نقش اضطراب خصلتی در ارتباط گزارش رویدادهای منفی زندگی و سئوال پیشنهاد کردنی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33371||2014||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 60, April 2014, Pages 54–59
The aim of this study was to investigate the role of trait anxiety in the relationship between the reported experience of negative life events and interrogative suggestibility. 127 participants completed the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS), the Life Events Questionnaire and the Neuroticism domain on the NEO Personality-Inventory Revised. Multivariate regression modelling showed that: (a) the extent to which interviewees reported and rated their life events negatively exerted a direct, positive, effect on Yield 1, Yield 2 and Shift scores – especially Yield 2 and Shift scores; and (b) trait anxiety moderated the effect of this negative life events intensity rating on Yield 1 scores, such that the effect was strongest at high trait anxiety scores. Trait anxiety may therefore be a valid indicator of suggestibility in the absence of explicit pressure, whereas interpretative factors may be a critical predictor of suggestibility in the presence of or after pressure has been applied. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Interrogative suggestibility is an important psychological vulnerability that can have a detrimental impact upon the quality of evidence obtained from interviewees during police questioning (see Gudjonsson, 2013). Across the academic and applied forensic setting, interrogative suggestibility is measured using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS; Gudjonsson, 1997) from which three scores can be derived: (i) Yield 1 scores, measuring misinformation acceptance as a result of the pressure associated with questioning (but prior to any explicit negative feedback); (ii) Yield 2 scores, measuring misinformation acceptance, during the second round of questions, in response to explicit negative feedback; and (iii) Shift scores, measuring a tendency to change [initial] answers in response to negative feedback. Similar to developmental research findings, which have consistently implicated environmental adversity (socio-economic disadvantage and negative rearing practices, for example) in the development of psychopathology (Belsky & Pluess, 2009), cross sectional studies into psychological vulnerability within the applied forensic setting using general population samples have shown significant correlations between experience of negative life events (especially, the extent to which individuals interpret their experiences negatively; a measured subsumed within the Life Events Questionnaire; Norbeck, 1984) and heightened sensitivity to pressure (Yield 2 and Shift scores) (Drake, 2010, Drake, 2011, Drake and Bull, 2011 and Gudjonsson et al., 2012). Most negative life event/susceptibility to pressure research has focused on general population subjects but, even in ADHD sufferers, negative life events were found to be a significant factor contributing to false confessions (Gudjonsson et al., 2012). For some time negative life events, and the negative perception of such events, have been linked with the development of other psychological vulnerabilities (such as depression, anxiety and sensitivity to social challenge). This research suggests that such events (and, in particular, the negative interpretation of such events) could also increase the risk of psychological vulnerability during investigative interview. As research into the negative life events/sensitivity to pressure association has continued, however, mixed results have materialized, bringing about a need to perhaps reconsider the role of negative life events and negative perception (of events). Recently a study failed to find a significant association between the experience of negative life events (or perception of events) and sensitivity to interview pressure demonstrating that, whilst some interviewees scoring high on negative life events were more sensitive to pressure, a similar number were not (McGroarty & Thompson, 2013). Gudjonsson et al. (2012) also hypothesised that, although the experience of negative events is a significant contributing factor to false confessions in ADHD sufferers, the factor that weakens their resilience to pressure is in fact their condition [ADHD]. Furthermore, although the focus of this work was into compliance and not interrogative suggestibility, what was shown by Drake, Sheffield, and Shingler (2011) was low compliance scores in a significant proportion of interviewees reporting high levels of intensely negative events – such individuals proclaimed to be better able to cope with pressure and less likely to yield to the requests of others. These findings tally with developmental research into psychopathology and resilience in children, showing that life adversity need not lead to vulnerability; such research has consistently shown that only children harbouring phenotypic and genotypic stress-sensitivity markers (i.e. anxiety, negative emotionality, for example and, on a genotypic level: (i) the serotonergic receptor gene (HTR2A) – those carrying the T allele, especially, and (ii) the serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR – homozygosity for the short allele, in particular, amongst others; see Belsky & Pluess, 2009 for a review of the literature) are at an increased risk of developing emotional and behavioural problems. In the absence of intrinsic stress-sensitivity, children seem less physiologically responsive to adversity but also less likely to interpret such events as intensely negative, and so are able to better adjust and adapt following adversity. Child development research for a while now has therefore demonstrated an element of plasticity within individuals (an enhanced susceptibility to environmental influences in stress-sensitive individuals), with stress-sensitivity being a crucial moderator of the effect of environmental adversity. In light of developmental research, it might be more reasonable to suppose that the effect of experiencing negative life events depends upon the extent to which interviewees themselves are stress sensitive (one such phenotypic marker is trait anxiety). This might further explain why vulnerable suspects cope better under the PEACE (Planning and preparation, engage and explain, account, closure and evaluate) model of investigative interviewing, which is more facilitative and supportive (Home Office, 2008) and struggle severely under the hostile, manipulative, nature of the Reid Technique (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2001) – differential susceptibility theory would support the outcome that vulnerable suspects are more stress-sensitive and, as a result, are more open to the effects of environmental influence, both positive and negative influences (see Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Authors of research into interrogative suggestibility recognise the role of traits such as anxiety, but they suggest that anxiety may be a mediator created through “instructional manipulation” (Gudjonsson, 2003, p. 385), even though research overall shows a weak correlation between trait anxiety and interrogative suggestibility, making the notion of trait anxiety as a mediator less plausible (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Furthermore, developmental literature supports trait anxiety as a moderator of the effect of adverse influences rather than as a mediator. As such, the aim of this paper is to investigate the role of trait anxiety in the relationship between the extent to which interviewees interpret their experiences negatively and interrogative suggestibility. It is hypothesised that the relationship between this negative intensity rating and interrogative suggestibility will be strongest at higher scores of anxiety, because individuals scoring high on anxiety will be most susceptible to the effect of negative events they have experienced and the pressure associated with questioning (an example of a negative event). Considering research also suggests that anxiety is most strongly associated with the shift subscale (sensitivity to explicit pressure, expressed as negative feedback) on the GSS rather than with yield (the acceptance of misleading information) (Gudjonsson, 2013), as well as research showing strongest associations between the extent to which interviewees interpret experiences negatively and Shift scores, it is predicted that the interaction effect will be strongest on the shift and Yield 2 GSS subscale compared with Yield 1. Negative life events and anxiety still are likely to exert some direct influence on GSS scores, as previous research has shown, trait anxiety may also moderate the effect of negative events on GSS scores; Shift and Yield 2 scores, especially.