Interrogative Suggestibility and its Relationship with Self-Esteem and Control

Gudjónsson, Gisli H.; Lister, Suzanne

doi:10.1016/s0015-7368(84)72302-4

Cited by 64 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Levels of interviewee self-esteem may be most relevant when actively manipulated during interrogation. Gudjonsson and Lister (1984) argued that interviewees may become susceptible to suggestive influences when perceptions of their own self-esteem are lowered as consequence of interrogative pressure. Interaction effects between interrogative pressure and self-esteem, as demonstrated by Baxter et al (2003), may be more reliable than suggestibility effects based solely on individual differences in cognitive and personality functioning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping strategies, self-esteem and levels of interrogative suggestibility

Bain

McGroarty

Runcie

2015

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/50845/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. 1 AbstractThe theoretical model of interrogative suggestibility predicts that levels of suggestibility are related to cognitive sets and coping strategies in dealing with interrogative pressure. Active coping strategies, involving a critical cognitive set, should be associated with reduced suggestibility. Whilst there are mixed results regarding the role of specific coping strategies in suggestibility, some evidence suggests that individuals most concerned with managing their emotional states may be more likely to engage in avoidance, emotion-focused styles of coping and consequently demonstrate higher levels of interrogative suggestibility. In line with this, self-esteem has been identified as a factor affecting how people cope with interrogative pressure. This study further investigated the role of coping strategies and selfesteem in measuring interrogative suggestibility. Participants completed the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS 2), the COPE, and the Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory. Total self-esteem was not related to any of the GSS 2 measures, but correlated negatively with emotion-focused coping. Regression analyses found significant predictive models for Yield 1, Yield 2 and Total Suggestibility. Emotion-focused coping emerged as the only significant predictor of these measures. Results are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping strategies, self-esteem and levels of interrogative suggestibility

Bain

McGroarty

Runcie

2015

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interrogation questions were administered after immediate recall, which is identical to the method used by Gudjonsson and Lister (1984) and Gudjonsson and Singh (1 984). Therefore, delayed recall was not measured in the present study.…”

Section: Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Gss I ; Gudjonsson 1984)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship of confabulation to the memory, intelligence, suggestibility and personality of prison inmates

Gudjónsson

Sigurðsson²

1996

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the relationship of confabulation to memory, intelligence, suggestibility and personality, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Gough Socialisation Scale. The subjects were 255 Icelandic prison inmates. Confabulation was measured from the memory narrative of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS 1). The two components of confabulation—distortions and fabrications—were scored and analysed separately. Distortions and fabrications correlated poorly with each other. Furthermore, the confabulation scores correlated very poorly with the other psychological variables. The only positive correlations were a positive relationship with GSS Shift and a negative relationship with intelligence.

show abstract

“…This effect has also been examined in adults (e.g., Eisen & Carlson, 1998;Eisen, Morgan, & Mickes, 2002;Gudjonsson, 1986Gudjonsson, , 1987Gudjonsson, , 1988Gudjonsson, , 1990Gudjonsson, , 1992aRoebers & Schnieder, 2000) and is relevant in understanding coerced confessions obtained during police interrogations (Gudjonsson, 1989(Gudjonsson, , 1992bGudjonsson & Clark, 1986;Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, & Einarsson, 2004;Kassin, 1997). Gudjonsson and his colleagues have identified several individual difference factors that are related to this general type of suggestibility effect, including but not limited to acquiescence (Gudjonsson, 1990;Gudjonsson & Clark, 1986), short-term memory (Gudjonsson, 1987), assertiveness (Gudjonsson, 1988), locus of control (Gudjonsson & Lister, 1984), and intellectual ability (Gudjonsson, 1990). Other investigators who have used variations of this approach, have also found relations between errors on misleading questions and dissociation (Eisen & Carlson, 1998;Merckelbach, Muris, Rassin, & Horselenberg, 2000;Wolfradt & Meyer, 1998), fantasy proneness (Merckelbach, Muris, Schmidt, Rassin, & Horselenberg, 1998), age effects (Roebers & Schnieder, 2000), and other individual difference factors (see Eisen, Winograd, & Qin, 2002;Harris et al, 2009;Pipe & Salmon, 2001, for reviews).…”

Section: Immediate Acceptance Of Misinformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using an Individual Differences Approach to Examine Two Distinct Types of Suggestibility Effects

Eisen

Gomes

Lorber

et al. 2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies were conducted to examine relations between suggestibility effects studied in two commonly used research paradigms and a group of individual difference factors that have been theoretically linked to eyewitness suggestibility. In Study 1, we examined relations between the immediate acceptance of misinformation as measured by errors on misleading questions and individual differences in conformity, agreeableness, imagery ability, and memory. As predicted, the immediate acceptance of misinformation was associated with conformity but was not related to imagery ability. In Study 2, we examined relations between delayed retrieval errors produced during a classic misinformation paradigm and the same set of individual difference factors. Consistent with our predictions, delayed misinformation retrieval errors were related to imagery ability but were not related to conformity or agreeableness. Taken together, this predicted pattern of results across the two studies provides some preliminary evidence for an emerging distinction between these two types of suggestibility effects. Underlying theoretical, methodological, and practical issues related to the assessment of suggestibility effects are discussed.Suggestibility is a fairly broad term that is frequently used in a vague and over-generalized manner to explain a wide array of diverse phenomenon. Failure to adequately distinguish between different types of suggestibility effects can do a great disservice to clinicians and other non-scientists who are trying to understand the literature and apply it in their practice. Foremost among these consumers are officers of the court, who increasingly rely on experts to explain these phenomena to triers of fact during legal proceedings. Because psychologists are frequently called upon to explain these constructs to lay people and legal professionals in the courtroom, it is highly important to develop a comprehensive understanding of the underlying processes involved in different types of suggestibility effects that can be well articulated and clearly distinguished.Schooler and Loftus (1993) proposed a useful distinction between two general types of suggestibility effects: immediate misinformation acceptance and delayed misinformation retrieval. Schooler and Loftus noted that immediate misinformation acceptance involves the immediate acceptance of inaccurate presuppositions in misleading questions. In contrast, delayed misinformation retrieval occurs when an individual incorporates the misinformation into subsequent memory reports. The predictions regarding individual differences associated with these two types of suggestibility effects lay the framework for an explanatory theory of suggestibility effects and memory distortion that can be applied to most suggestibility paradigms. As Underwood (1975) noted, any theoretical process will necessarily have a predicted tie with performance. Following this logic, a prediction concerning individual differences in performance should provide a critical test of any given aspect of a ...

show abstract

Interrogative Suggestibility and its Relationship with Self-Esteem and Control

Cited by 64 publications

References 6 publications

Coping strategies, self-esteem and levels of interrogative suggestibility

Coping strategies, self-esteem and levels of interrogative suggestibility

The relationship of confabulation to the memory, intelligence, suggestibility and personality of prison inmates

Using an Individual Differences Approach to Examine Two Distinct Types of Suggestibility Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About