Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Acquiescence is often defined as the systematic selection of agreeable (“strongly agree”) or affirmative (“yes”) responses to survey items, regardless of item content or directionality. This definition implies that acquiescence is immune to item characteristics; however, the influence of item characteristics on acquiescence remains largely unexplored. We examined the influence of eight item characteristics on acquiescence in a telephone survey of 400 Latinos and non-Latino Whites: qualified wording, mental comparisons, negated wording, unfamiliar terms, ambiguous wording, knowledge accessibility, item length, and polysyllabic wording. Negated and ambiguous wording was associated with reduced acquiescence for the full sample as well as subsamples stratified by ethnicity and sociodemographic characteristics. This effect was strongest among younger, more educated, and non-Latino white respondents. No other item characteristics had a significant influence on respondent acquiescence. Findings from this study suggest that acquiescence may be affected by interactions between respondent and item characteristics.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aday

L. A.

Chiu

G. Y.

Andersen

. 1980. Methodological issues in health care surveys of the Spanish heritage population. American Journal of Public Health 70:367–74.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2016. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. https://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx (accessed September 1, 2016).

Andrews

F. M.

1984. Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Public Opinion Quarterly 48:409–42.

Baumgartner

Steenkamp

J.-B. E. M.

. 2001. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research 38:143–56.

Billiet

J. B.

Davidov

. 2008. Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociological Methods & Research 36:542–62.

Billiet

J. B.

McClendon

M. J.

. 2000. Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling 7:608–28.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

. 2000. Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 31:187–212.

Converse

J. M.

Presser

. 1986. Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cuellar

Arnold

Maldonado

. 1995. Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17:275–304.

10.

Davis

R. E.

Resnicow

Couper

M. P.

. 2011. Survey response styles, acculturation, and culture among a sample of Mexican American adults. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 42:1219–36.

11.

De Beuckelaer

Weijters

Rutten

. 2010. Using ad hoc measures for response styles: A cautionary note. Quality & Quantity 44:761–75.

12.

Ennis

S. R.

Rios-Vargas

Albert

N. G.

. 2011. The Hispanic population: 2010. In 2010 Census Briefs. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf (accessed September 24, 2016).

13.

Flores

2017. How the U.S. Hispanic population is changing. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/ (accessed January 5, 2018).

14.

Fowler

F. J.

1992. How unclear terms affect survey data. Public Opinion Quarterly 56:218–31.

15.

Fowler

F. J.

1995. Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Gilbert

D. T.

1991. How mental systems believe. American Psychologist 46:107–19.

17.

Graesser

A. C.

Cai

Louwerse

M. M.

Daniel

. 2006. Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A web facility that tests question comprehensibility. Public Opinion Quarterly 70:3–22.

18.

Greenleaf

E. A.

1992a. Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. Journal of Marketing Research 29:176–88.

19.

Greenleaf

E. A.

1992b. Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly 56:328–51.

20.

Hoffman

Mai

Cristescu

. 2013. Do culture-dependent response styles distort substantial relationships? International Business Review 22:814–27.

21.

Holbrook

A. L.

Johnson

T. P.

Ik Cho

Shavitt

Chavez

Weiner

. 2016. Do interviewer errors help explain the impact of question characteristics on respondent difficulties? Special issue, Survey Practice 9. doi: 10.29115/SP-2016-0009.

22.

Johnson

T. P.

Ik Cho

Holbrook

A. L.

O’Rourke

Warnecke

R. B.

Chávez

. 2006. Cultural variability in the effects of question design features on respondent comprehension of health surveys. Annals of Epidemiology 16:661–68.

23.

Johnson

T. P.

Shariff-Marco

Willis

Ik Cho

Breen

Gee

G. C.

Krieger

, et al. 2015. Sources of interactional problems in a survey of racial/ethnic discrimination. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 27:244–63.

24.

Jordan

L. A.

Marcus

A. C.

Reeder

L. G.

. 1980. Response styles in telephone and household interviewing: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 44:210–22.

25.

Kam

C. C. S.

Zhou

. 2015. Does acquiescence affect individual items consistently? Educational and Psychological Measurement 75:764–84.

26.

Kamoen

Holleman

Mak

Sanders

van den Bergh

. 2011. Agree or disagree? Cognitive processes in answering contrastive survey questions. Discourse Processes 48:355–85.

27.

Kamoen

Holleman

Mak

Sanders

van den Bergh

. 2017. Why are negative questions difficult to answer? On the processing of linguistic contrasts in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 81:613–35.

28.

Kincaid

J. P.

Fishburne

R. P.

Jr Rogers

R. L.

Chissom

B. S.

. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Millington, TN: U.S. Department of Defense.

29.

Knowles

E. S.

Condon

C. A.

. 1999. Why people say “yes”: A dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:379–86.

30.

Krosnick

J. A.

1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5:213–36.

31.

Krosnick

J. A.

1999. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50:537–67.

32.

Laurent

1972. The effects of question length on reporting behavior in the survey interview. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67:298–305.

33.

Lavrakas

P. J.

2008. Within-household respondent selection: How best to reduce total survey error? Media Rating Council. http://www.mediaratingcouncil.org/MRC%20Point%20of%20View%20-%20Within%20HH%20Respondent%20Selection%20Methods.pdf (accessed October 13, 2015).

34.

Lechner

C. M.

Rammstedt

. 2015. Cognitive ability, acquiescence, and the structure of personality in a sample of older adults. Psychological Assessment 27:1301–11.

35.

Lenzner

Kaczmirek

Galesic

. 2011. Seeing through the eyes of the respondent: An eye-tracking study on survey question comprehension. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 23:361–73.

36.

Lenzner

Kaczmirek

Lenzner

. 2010. Cognitive burden of survey questions and response times: A psycholinguistic experiment. Journal of Social Psychology 13:1003–20.

37.

Marín

Gamba

R. J.

Marín

B. V.

. 1992. Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics: The role of acculturation and education. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 23:498–509.

38.

Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Medicine, Disparities Research Unit. 2019. National Latino and Asian American Study documents. https://www.massgeneral.org/disparitiesresearch/Research/pastresearch/NLAAS-documents.aspx (accessed August 2, 2019).

39.

McLaughlin

G. H.

1969. SMOG grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12:639–46.

40.

Meisenberg

Williams

. 2008. Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences 44:1539–50.

41.

Narayan

Krosnick

J. A.

. 1996. Education moderates some response effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 60:58–88.

42.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:879–903.

43.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

. 1984. Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural survey of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 25:189–97.

44.

Tourangeau

Rips

L. J.

Rasinski

. 2000. The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.

45.

Warnecke

R. B.

Johnson

T. P.

Chávez

Sudman

O’Rourke

D. P.

Lacey

Horm

. 1997. Improving question wording in surveys of culturally diverse populations. Annals of Epidemiology 7:334–42.

46.

Weijters

Baumgartner

. 2012. Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research 49:737–47.

47.

Weijters

Geuens

Schillewaert

. 2010. The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods 15:96–110.

48.

Weijters

Schillewaert

Geuens

. 2008. Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36:409–22.

49.

Yan

Tourangeau

. 2008. Fast times and easy questions: The effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22:51–68.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB

0.16 MB

The Influence of Item Characteristics on Acquiescence among Latino Survey Respondents

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material