To measure the response style of acquiescence, researchers recommend the use of at least 15 items with heterogeneous content. Such an approach is consistent with its theoretical definition and is a substantial improvement over traditional methods. Nevertheless, measurement of acquiescence can be enhanced by two additional considerations: first, to ensure that it is not confounded with item valence, equal numbers of positively and negatively phrased items should be used; second, the validity of acquiescence scores can be substantially improved when derived from more than 15 items: about twice that number appears to be the minimum. These issues are illustrated empirically and recommendations are made for research practice.
BäckströmM.BjörklundF.LarssonM. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335-344.
2.
Baron-CohenS.WheelwrightS.HillJ.RasteY.PlumbI. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241-251.
3.
BaumgartnerH.SteenkampJ. B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-156.
4.
BeauvoisJ. L.DuboisN. (2000). Affordances in social judgment: Experimental proof of why it is a mistake to ignore how others behave towards a target and look solely at how the target behaves. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 16-33.
5.
BentlerP. M.JacksonD. N.MessickS. (1971). Identification of content and style: A two-dimensional interpretation of acquiescence. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 186-204.
6.
BillietJ. B.DavidovE. (2008). Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 542-562.
7.
BillietJ. B.McClendonM. K. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 608-628.
8.
De BeuckelaerA.WeijtersB.RuttenA. (2010). Using ad hoc measures for response styles: A cautionary note. Quality & Quantity, 44, 761-775.
9.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
10.
GreenleafE. A. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 328-351.
11.
KamC.MeyerJ. P. (2012). Do optimism and pessimism have different relationships with personality dimensions? A re-examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 123-127.
12.
KamC. C. S.MeyerJ. P. (2015a). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality: The case of job satisfaction. Organizational Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1094428115571894
13.
KamC. C. S.MeyerJ. P. (2015b). Implications of item keying and item valence for the investigation of construct dimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00273171.2015.1022640
14.
KamC. C. S.ZhouM. (2015). Does acquiescence affect individual items consistently?Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75, 764-784.
15.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.CoffmanD. L. (2007). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11, 344-362.
16.
PeabodyD. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 7, 1-18.
17.
PengK.NisbettR. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754.
18.
R Core Development Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
19.
RammstedtB.FarmerR. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1137-1145.
20.
SaucierG. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1296-1312.
21.
SchimmackU.OishiS.DienerE. (2005). Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 17-31.
22.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Van VaerenberghY.ThomasT. D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25, 195-217.
WeijtersB.GeuensM.SchillewaertN. (2010a). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 105-121.
26.
WeijtersB.GeuensM.SchillewaertN. (2010b). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15, 96-110.
27.
WinklerJ. D.KanouseD. E.WareJ. E. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 555-561.
