Acquiescence Bias (yea-sayers and nay-sayers) and why it matters

Acquiescence bias is something we are all guilty of. When researchers discuss this term we do so in the context of participants’ responses to survey questions, but it has some real-world implications.

So what is it, why does it matter and how often do you agree when you maybe shouldn’t?

Acquiescence bias is also called “yea-saying” or “nay-saying”. In questionnaires, this is identified by people always agreeing (or disagreeing) to whatever is being asked. For example, a personality questionnaire might ask “Do you enjoy going out to parties and hanging out with others” and you might agree and tick yes. A little further down another question asks “Would you rather stay at home and read a book/watch Netflix than attend a party?”.

Because these questions are considered to be in opposition, if you answered yes to both then researchers would consider that acquiescence bias had occurred. The assumption would be the respondent hadn’t truly read through the question, or fully understood the question, and had simply answered yes consistently throughout.

Another theory here is that the questions prompt individuals to consider specific situations and dig up memories that endorse the question. When you read the first question you might think back to the Christmas office party where your manager photocopied their butt and think to yourself “Why yes, I do enjoy parties” and tick the yes box. When you read the second question you might recall the last TV series you binge-watched on Netflix and, if asked to compare that how much you enjoyed the party, you might also tick yes. Therefore, they may not be contradictory. You can still prefer to stay at home and watch Netflix and enjoy going to parties.

As I have just hinted, the issue is with the wording of the questions and the type of scale used for the response. Life is rarely black and white and a simple yes or no response usually doesn’t cut it when trying to measure human experiences.

Closed-ended questions are those that require a simple yes or no response and these are more likely to bring out more acquiescence bias because most of us want to be seen to fit in and be agreeable. Closed-ended questions can also be leading and it is for this reason that they are not allowed in court. If you are asked “Was the thief wearing a green shirt?” many people will say yes because they don’t want to appear stupid, or as if they have a failing memory.

Also, if all of the questions in a survey are positively framed, this can increase the likelihood of getting a bunch of yes ticks. For this reason, questionnaires usually contain both positively and negatively framed questions to prevent you from just zoning out and mindlessly ticking yes.

To confuse matters further, if the person interviewing you is very friendly towards you, this increases the likelihood that you will tell them what you think they want to hear.

So why does any of this matter in the real world that doesn’t involve my PhD? Yea-saying isn’t limited to questionnaire responses. My partner and I were out for dinner and he had put a lot of time into researching the ideal spot for a romantic rendezvous. The website displayed photos of tables elegantly candle-lit tables draped in white. We were therefore in for quite a rude shock when we discovered it was the back end of a bistro, there wasn’t a tablecloth to be found and the candles were battery operated. Furthermore, the food was no better than you could have obtained from the pub across the road and it was considerably more expensive. Neither of us was happy.

At the end of the meal when the waiter, who had been very friendly throughout the meal, asked “Was everything to your satisfaction” my partner replied “yes”.

The researcher in me bristled. “You just gave him incorrect information”, I pointed out to my partner. “I didn’t want to hurt his feelings”, my partner replied. Interesting.

We spent our hard earned and somewhat scarce earnings on a meal that was rather ordinary in a setting that was not-as-advertised and neither of us was happy. Yet when asked if he was happy, he indicated that he was because he felt his discomfort was more important than our displeasure.

As a researcher and a proponent of the quality improvement cycle, I encourage you to leave honest feedback whenever you are asked. If the meal was a disappointment, be honest in communicating that. This doesn’t give you license to be rude or aggressive, but either I or my partner could have said “Actually, we were disappointed because….” This would have given valuable feedback to the owners.

In any industry where you are providing a service to others, acquiescence bias doesn’t help us to improve. We need to know if you got the service you were expecting and if not, how we could have done better.