Factor structure of suggestibility revisited : new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility

Yielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression. Participants and procedure In sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours. Results Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect. Conclusions Suggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems

Inducing resistance to the misinformation effect by means of reinforced self-affirmation : the importance of positive feedback

The misinformation effect is one of the major threats for the quality of witness testimony. It involves including of information that is inconsistent with the course of an event, and which originates from sources other than the event itself, into a witness's report of the event. In the present article research is presented aiming at reducing the tendency to rely on misinformation. After viewing a video clip, participants received a post-event narrative describing the events in the film which in the misled group included some incorrect information about the clip. They were then administered reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), a technique aiming at boosting self-confidence in order to increase the tendency to rely on own memory instead of external cues. This technique consists of self-affirmation by means of writing down one’s greatest achievements in life and manipulated positive feedback. Feedback about memory, perception and independence of judgements was analyzed. All types of feedback effectively reduced the misinformation effect. Mediation analyzes confirmed that RSA operates via increased self-confidence or self-independence

Warning against warnings: alerted subjects may perform worse : misinformation, involvement and warning as determinants of witness testimony

The article presents experiments exploring the memory misinformation effect. Subjects heard a recording and afterwards read a description of it, which included, in the misled group, some details inconsistent with the recording; finally thay answered questions about the recording. The aim of the research was to replicate the tainted truth effect, consisting in poor memory functioning of non-misled warned subjects and to check whether a subject's involvement in the issue moderates this effect. Highly involved subjects were more resistant to the misinformation effect than those lowly involved. In the case of highly involved participants, warning was effective in reducing the misinformation effect, but it also caused more errors in the case of non-misled subjects. Thus, warning witnesses about nonexising discrepancies between what they saw/heard and what they were told, might lead to less accurate testimony

Value of Vontent-Based Deception Detection Methods

"Literature abounds with examples of various methods serving detection of deception in testimonies. They can be divided both according to the methods used depending on the tactics of witness interrogation (Gruza, 2009) and the psychological model of analysing testimony veracity (Marten, 2012). Functioning currently is also a division of methods of detecting deception based on the channel of communication analysed (Vrij, 2008): methods based on the analysis of the so-called non-verbal and vocal detection of deception (DePaulo et al., 2003), methods based on psychophysiological analyses (polygraph, EEG, fMRI, and thermography examinations), and methods that analyse the contents of the testimony (e.g. Content Based Criteria Analysis – CBCA, Steller, Köhnken, 1989; Reality Monitoring – RM, Sporer, 2004; Aberdeen Report Judgement Scale – ARJS, Sporer, Breuer, 2009). The last set of tools seems to be most interesting for the potential of an extensive application in judiciary practice, and relative easiness and low cost of application, coupled with powerful theoretical grounds (Wojciechowski, 2012). "(...

Promoting eyewitness testimony quality : warning vs reinforced self-affirmation as methods of reduction of the misinformation effect

In a typical experiment on the misinformation effect, subjects first watch some event, afterwards read a description of it which in the experimental group includes some incorrect details, and answer questions relating to the original event. Typically, subjects in the misled experimental group report more false details than those from the control group. The main purpose of the presented study was to compare two methods of reducing the misinformation effect, namely - warning against misinformation and reinforced self-affirmation. The reinforced self-affirmation consists of two elements: the participants recall their greatest achievements of life, and are being given a positive feedback about their performance in a memory task. The obtained results showed that the reinforced self-affirmation was more effective than warning, although the latter also caused a significant reduction of the vulnerability to misinformatio

Misinformation about dividend payouts influences transaction prices in experimental asset markets

AIMS: The paper investigates the effects of misinformation regarding dividend payouts on bubble formation, asset pricing and individual investment returns in experimental asset markets, when correct information about the expected dividends and their probabilities is also available. METHOD: In two experiments, totaling34 Smith-Suchanek-Williams type double-auction continuous experimental markets (238 subjects), participants were exposed to misinformation regarding dividend payouts in a previous game, with the correct dividend matrix also provided. The misinformation stated the dividends in the previous game to have been much lower or much higher than according to the expected value function. The misinformation was either homogenous for all participants or provided to only half of the investors in a market (heterogeneously). RESULTS:Homogenous misinformation stating that the last game's dividend payouts were high, led to larger overpricing throughout the game, as compared to baseline (no misinformation) and homogenous misinformation stating that the last game's dividends were low. In informationally heterogeneous markets, where half of the participants received "high dividends" misinformation and half remained non-misinformed, transaction prices were the lowest compared to the aforementioned treatments. It was also discovered that agents receiving the 'high dividend' misinformation had lower returns than non-misinformed participants in the same heterogeneous market

Reducing interrogative suggestibility : the role of self-affirmation and positive feedback

Interrogative suggestibility, as measured with Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales, consists of an individual’s tendency to yield to misleading questions (Yield) and to change answers after negative feedback (Shift). This study aimed to determine whether reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), a technique that aims to boost self-confidence in order to increase the tendency to rely on one’s own memory instead of external cues, can reduce interrogative suggestibility. RSA consists of self-affirmation induced by means of writing down one’s greatest achievements in life and of manipulated positive feedback. The efficacy of two kinds of positive feedback was explored. Shift was reduced by positive feedback relating both to memory and to the feeling that a person is very independent in their judgements, while only feedback related to memory reduced Yield. The results are discussed in terms of the different mechanisms underlying Yield and Shift. Inducing independence of judgements might not have been effective in the case of Yield because to some extent it taps opinions but not the quality of a cognitive process such as memory. An individual may believe in their own opinions and views but still be unsure about the quality of their own memory

Value of content-based deception detection methods

Currently available content-based methods of deception detection are reviewed

The "memory" misinformation effect may not be caused by memory failures : exploring memory states of misinformed subjects

In experiments concerning the misinformation effect, participants first watch some original material, e.g. a video clip, and read a description that in the experimental group contains information inconsistent with the video clip. Afterwards, all participants answer questions about the video. Typically, the misled group more often reports erroneous misleading information than the non-misled one. Theoretical explanations of this effect are usually formulated in terms of the cognitive theories of memory. This article presents three experiments that demonstrate that the misinformation effect can occur even if the memory of the original and postevent materials is correct. In the experiments, after watching a video clip, reading a narrative about it, and answering questions about the video, the participants were debriefed and required to indicate questions in which they noticed differences between the video and the narrative, as well as provide answers about the original and postevent materials. A substantial number of the participants yielded to the misinformation effect in the memory test even though they had correct memory about the original (and postevent) materials. The discussion emphasizes the need of the social influence framework to explain these results