پیشنهادپذیری پرسشی: ناملایمات زندگی، روان رنجوری و انطباق
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|35336||2010||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4794 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 4, March 2010, Pages 493–498
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.
Interrogative suggestibility can be a serious psychological vulnerability during police investigative interviews (see Gudjonsson, 2003, Gudjonsson et al., 2008 and Gudjonsson et al., 2007). In the light of concern over securing reliable convictions and protecting vulnerable individuals during questioning, research into interrogative suggestibility is important. Factor analytic evidence suggests two types of interrogative suggestibility: (i) The acceptance of misleading information measured by the Yield 1 and Yield 2 subscales of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS; Gudjonsson, 1984 and Gudjonsson, 1987) and (ii) sensitivity to the negative feedback/interrogative pressure from the interviewer, measured by the shift subscale of the GSS. Evidence shows an association between the reporting of intensely negative life events (iNLEs) and interrogative suggestibility (Drake and Bull, accepted for publication and Drake et al., 2008). Reporting iNLEs was found to be particularly linked with sensitivity to negative feedback. When controlling for memory recall accuracy (see Drake et al., 2008), the significant correlations between iNLEs and the three subscales of the GSS remain. Further research investigating the link between NLEs and interrogative suggestibility seems therefore warranted. What is also unclear about the (Drake and Bull, accepted for publication and Drake et al., 2008) studies is whether the relationship between the reporting of iNLE and relatively high GSS scores may be in fact attributed to trait compliance (especially in response to the negative feedback incorporated into the GSS interview), rather than suggestibility. Trait compliance has been demonstrated across situations (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Einarsson, & Einarsson, 2008). The reporting of iNLEs may be an observable manifestation of a relatively negative mindset within relatively suggestible interviewees (Drake et al., submitted for publication and Safford et al., 2007). Gudjonsson and Clarke (1986) recognise the importance of this negative mindset in encouraging high scores on the GSS. An underlying negative mindset has been found to predict negative life events and stress generation (Safford et al., 2007). Compliance may be viewed as an ineffective coping mechanism during tasks perceived as stressful or interpersonal conflict (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Evidence suggests further that individuals tending towards a negative mindset can sometimes be more prone to experiencing more frequent NLEs and vice versa (due to a self-fulfilling prophecy and depending on their level of cognitive hardiness; Beasley et al., 2003 and Cohen et al., 1987). Both the reporting of iNLEs and nNLEs may therefore be related and lead to compliant behaviour. Interviewees who display higher levels of trait compliance can also be more suggestible (Richardson & Kelly, 2004). Compliance could therefore manifest during the GSS interview and mediate the relationship between the reported experience of NLEs (frequency and intensity) and GSS scores. The first objective is to investigate compliance in the relationship between nNLE and iNLE and interrogative suggestibility. The role of neuroticism (N) in the relationship between nNLEs and iNLEs, compliance, and GSS scores will also be explored: evidence relates N to the experience of more frequent NLEs (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). This may be because individuals high in N conduct their lives in such a way as to encourage interpersonal stressors (Elander, West, & French, 1993). N appears to relate to stress generation and the experience of more NLEs, which seems to be the precipitant of a negative cognitive set (NCS) within such individuals (Safford et al., 2007). This NCS may encourage ineffective coping mechanisms (e.g. compliance) during interview (Gudjonsson, 1995) due to heightened uncertainty and expectations of success (Gudjonsson & Clarke, 1986). Correcting erroneous interviewer suggestions may be perceived to lead to a negative outcome (for interviewees scoring high on N and reporting frequent NLEs). Research shows that N is linked with a decreased tendency towards risk-taking behaviour (Maner et al., 2007). This may lead to compliant behaviours during GSS questioning as a result of heightened uncertainty and expectations of success, leading to relatively high Yield 1 scores. N also reflects a susceptibility to distress (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This enhanced negative mindset (Safford et al., 2007) seems to encourage the exaggeration of negative experiences (Fraley and Shaver, 2000 and Noftle and Shaver, 2006). Such individuals seem to report previous negative events as more intensely negative. N may be related to the reporting of more iNLEs (as well as nNLE), which may reflect a NCS within such interviewees. During interview, this NCS may lead to high levels of uncertainty, expectations of success (Gudjonsson & Clarke, 1986), and thus ineffective coping (e.g. compliance). These factors may lead to higher Yield 1 scores. It appears especially that negative feedback may enhance state anxiety and the perceived difficulty of the interview (McGroarty & Baxter, 2007). Individuals scoring high on N (and reporting iNLEs) may perceive and interpret the feedback more negatively. Sensitivity to the negative feedback during the GSS interview may manifest as compliance, surfacing in response to a perceived increase in task-difficulty from the first to the second round of GSS questions (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McGroarty & Baxter, 2007). Higher yield 2 scores and answer-shifting may result.