Further insights into the relationship between the experience of life adversity and interrogative suggestibility. (original) (raw)

Individual differences in interrogative suggestibility: life adversity and field dependence

Since the turn of the century much research has explored the concept of interrogative suggestibility, with recent research highlighting a sizeable link between the reported experience of negative life events (NLEs) and performanceon the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1 (GSS1). The present study sought to reinvestigate the previously found novel relationship, as well as explore the role of field dependence as a possible coping mechanism implemented during interview by such vulnerable interviewees. As expected, highly significant correlations between NLEs and the suggestibility components of the GSS emerged. Field dependence, however, failed to correlate significantly with either NLE or GSS scores. Nonetheless, some additional findings relating to age, NLEs, and shift scores on the GSS were noted, which may help further our understanding of the NLE to interrogative suggestibility relationship. A new group of vulnerable interviewees, who are as yet unrecognized by the police or courts, has also been identified.

Interrogative suggestibility: life adversity, neuroticism and compliance

This study investigates the relationship between the number and intensity of negative life events experienced (nNLE and iNLE respectively), neuroticism (N), compliance (C), and interrogative suggestibility on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1 (GSS 1). Participants (N = 127) completed the GSS1, the Life Events Questionnaire, and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised. Results show that nNLE correlates significantly with both Yield 1 and Yield 2. Blended models including iNLE and N as independent variables, C as the mediator, and GSS scores as dependent variables provide the most acceptable accounts of GSS scores. The models demonstrate that: (i) the effects of iNLE, N and C on Yield 1 are not statistically significant, (ii) iNLE (but not N or C) exerts a significant and positive direct effect on Yield 2, and (iii) iNLE, N and C exert significant and positive direct effects on shift scores. Findings suggest that answer-shifting on the GSS may result from a negative mindset within interviewees, a desire to alleviate distress, and from compliant tendencies in response to feelings of uncertainty and expectations of success. They further imply that false confessions, in interviewees reporting iNLEs, could also result from compliance with interviewer-pressure or negative feedback during questioning.

The psychology of interrogative suggestibility: a vulnerability during interview

This study uses structural equation modelling to investigate the psychological mechanism underpinning interrogative suggestibility on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS). It considers the relationship between neuroticism (vulnerability especially) and compliance within the Five-Factor personality model,fearful avoidant attachment (FAA), the experience of intense negative life events (iNLE) and interrogative suggestibility. Each participant completed the GSS 1, the Life Events Questionnaire, the Relationship Scale Questionnaire, and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised. Findings show that: (i) vulnerability and FAA correlate; FAA patterns indirectly affect misinformation acceptance both in the absence of pressure (Yield 1) and in response to pressure (Yield 2) through iNLE. (ii) FAA patterns and compliance indirectly affect sensitivity to interrogative pressure (Shift scores) through iNLE. An endogenous tendency towards distress, FAA, and compliant tendencies (with respect to Shift scores) may be the basis of individual differencesin interrogative suggestibility. This could manifest as false statements and inconsistencies inanswer during questioning.

Coping strategies, self-esteem and levels of interrogative suggestibility

Personality and Individual Differences

The 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 self-esteem in measuring interrogative suggestibility. Participants completed the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS 2), the COPE, and the Culture-Free Self-Esteem Invento...

Psychometric Properties of a German Online Version of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1

Frontiers in Psychology, 2021

Suggestibility is a trait dimension that has been differentiated into Yield and Shift dimensions. Yield refers to the susceptibility to suggestive item content in a first question series (Yield 1) and a second question series following negative feedback (Yield 2). Shift describes the tendency to change answers over the two series of questions depending on social pressure. This study aimed at investigating the psychometric properties and the factor structure of a German online version of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1 (GSS 1) and measurement invariance of suggestibility scores for gender and research institution. A total of N=560 (n=287 female; age: M=24.20, SD=4.60years) students participated in the study. We present Stanine norms for the application of the online GSS 1. Results supported the theoretical basis of the GSS by revealing the two expected suggestibility factors: Yield and Shift. As expected, a leading factor and a non-leading factor were identified for Yield 1 and...

The psychology of interrogative suggestibility: a vulnerability during police interview

This study uses structural equation modelling to investigate the psychological mechanism underpinning interrogative suggestibility on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS). It considers the relationship between neuroticism (vulnerability especially) and compliance within the Five-Factor personality model, fearful avoidant attachment (FAA), the experience of intense negative life events (iNLE) and interrogative suggestibility. Each participant completed the GSS 1, the Life Events Questionnaire, the Relationship Scale Questionnaire, and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised. Findings show that: (i) vulnerability and FAA correlate; FAA patterns indirectly affect misinformation acceptance both in the absence of pressure (Yield 1) and in response to pressure (Yield 2) through iNLE. (ii) FAA patterns and compliance indirectly affect sensitivity to interrogative pressure (Shift scores) through iNLE. An endogenous tendency towards distress, FAA, and compliant tendencies (with respect to Shift scores) may be the basis of individual differences in interrogative suggestibility. This could manifest as false statements and inconsistencies in answer during questioning.