Being misled: the influence of life adversity and fielddependence on vulnerability to suggestion dur

1
Being misled the influence of life adversity and
field-dependence on vulnerability to suggestion
during interview.

• Kim Drake and Ray Bull
• University of Leicester

2
Interrogative suggestibility

• Gudjonsson Clarke (1986)
• The extent to which, within a closed social
  interaction, people come to accept messages
  communicated to them during formal questioning,
  and as a result their behavioural response is
  affected in such a way as to either accept or
  resist that suggestion.
• Two types of suggestibility
• Susceptibility to leading questions
• Susceptibility to negative feedback

3
The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS)

• Narrative
• Immediate free recall
• Distracter task
• Delayed recall
• 20 Qs, 15 leading (Yield 1).
• Negative feedback
• 20 Qs repeated (Yield 2 Shift).

4
Gudjonsson and Clarke Model (1986)

• IS Uncertainty, expectations of success (EoS),
  interpersonal trust, and negative feedback.
• Emphasises social process- interviewees may look
  to interviewer for guidance when faced with
  uncertainty and EoS
• Yields to leading questions as a result
• Greater susceptibility to negative feedback.

5
Negative life events and IS

• Drake, Bull and Boon (in submission)- frequency
  and/or intensity of NLEs correlated highly
  significantly with performance on the GSS.
• Interviewees scoring high on NLEs experience
  heightened uncertainty, heightened EoS- look to
  interviewer for guidance as to the correct
  answers e.g. facial cues, gestures etc.

6
Field dependence/independence (FDI)

• Witkin et. al. (1962) FD individuals exhibit a
  less well defined sense of self identity- greater
  reliance upon people for reassurance, support and
  guidance. FI individuals experience the reverse.
• Attentiveness to others
• Facial cues
• Expressions

7
G C Model (1986), FDI and NLE

• Interview- social interaction- FD pps more
  susceptible to NF.
• High NLEs- heightened uncertainty- look to
  interviewer for guidance more readily (FD)-
  greater tendency to change answers / yield to
  leading Qs.
• In the light of the G C model, FD and IS should
  correlate significantly.

8
Method

• 60 participants- variety of occupations- variety
  of ages.
• GSS (Gudjonsson, 1984 1987 1997).
• Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT, Witkin,
  Oltman, Raskin Karp, 1971)
• Life Events Questionnaire (Norbeck, 1984)

9
Findings so far

• Once again, NLEs significantly correlated with
  all of the GSS components- Yield 1, 2, Shift and
  Total Suggestibility
• NLEs not significantly correlated with FDI
• FDI not significantly correlated with any of the
  GSS measures.

10
Interpreted through the G C model

• PPs with a history of NLEs experience greater IS
  levels- leading Qs and NF- heightened
  uncertainty.
• However, those PPs do not deal with their
  uncertainty by looking to the interviewer for
  guidance
• Acceptance of leading Qs and susceptibility to NF
  due to something within the interviewee, not the
  social interaction- the influence of the
  interviewer, as the G C model suggest.

11
Confidence and coping with perceived failure
GEFT
Failure (FD)
Success (FI)
Attribution and coping mechanisms
Resist/Yield to leading Qs
Confidence/trust in own judgement
NLEs
NEGATIVE FEEDBACK (NF)
Resist/Yield to leading Qs post NF
Total Suggestibility
12
Conclusion the interview as a negative life event

• Interview perceived as negative event
• IS scores
• Confidence level in own judgement (repeated
  exposure to adversity)
• How pps cope with NF and the test situation
• Attribution of perceived failure due to NF
• High NLEs- greater distrust in own judgement,
  tendency towards internal attribution of failure
  and avoidant coping mechanism (perhaps)- high IS
  scores.
• Most do not look to interviewer for guidance

13
Thank you!

• Contact details
• Kim Drake
• School of Psychology
• University of Leicester
• LE1 9HN
• Ked6_at_le.ac.uk