. a Davidov, E. (2008). Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociological Methods Research, 36(4), 542-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912107313901 Go to original source...
    9. Billiet, J. B. a McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608-628. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5 Go to original source...
    10. Čavojová, V. a Jurkovič, M. (2017). Comparison of experienced vs. novice teachers in cognitive reflection and rationality. Studia Psychologica, 59(2), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2017.02.733 Go to original source...
    11. Danner, D., Aichholzer, J. a Rammstedt, B. (2015). Acquiescence in personality questionnaires: Relevance, domain specificity and stability. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.004 Go to original source...
    12. Danner, D., Lechner, C. M., Soto, C. J. a John, O. P. (2021). Modelling the incremental value of personality facets: The domain-incremental facets-acquiescence bifactor model. European Journal of Personality, 35(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2268 Go to original source...
    13. Danner, D. a Rammstedt, B. (2016). Facets of acquiescence: Agreeing with negations is not the same as accepting inconsistency. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.010 Go to original source...
    14. Davis, R. E., Lee, S., Johnson, T. P., Conrad, F., Resnicow, K., Thrasher, J. F., … Peterson, K. E. (2020). The influence of item characteristics on acquiescence among Latino survey respondents. Field Methods, 32(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X19873272 Go to original source...
    15. de la Fuente, J. a Abad, F. J. (2020). Comparing methods for modeling acquiescence in multidimensional partially balanced scales. Psicothema, 32(4), 590-597. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2020.96 Go to original source...
    16. Denissen, J. J. A., Geenen, R., Soto, C. J., John, O. P. a van Aken, M. A. G. (2020). The Big Five Inventory-2: Replication of psychometric properties in a Dutch adaptation and first evidence for the discriminant predictive validity of the facet scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(3), 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1539004 Go to original source...
    17. Ferrando, P. J. a Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2012). Response certainly, conscienciousness, and self-concept clarity as antecedents of acquiescence: A prediction model. Anuario de Psicologia, 42(1), 103-112.
    18. Ferrando, P. J. a Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2010). Acquiescence as a source of bias and model and person misfit: A theoretical and empirical analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(2), 427-448. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711009X470740 Go to original source...
    19. Havan, P., Kohút, M. a Halama, P. (2022a). Time stability of acquiescence as estimated by manifest and latent approaches. Studia Psychologica, 64(4), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2022.04.857 Go to original source...
    20. Havan, P., Kohút, M. a Halama, P. (2022b). Domain and method-specificity of acquiescence estimated in different measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111437 Go to original source...
    21. Havan, P., Kohút, M. a Halama, P. (v recenznom konaní a). Interaction of Social Deference and Cognitive Processing in the Prediction of Acquiescence.
    22. Havan, P., Kohút, M. a Halama, P. (v recenznom konaní b). To control or not to control? And does it even matter? Multi-sample multi-method study of the effect of acquiescence on the correlation coefficients and factor loadings in personality measures.
    23. Havan, P., Halama, P., Čavojová, V. a Kohút, M. (v recenznom konaní c). Who agrees more? The role of age, education, and the ability to solve verbal analogies on acquiescence.
    24. He, J., Bartram, D., Inceoglu, I. a van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2014). Response styles and personality traits: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(7), 1028-1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114534773 Go to original source...
    25. Hřebíčková, M., Jelínek, M., Květon, P., Benkovič, A., Botak, M., Sudzina, F., … John, O. P. (2020). Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2): Hierachický model s 15 subškálami. Československá psychologie, 64(4), 437-459.
    26. Cheung, M. W.-L. a Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_4 Go to original source...
    27. Chylíková, J. (2020). (Un)expected exception: Validating acquiescent response style factor in the Czech republic. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(6), 677-694. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1733182 Go to original source...
    28. Jackson, D. N. a Messick, S. (1958). Content and style in personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 55(4), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045996 Go to original source...
    29. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I. a Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles - Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905 Go to original source...
    30. Lechner, C. M., Danner, D. a Rammstedt, B. (2017). How is personality related to intelligence and achievement? A replication and extension of Borghans et al. and Salkever. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 86-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.040 Go to original source...
    31. Lechner, C. M., Partsch, M. V., Danner, D. a Rammstedt, B. (2019). Individual, situational and cultural correlates of acquiescent responding: Towards a unified conceptual framework. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72(3), 426-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12164 Go to original source...
    32. Lechner, C. M. a Rammstedt, B. (2015). Cognitive ability, acquiescence, and the structure of personality in a sample of older adults. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000151 Go to original source...
    33. McCrae, R. R. a Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407-425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407 Go to original source...
    34. Meisenberg, G. a Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539-1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010 Go to original source...
    35. Park, M. a Wu, A. D. (2019). Item response tree models to investigate acquiescence and extreme response styles in Likert-type rating scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(5), 911-930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419829855 Go to original source...
    36. Pelt, D. H. M., Van der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S. a Born, M. P. (2021). The motivation and opportunity for socially desirable responding does not alter the general factor of personality. Assessment, 28(5), 1376-1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119880960 Go to original source...
    37. Plieninger, H. (2016). Mountain or molehill? A simulation study on the impact of response styles. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77, 32-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416636655 Go to original source...
    38. Plieninger, H. a Heck, D. W. (2018). A new model for acquiescence at the interface of psychometrics and cognitive psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(5), 633-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1469966 Go to original source...
    39. Primi, R., Santos, D., De Fruyt, F. a John, O. P. (2019). Comparison of classical and modern methods for measuring and correcting for acquiescence. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72, 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12168 Go to original source...
    40. R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
    41. Rammstedt, B., Danner, D. a Bosnjak, M. (2017). Acquiescence response styles: A multilevel model explaining individual-level and country-level differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 190-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.038 Go to original source...
    42. Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., Soto, C. J. a John, O. P. (2018). Validation of the short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and their German adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000481 Go to original source...
    43. Rammstedt, B. a Farmer, R. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1137-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033323 Go to original source...
    44. Rammstedt, B. a 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.006 Go to original source...
    45. Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J. a Borg, I. (2013). Correcting Big Five personality measurements for acquiescence: An 18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1894 Go to original source...
    46. Robinson, O. C. (2012). Values and adult age: Findings from two cohorts of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Ageing, 10(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-012-0247-3 Go to original source...
    47. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.108637/jss.v048.i02 Go to original source...
    48. Savalei, V. a Falk, C. F. (2014). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.931800 Go to original source...
    49. Schaeffer, N. C. a Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112 Go to original source...
    50. Soto, C. J. a John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096 Go to original source...
    51. Soto, C. J. a John, O. P. (2019). Optimizing the length, width, and balance of a personality scale: How do internal characteristics affect external validity? Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 444-459. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas00000586 Go to original source...
    52. Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D. a 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(4), 718-737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718 Go to original source...
    53. Tett, R. P., Freund, K. A., Christiansen, N. D., Fox, K. E. a Coaster, J. (2012). Faking on self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive ability, and job type. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.017 Go to original source...
    54. Tourangeau, R. a Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processing underlying contexts effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299 Go to original source...
    55. Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H. a Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reverse item bias: An integrative model. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 320-334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032121 Go to original source...
    56. Weijters, B., Geuens, M. a Schillewaert, N. (2010a). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609338593 Go to original source...
    57. Weijters, B., Geuens, M. a Schillewaert, N. (2010b). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018721d Go to original source...
    58. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., Billiet, J. a Cambré, B. (2003). Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103257070 Go to original source...
    59. Wetzel, E. a Carstensen, C. H. (2017). Multidimensional modeling of traits and response styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 102(5), 714-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1614011 Go to original source...
    60. Wetzel, E., Carstensen, C. H. a Böhnke, J. R. (2013). Consistency of extreme response style and non-extreme response style across traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp2012.10.010 Go to original source...
    61. Wetzel, E., L Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I. a Böhnke, J. R. (2016). The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment, 23(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714 Go to original source...
    62. Weydmann, G., Hauck Pilho, N. a Bizzaro, L. (2020). Acquiescent responding can distort the factor structure of the BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109563 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content