Domain and method-specificity of acquiescence estimated in different measures. (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Havan, Patrik; Kohút, Michal; Halama, Peter
• Is Part Of: Personality and individual differences. Volume 187(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: Acquiescence -- Domain specificity -- Method specificity -- Response bias style -- Confirmatory factor analysis; Personality -- Periodicals; Individuality -- Periodicals; Individuality -- Periodicals; Personality Development -- Periodicals; Personnalité -- Périodiques; Individualité -- Périodiques; 155.205
• DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111437
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0191-8869

Abstract

Abstract: Acquiescence is a tendency to systematically agree with all items without regard to their content. It is questionable whether acquiescence is consistent across different domains and methods (e.g. Danner & Rammstedt, 2016). The goal of this study was to investigate the possible consistency or specificity of domains and methods. The sample consists of 414 participants. We used four measures for estimating acquiescence: one personality inventory (Big Five Inventory 2), two attitude scales (authoritarian/anti-immigrant attitude scale and attitudes towards refugees scale), and one knowledge test (coronavirus knowledge test). Acquiescence was estimated using the latent approach with CFA (e.g. Billiet & McClendon, 2000). We estimated acquiescence in all domains and methods except the coronavirus knowledge test and found that acquiescence is method-consistent. Because of the consistency of acquiescence across different domains and methods, we consider acquiescence rather participant-related. The inability of estimating acquiescence could be caused by beliefs in conspiracy theories interfering with coronavirus knowledge test or by differential functioning of acquiescence in knowledge tests.