35:
and is the tendency of a respondent to agree with a statement when in doubt. Questions affected by acquiescence bias take the following format: a stimulus in the form of a statement is presented, followed by 'agree/disagree,' 'yes/no' or 'true/false' response options. For example, a respondent might be presented with the statement "gardening makes me feel happy," and would then be expected to select either 'agree' or 'disagree.' Such question formats are favoured by both survey designers and respondents because they are straightforward to produce and respond to. The bias is particularly prevalent in the case of surveys or questionnaires that employ
199:(a measure of authoritarianism), which contains such truisms. He created a reverse-keyed version of the California F-scale where all the items were the opposite in meaning (see the two previous examples for a pair of such contradictory statements). He administered both the original and reverse-keyed versions of the California F-scale to the same group of respondents. One would expect that the correlation between these two scales to be negative, but there was a high, positive correlation. Jackson interpreted this as evidence of acquiescence responding. Respondents were merely being agreeable to the statements, regardless of the content.
234:
like the colour blue,' is transformed into 'do you like the colour blue?' with response options ranging from 'not at all' to 'very much.' Proponents of this solution reason that 'agree/disagree' scales demand excess cognitive resources. In many cases, a response to the direct question is a pre-requisite to providing an 'agree/disagree' choice; a person first responds to 'how often do I feel like starting a new hobby?' when presented with the statement 'I regularly feel like starting a new hobby.' There is, therefore, an additional process of translation onto the 'agree/disagree' scale.
164:: Respondents still execute all four stages of the 'Four stage model of the response process.' However, the stages are carried out less rigorously, which results in the output being satisfactory rather than highly accurate. An example of weak satisficing is a respondent who doesn't search their memory as deeply as possible. This would lead to acquiescence if the respondent only scanned their memory for information supporting the positive response option.
189:
assessing happiness and contentedness, etc. (reversed-keyed items), in addition to the usual depressive content. The rationale is that such reverse-coded items force respondents to engage consciously and deliberately with survey questions, rather than automatically. While this technique has been shown to minimise a construct's relationship with acquiescence bias, it is imperfect in that respondents continue to provide responses biased by acquiescence.
170:: Respondents implement a surface-level approach to answering the question by omitting the 'Retrieval' and 'Judgement' stages and only engaging in 'Comprehension' and 'Selection.' The respondent does not access any internal cognitive resources concerning the construct of interest for the question. A mechanism of selecting an appropriate answer may instead involve interpreting external cues such as question-wording. Following the
125:. For example, the Comprehension stage entails paying attention to a question or instruction set. They propose that some cognitive processes are required in order to select an answer whereas others serve as optional aids. A respondent's decision of which processes to employ from the model is determined by a number of influences, notably speed and precision.
34:
research in which respondents have a tendency to select a positive response option or indicate a positive connotation disproportionately more frequently. Respondents do so without considering the content of the question or their 'true' preference. Acquiescence is sometimes referred to as "yea-saying"
233:
One alternative is 'item-specific' (IS) questions. Instead of providing a statement and 'agree/disagree' response option, the statement is transformed into a direct question and response options present a range that captures the extremities of an attitude or behaviour. For example, the statement 'I
188:
This approach involves the modification of scales to include an equal ratio of positively and negatively framed items. In other words, a particular construct is assessed using conflicting stimulus statements. For example, in trying to assess depression it would be a good idea to also include items
95:
individuals, and respondents' perception of the researcher/ interviewer as having higher authority. According to this explanation, when selecting answers, a tendency to agree with statements made by the interviewer arises from the respondent's intention of being polite or respectful. In support of
39:
as the stimuli, such as: "It is better to give than to receive" or "Never a lender nor a borrower be". Acquiescence bias can introduce systematic errors that affect the validity of research by confounding attitudes and behaviours with the general tendency to agree, which can result in misguided
104:
Acquiescence bias is proposed to be a product of 'satisficing' behaviour. 'Satisficing' sees respondents select responses that are satisfactory or good enough, rather than engage in 'optimizing,' which produces best possible selection. This is done to conserve cognitive energy.
96:
this, there is evidence that indicates that respondents of lower social status acquiesce more frequently than respondents of higher social status. However, several studies have failed to replicate this finding.
141:
Selection – choosing and communicating an answer. Two sets of processes have been proposed: translating a judgement into the scales provided, and revising the response based on factors such as 'consistency'.
229:
Some researchers have denounced the use of 'agree/disagree' scales (including 'yes/no' and 'true/false' variations) and call for the use of question types that aren't as susceptible to acquiescence bias.
665:
Podsakoff, Philip M.; MacKenzie, Scott B.; Lee, Jeong-Yeon; Podsakoff, Nathan P. (Oct 2003). "Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies".
71:. A consequence of this is that the conventions that govern conversations influence the interpretation of survey questions and responses to them. Accordingly, pressure to
202:
In such cases, the only effect of the technique is in moving individuals from the positive pole of the scale to the midpoint which, it is argued, achieves nothing.
146:
1378:
479:
Watson, Dorothy (1992). "Correcting for
Acquiescent Response Bias in the Absence of a Balanced Scale: An Application to Class Consciousness".
217:
Jackson and
Messick, using factor analysis, also demonstrated that the two main factors explaining the majority of response variation on the
1353:
552:
218:
515:
1383:
40:
inference. Research suggests that the proportion of respondents who carry out this behaviour is between 10% and 20%.
649:
622:
572:
221:(MMPI) were for social desirability and acquiescence responding (this would also hold true for the revised MMPI-2).
780:
67:
that encourage agreeable behaviour. Evidence indicates that respondents approach surveys as though they are common
1455:
1373:
1183:
1481:
1302:
91:
is that acquiescence bias is a product of the combination of the inclination to yield to the opinions of high
1188:
842:
837:
210:
The use of two techniques has been proposed to separate out acquiescence bias from constructs of interest:
121:
that proposes four stages to the process of survey response selection. Each stage entails several specific
75:
to such norms and conventions prompts people to agree with stimulus statements. Based on research into the
727:
Messick, Samuel; Jackson, Douglas N. (1961). "Acquiescence and the factorial interpretation of the MMPI".
960:
436:
76:
1476:
1296:
822:
1426:
1150:
950:
928:
373:
1450:
1363:
1245:
1010:
990:
886:
263:
374:"Improving social media measurement in surveys: Avoiding acquiescence bias in Facebook research"
1436:
1120:
1100:
881:
859:
135:
Retrieval (for factual questions) – remembering or calling to mind the appropriate information.
564:
138:
Judgement (for factual questions) – the processing of recalled information to form judgements.
1215:
1130:
1105:
1050:
639:
519:
1168:
1020:
896:
773:
8:
1323:
1240:
1140:
1075:
1015:
1005:
1000:
864:
122:
1220:
1205:
965:
955:
938:
709:
496:
258:
196:
192:
1333:
1270:
1255:
1178:
1160:
1095:
891:
744:
701:
693:
645:
618:
568:
500:
461:
453:
393:
325:
317:
171:
294:
Baron-Epel, Orna; Kaplan, Giora; Weinstein, Ruth; Green, Manfred S. (October 2010).
1400:
1260:
1200:
1125:
1110:
970:
923:
832:
827:
812:
736:
713:
683:
675:
610:
560:
488:
449:
445:
385:
307:
1368:
1358:
1135:
1115:
1030:
933:
908:
903:
876:
854:
766:
248:
211:
118:
492:
1410:
1405:
1395:
1318:
1235:
1195:
1145:
1090:
1080:
1065:
1060:
1025:
980:
945:
849:
798:
679:
389:
174:
of agreeing is one alternative mechanism that would lead to
Acquiescence bias.
1470:
1348:
1328:
1291:
1265:
1250:
1230:
1210:
1173:
1085:
1045:
1040:
1035:
913:
817:
697:
614:
457:
397:
321:
253:
60:
54:
31:
27:
312:
295:
1308:
1070:
1055:
748:
705:
465:
329:
243:
79:, individuals are predisposed to agreeable behaviour to differing degrees.
68:
688:
1225:
995:
985:
975:
871:
64:
132:
Comprehension – understanding the question and the information required.
1343:
1338:
1313:
114:
72:
1431:
918:
740:
92:
88:
551:
Pasek, Josh; Krosnick, Jon A. (2010-02-25). Leighley, Jan E. (ed.).
1390:
1275:
605:
Tourangeau, Roger; Rips, Lance J.; Rasinski, Kenneth (March 2000).
557:
The Oxford
Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior
36:
664:
293:
553:"Optimizing Survey Questionnaire Design in Political Science"
789:
108:
758:
296:"Extreme and acquiescence bias in a bi-ethnic population"
82:
641:
American Public
Opinion: Its Origins, Content and Impact
604:
434:
Krosnick, Jon A. (February 1999). "Survey
Research".
289:
287:
285:
283:
281:
279:
429:
427:
425:
423:
421:
419:
417:
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
276:
1468:
149:can arise at any stage of the response process.
404:
157:Two forms of 'satisficing' have been proposed:
726:
152:
774:
550:
367:
365:
363:
361:
359:
637:
357:
355:
353:
351:
349:
347:
345:
343:
341:
339:
195:demonstrated acquiescence responding on the
63:explanation attributes acquiescence bias to
638:Erikson, Robert S.; Tedin, Kent L. (2015).
631:
507:
219:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
1437:Heuristics in judgment and decision-making
781:
767:
205:
687:
371:
336:
311:
433:
109:Four-stage model of the response process
720:
565:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199235476.001.0001
1469:
478:
372:Kuru, Ozan; Pasek, Josh (2016-04-01).
83:Perceived authority of the interviewer
762:
472:
600:
598:
596:
594:
592:
590:
546:
544:
542:
540:
538:
536:
513:
117:, Kenneth Rasinski have developed a
481:Sociological Methods & Research
13:
224:
183:
14:
1493:
668:The Journal of Applied Psychology
607:The Psychology of Survey Response
587:
533:
300:European Journal of Public Health
48:
658:
450:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
99:
1:
269:
77:"Big Five" personality traits
178:
7:
1303:DĂ©formation professionnelle
493:10.1177/0049124192021001003
437:Annual Review of Psychology
378:Computers in Human Behavior
237:
153:Strong and weak satisficing
87:An explanation favoured by
10:
1498:
1297:Basking in reflected glory
788:
680:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
52:
1445:
1427:Cognitive bias mitigation
1419:
1284:
1159:
796:
390:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.008
43:
1011:Illusion of transparency
615:10.1017/CBO9780511819322
264:Social desirability bias
206:Statistical correctives
729:Psychological Bulletin
1482:Sampling (statistics)
1379:Arab–Israeli conflict
1106:Social influence bias
1051:Out-group homogeneity
313:10.1093/eurpub/ckq052
1021:Mere-exposure effect
951:Extrinsic incentives
897:Selective perception
514:Moss, Simon (2008).
214:, and Ipsatization.
1246:Social desirability
1141:von Restorff effect
1016:Mean world syndrome
991:Hostile attribution
516:"Acquiescence bias"
123:cognitive processes
26:, is a category of
1161:Statistical biases
939:Curse of knowledge
259:Reverse psychology
197:California F-scale
193:Douglas N. Jackson
168:Strong satisficing
113:Roger Tourangeau,
1477:Experimental bias
1464:
1463:
1101:Social comparison
882:Choice-supportive
172:social convention
128:The four stages:
20:Acquiescence bias
1489:
1261:Systematic error
1216:Omitted-variable
1131:Trait ascription
971:Frog pond effect
799:Cognitive biases
783:
776:
769:
760:
759:
753:
752:
741:10.1037/h0043979
724:
718:
717:
691:
662:
656:
655:
635:
629:
628:
602:
585:
584:
582:
581:
548:
531:
530:
528:
527:
518:. Archived from
511:
505:
504:
476:
470:
469:
431:
402:
401:
369:
334:
333:
315:
291:
162:Weak satisficing
147:response effects
22:, also known as
16:Statistical bias
1497:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1441:
1415:
1280:
1155:
1136:Turkey illusion
904:Compassion fade
801:
792:
787:
757:
756:
725:
721:
663:
659:
652:
636:
632:
625:
603:
588:
579:
577:
575:
549:
534:
525:
523:
512:
508:
477:
473:
432:
405:
370:
337:
292:
277:
272:
249:Loaded question
240:
227:
225:Question choice
212:Factor analysis
208:
186:
184:Balanced scales
181:
155:
119:cognitive model
111:
102:
85:
57:
51:
46:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1495:
1485:
1484:
1479:
1462:
1461:
1459:
1458:
1453:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1440:
1439:
1434:
1429:
1423:
1421:
1420:Bias reduction
1417:
1416:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1398:
1396:Political bias
1393:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1371:
1366:
1361:
1356:
1351:
1341:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1324:Infrastructure
1321:
1316:
1311:
1306:
1299:
1294:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1263:
1258:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1241:Self-selection
1238:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1181:
1176:
1171:
1165:
1163:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1076:Pro-innovation
1073:
1068:
1063:
1061:Overton window
1058:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1008:
1003:
998:
993:
988:
983:
978:
973:
968:
963:
958:
953:
948:
943:
942:
941:
931:
929:Dunning–Kruger
926:
921:
916:
911:
906:
901:
900:
899:
889:
884:
879:
874:
869:
868:
867:
857:
852:
847:
846:
845:
843:Correspondence
840:
838:Actor–observer
830:
825:
820:
815:
810:
804:
802:
797:
794:
793:
786:
785:
778:
771:
763:
755:
754:
735:(4): 299–304.
719:
689:2027.42/147112
674:(5): 879–903.
657:
650:
630:
623:
586:
573:
532:
506:
471:
444:(1): 537–567.
403:
335:
306:(5): 543–548.
274:
273:
271:
268:
267:
266:
261:
256:
251:
246:
239:
236:
226:
223:
207:
204:
185:
182:
180:
177:
176:
175:
165:
154:
151:
143:
142:
139:
136:
133:
110:
107:
101:
98:
84:
81:
53:Main article:
50:
47:
45:
42:
24:agreement bias
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1494:
1483:
1480:
1478:
1475:
1474:
1472:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1433:
1430:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1422:
1418:
1412:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1374:United States
1372:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1362:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1349:False balance
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1221:Participation
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1189:Psychological
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
987:
984:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
956:Fading affect
954:
952:
949:
947:
944:
940:
937:
936:
935:
932:
930:
927:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
898:
895:
894:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
878:
875:
873:
870:
866:
863:
862:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
844:
841:
839:
836:
835:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
809:
806:
805:
803:
800:
795:
791:
784:
779:
777:
772:
770:
765:
764:
761:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
723:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
690:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
661:
653:
651:9781317350385
647:
644:. Routledge.
643:
642:
634:
626:
624:9780521572460
620:
616:
612:
608:
601:
599:
597:
595:
593:
591:
576:
574:9780199235476
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
547:
545:
543:
541:
539:
537:
522:on 2011-02-18
521:
517:
510:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
475:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
430:
428:
426:
424:
422:
420:
418:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
368:
366:
364:
362:
360:
358:
356:
354:
352:
350:
348:
346:
344:
342:
340:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
290:
288:
286:
284:
282:
280:
275:
265:
262:
260:
257:
255:
254:Peer pressure
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
241:
235:
231:
222:
220:
215:
213:
203:
200:
198:
194:
190:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
159:
158:
150:
148:
140:
137:
134:
131:
130:
129:
126:
124:
120:
116:
115:Lance J. Rips
106:
97:
94:
90:
80:
78:
74:
70:
69:conversations
66:
62:
61:psychological
56:
55:Agreeableness
49:Agreeableness
41:
38:
33:
29:
28:response bias
25:
21:
1334:In education
1301:
1285:Other biases
1271:Verification
1256:Survivorship
1206:Non-response
1179:Healthy user
1121:Substitution
1096:Self-serving
892:Confirmation
860:Availability
808:Acquiescence
807:
732:
728:
722:
671:
667:
660:
640:
633:
606:
578:. Retrieved
556:
524:. Retrieved
520:the original
509:
487:(1): 52–88.
484:
480:
474:
441:
435:
381:
377:
303:
299:
244:Likert scale
232:
228:
216:
209:
201:
191:
187:
167:
161:
156:
144:
127:
112:
103:
89:sociologists
86:
65:social norms
59:A prominent
58:
23:
19:
18:
1401:Publication
1354:Vietnam War
1201:Length time
1184:Information
1126:Time-saving
986:Horn effect
976:Halo effect
924:Distinction
833:Attribution
828:Attentional
100:Satisficing
1471:Categories
1364:South Asia
1339:Liking gap
1151:In animals
1116:Status quo
1031:Negativity
934:Egocentric
909:Congruence
887:Commitment
877:Blind spot
865:Mean world
855:Automation
580:2020-04-14
526:2010-07-19
270:References
30:common to
1432:Debiasing
1411:White hat
1406:Reporting
1319:Inductive
1236:Selection
1196:Lead time
1169:Estimator
1146:Zero-risk
1111:Spotlight
1091:Restraint
1081:Proximity
1066:Precision
1026:Narrative
981:Hindsight
966:Frequency
946:Emotional
919:Declinism
850:Authority
823:Anchoring
813:Ambiguity
698:0021-9010
501:122977362
458:0066-4308
398:0747-5632
384:: 82–92.
322:1464-360X
179:Solutions
93:authority
1329:Inherent
1292:Academic
1266:Systemic
1251:Spectrum
1231:Sampling
1211:Observer
1174:Forecast
1086:Response
1046:Optimism
1041:Omission
1036:Normalcy
1006:In-group
1001:Implicit
914:Cultural
818:Affinity
749:13769793
706:14516251
466:15012463
330:20439322
238:See also
1451:General
1449:Lists:
1384:Ukraine
1309:Funding
1071:Present
1056:Outcome
961:Framing
714:5281538
145:Survey
73:conform
37:truisms
1456:Memory
1369:Sweden
1359:Norway
1226:Recall
996:Impact
872:Belief
790:Biases
747:
712:
704:
696:
648:
621:
571:
499:
464:
456:
396:
328:
320:
44:Causes
32:survey
1344:Media
1314:FUTON
710:S2CID
497:S2CID
745:PMID
702:PMID
694:ISSN
646:ISBN
619:ISBN
569:ISBN
462:PMID
454:ISSN
394:ISSN
326:PMID
318:ISSN
1391:Net
1276:Wet
737:doi
684:hdl
676:doi
611:doi
561:doi
489:doi
446:doi
386:doi
308:doi
1473::
743:.
733:58
731:.
708:.
700:.
692:.
682:.
672:88
670:.
617:.
609:.
589:^
567:.
559:.
555:.
535:^
495:.
485:21
483:.
460:.
452:.
442:50
440:.
406:^
392:.
382:57
380:.
376:.
338:^
324:.
316:.
304:20
302:.
298:.
278:^
782:e
775:t
768:v
751:.
739::
716:.
686::
678::
654:.
627:.
613::
583:.
563::
529:.
503:.
491::
468:.
448::
400:.
388::
332:.
310::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.