NCJ Number
207568
Journal
Legal and Criminological Psychology Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Dated: September 2004 Pages: 239-252
Date Published
September 2004
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This study examined how the interaction of three key variables (interviewer demeanor, warnings about misleading information, and interviewee self-esteem) affect levels of interrogative suggestibility (IS).
Abstract
Previous research, particularly by Gudjonsonn, has found that individual differences affect levels of IS, which is defined as the “extent to which … people come to accept messages communicated during formal questioning.” Research using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS) has found that levels of IS vary by three key variables: demeanor of the interviewer, warnings about misleading information, and interviewee self-esteem. However, no studies have been conducted regarding how these three variables interact to influence levels of IS. The current study used a three-factor between-participants design. Independent variables included interviewee self-esteem (higher or lower), interviewer behavior (friendly or abrupt), and instructions given to participants (warning of the presence of misinformation or no warning). Participants were 120 undergraduate students; higher and lower self-esteem interviewees were tested using the GSS 1 by an interviewer who acted either friendly or abrupt. Half the participants received a warning about the presence of misinformation and half did not. It was hypothesized that the higher self-esteem/friendly/warning group would score lowest on suggestibility measures, while the lower self-esteem/abrupt/no warning group would score highest. Results of statistical analyses indicated that participants with lower self-esteem did in fact score higher on the GSS “shift” measure. Participants exposed to the friendly interviewer and participants who were warned about the presence of misinformation scored lower on total suggestibility measures. The key finding to emerge from this study was that participants who were warned scored higher on IS in the friendly interviewer group compared to those who were not warned. This pattern was reversed in the abrupt interviewer group. One implication of this research is that interviewers can be too supportive (friendly), possibly causing problems of IS when the interviewee is asked to provide testimony. Tables, references