Uniwersyteckie Czasopisma NaukoweWho agrees more? The role of age, education, and the ability to solve verbal analogies in acquiescence
Słowa kluczowe:
bias, cognitive abilities, acquiescence, response stylesAbstrakt
Background:
Acquiescence as one of the response styles is the participant’s tendency to shift answers to agreement rather than to disa-greement regardless of the items’ content. Acquiescence together with other response styles could be a serious threat to the results of research. It can be affected by several individual characteristics including cognitive abilities. We explored the rela-tionship between the ability to solve verbal analogies, age, education, and acquiescence.
Participants and procedure:
The sample contained 210 participants, 109 men and 101 women with age ranging from 17 to 70 (M = 45.11, SD = 13.66). The data were collected through an online panel of a research agency. We used Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) for estimating acquiescence and 10 tasks for measuring the ability to solve verbal analogies.
Results:
We found a significant relationship between acquiescence and age with a medium effect and non-significant relationships between acquiescence, the ability to solve verbal analogies, and education.
Conclusions:
Education seems not to be an adequate variable as a proxy for cognitive variables, and the ability to solve verbal analogies probably does not affect acquiescence in general. However, the existence of a negative relationship between age and acquies-cence is quite surprising, and it could be caused by better developed self-identity of older participants.
Downloads
Bibliografia
Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement methods for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 608–628. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007 SEM0704_5.
Chylíková, J. (2020). (Un)expected exception: Validating acquiescent response style factor in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23, 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13645579.2020.1733182.
Costello, S., & Roodenburg, J. (2015). Acquiescence response bias – yeasaying and higher education. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 32, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp. 2015.11.
Čavojová, V., & Jurkovič, M. (2017). Comparison of experienced vs. novice teachers in cognitive reflection and rationality. Studia Psychologica, 59, 100– 112. https://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2017.02.733.
Danner, D., Aichholzer, J., & 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.
Danner, D., & Rammstedt, B. (2016). Facets of acquiescence: Agreeing with negations is not the same as accepting inconsistency. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrp.2015.05.004.
Davis, R. E., Lee, S., Johnson, T. P., Conrad, F., Resnicow, K., Thrasher, J. F., Mesa, A., & Peterson, K. E. (2020). The influence of item characteristic on acquiescence among Latino survey respondents. Field Methods, 32, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1525822X19873272.
DiStefano, C., Morgan, G. B., & Motl, R. W. (2012). Detecting acquiescence underlying Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale using the Rasch partial credit model. In S. De Wals & K. Meszaros (Eds.), Handbook on psychology of self-esteem (pp. 195–210). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Duran, R. P., Enright, M. K., & Peirce, L. P. (1987). GRE verbal analogy items: Examinee reasoning on items. ETS Research Report, 1987, i-47. https:// doi.org/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1987.tb00209.x.
Ferrando, P. J., & 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, 427– 448. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711009X470740.
Fronczyk, K., & Witkowska, E. (2020). Social desirability dimensionality: One or two continua? Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.5144/cipp.2020.99946.
George, T., & Mielicki, M. K. (2023). Bullshit receptivity, problem solving, and metacognition: Simply the BS, not better than all the rest. Thinking & Reasoning, 29, 213–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13546783.2022.2066724.
Halama, P. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in a sample of Slovak high school and university students. Studia Psychologica, 50, 255–266.
Havan, P., Kohút, M., & Halama, P. (2022). Time stability of acquiescence as estimated by manifest and latent approaches. Studia Psychologica, 64, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2022.04.857.
Havan, P., Kohút, M., & Halama, P. (under review). Interaction of social deference and cognitive processing in the prediction of acquiescence. He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). Choosing an adequate design and analysis in cross-cultural personality research. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 5, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.5114/ CIPP.2017.65824.
Johanson, G. A., & Osborn, C. J. (2004). Acquiescence as differential person functioning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689126.
Lechner, C. M., Partsch, M. V., Danner, D., & Rammstedt, B. (2019). Individual, situational and cultural correlates of acquiescence responding: Towards a unified conceptual framework. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72, 426– 446. https://doi.org/10.1111.bmsp.12164.
Lechner, C. M., & Rammstedt, B. (2015). Cognitive ability, acquiescence, and the structure of personality in a sample of older adults. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pas0000151.
Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response style related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539–1550. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010.
Morsanyi, K., Hamilton, J., Stamenković, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (2022). Linking metaphor comprehension with analogical reasoning: Evidence from typical development and autism spectrum disorder. British Journal of Psychology, 113, 479–495. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjop.12542.
Mruk, C. J. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice: Toward a positive psychology of self-esteem. Springer Publishing Company.
Park, M., & 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, 911– 930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419829855.
Primi, R., Santos, D., De Fruyt, F., & 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.
Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & 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.
Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & Martin, S. (2016). The association between personality and cognitive ability: Going beyond simple effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 62, 39–44. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.006.
Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013). Correcting Big Five personality measurements for acquiescence: an 18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27, 71–81. https:// doi.org/10.1002/per.1894.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent selfimage. Princeton University Press. Savalei, V., & Falk, C. F. (2014). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: a comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 407–424. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.931800.
Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Meijer, E., Zelinski, E. M., Jin, H., Lee, P. J., & Stone, A. A. (2022). Quality of survey responses at older ages predicts cognitive decline and mortality risk. Innovation in Aging, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/ igac027.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of big five selfreports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processing underlying contexts effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299– 314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299.
Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reverse item bias: an integrative model. Psychological Methods, 18, 320–334. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0032121.
Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2016). The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment, 23, 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714.
