Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish reliability and validity study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.1607Keywords:
Gudjosson Suggestibility Scale, eyewitness testimony, eyewitness memory, suggestibilityAbstract
Objective: This paper aims to adapt Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 (GSS-2) which is objective measurement for measuring individuals susceptibility to interrogative suggestibility into Turkish.
Methods: Form is applied to 175 people participated whose age ranged from 19 to 36. GSS-2 applied to participants by the researchers. In GSS-2 a story regarding to bicycle accident read to the participants. Participants also filled the Dissociative Experiences Scale, Submissive Act Scale, and Cognitive Failure Questionnaire for construct validity.
Results: Descriptive analysis result showed that mean values for immediate recall of the correct information, mean of the immediate recall average of the confabulation, the correct information mean for delayed recall, the mean of the confabulation in the delayed recall are 14,99; 3,23; 14,42; 4,03 respectively. For suggestibility scores mean scores are found to be 5,25 for yield 1 score; 6,66 for yield 2 score; 4.1 for shift score and the mean score for the total suggestibility is 9,35. The cronbach alpha values of the subscales of the scale were calculated .713 for yield 1, .812 for yield 2, .600 for shift score. Confirmatory factor analysis failed that yield 1 factor found to be unidimensional in accordance with the original, however, shift factor did not show unidimensional properties, that some questions did not fit factor structure.
Conclusion: The study results suggest that culture and language factors may be effective in witness memory and suggestibility. There is need for further studies regarding to Turkish form of GSS-2.
Downloads
References
Sporer SL. A brief history of the psychology of testimony. Current Psychological Reviews. 1982 Sep;2(3):323-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684465
Loftus EF. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive psychology. 1975 Oct 1;7(4):560-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7
McCloskey M, Zaragoza M. Misleading postevent information and memory for events: arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1985 Mar;114(1):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.114.1.1
Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ. Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of experimental psychology: Human learning and memory. 1978 Jan;4(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19
Paz‐Alonso PM, Goodman GS, Ibabe I. Adult eyewitness memory and compliance: Effects of post‐event misinformation on memory for a negative event. Behavioral sciences & the law. 2013 Sep;31(5):541-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2081
Innonceproject.org [Internet] 2021 [updated 2021; cited 2021 December 6]
Available from: https://innocenceproject.org/
Wells GL, Olson EA. Eyewitness testimony. Annual review of Psychology. 2003 Feb;54(1):277-95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
Tuckey MR, Brewer N. The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2003 Jun;9(2):101. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.101
Shaw JS, Bjork RA, Handal A. Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness-memory paradigm. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 1995 Jun;2(2):249-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210965
Lindsay DS. Memory source monitoring and eyewitness testimony. Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. 1994 Mar 25:27-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511759192.003
Robinson J, Briggs P. Age trends in eye-witness suggestibility and compliance. Psychology, Crime and Law. 1997 Jul 1;3(3):187-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169708410812
Bradfield AL, Wells GL, Olson EA. The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002 Feb;87(1):112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.112
Otgaar H, Sauerland M, Petrila JP. Novel shifts in memory research and their impact on the legal process: introduction to the special issue on memory formation and suggestibility in the legal process. Behavioral sciences & the law. 2013 Sep;31(5):531-40.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2095
Lipton JP. On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1977 Feb;62(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.1.90 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.62.1.90
Dunning D, Stern LB. Examining the generality of eyewitness hypermnesia: A close look at time delay and question type. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1992 Dec;6(7):643-57.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350060707 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350060707
LaPaglia JA, Chan JC. Telling a good story: The effects of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility. PloS one. 2019 Feb 21;14(2): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212592 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212592
Gudjonsson GH. A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and individual differences. 1984 Jan 1;5(3):303-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(84)90069-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(84)90069-2
Gudjonsson GH, Clark NK. Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behaviour. 1986 Dec.
Loftus EF, Palmer JC. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 1974 Oct 1;13(5):585-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
Christiaansen RE, Ochalek K. Editing misleading information from memory: Evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information. Memory & Cognition. 1983 Sep;11(5):467-75. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196983 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196983
Paz-Alonso PM, Goodman GS. Trauma and memory: Effects of post-event misinformation, retrieval order, and retention interval. Memory. 2008 Jan 1;16(1):58-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701363146 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701363146
Aydin C, Ceci SJ. The role of culture and language in avoiding misinformation: Pilot findings. Behavioral sciences & the law. 2013 Sep;31(5):559-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2077
Semmler C, Brewer N, Wells GL. Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004 Apr;89(2):334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.334 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.334
24.Wells GL, Bradfield AL. " Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1998 Jun;83(3):360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.83.3.360
Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K, Wright DB. Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2004 Sep;9(2):215-27. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428
Gudjonsson GH. The Gudjonsson suggestibility scales manual. Psychology Press. 1997.
Gudjonsson GH. The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
Bianco A, Curci A. Measuring interrogative suggestibility with the Italian version of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS): Factor structure and discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015 Aug 1;82:258-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.035
Pires R, Silva DR, Ferreira AS. Portuguese adaptation of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS1 and GSS2): Empirical findings. Personality and Individual Differences. 2013 Jan 1;54(2):251-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.008
Polczyk R. Interrogative suggestibility: Cross-cultural stability of psychometric and correlational properties of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005 Jan 1;38(1):177-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.018
Wachi T, Watanabe K, Yokota K, Otsuka Y, Hirama K. Comparison between Japanese online and standard administrations of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 and effects of post‐warning. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2019 Feb;24(1):71-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12147
Merckelbach H, Muris P, Wessel I, Van Koppen PJ. The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS): Further data on its reliability, validity, and metacognition correlates. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal. 1998 Jan 1;26(2):203-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1998.26.2.203
Gudjonsson GH. Suggestibility and compliance among alleged false confessors and resisters in criminal trials. Medicine, Science and the Law. 1991 Apr;31(2):147-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002580249103100210
Frumkin IB, Lally SJ, Sexton JE. A United States forensic sample for the Gudjonsson suggestibility scales. Behavioral sciences & the law. 2012 Nov;30(6):749-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2032
Sigurdsson JF, Gudjonsson GH. The psychological characteristics of ‘false confessors’. A study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Personality and Individual Differences. 1996 Mar 1;20(3):321-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00184-0
Wolfradt U, Meyer T. Interrogative suggestibility, anxiety and dissociation among anxious patients and normal controls. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998 Sep 1;25(3):425-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00023-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00023-3
Gudjonsson GH. Interrogative suggestibility and compliance. Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications. 2013 Jan 14:45-61ü- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118432907.ch3
Bain SA, Baxter JS, Ballantyne K. Self-monitoring style and levels of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007 Mar 1;42(4):623-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.021
Drake KE. Interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity, neuroticism, and compliance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010 Mar 1;48(4):493-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.030
Merckelbach H, Muris P, Rassin E, Horselenberg R. Dissociative experiences and interrogative suggestibility in college students. Personality and individual differences. 2000 Dec 1;29(6):1133-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00260-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00260-3
Drake K, Bull R. Individual differences in interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity and field dependence. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2011 Oct 1;17(8):677-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903511967
Gudjonsson GH. Suggestibility, intelligence, memory recall and personality: An experimental study. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 1983 Jan;142(1):35-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.142.1.35
Liebman JI, McKinley-Pace MJ, Leonard AM, Sheesley LA, Gallant CL, Renkey ME, Lehman EB. Cognitive and psychosocial correlates of adults' eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002 Jul 5;33(1):49-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00135-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00135-0
Nurmoja M, Bachmann T. On the role of trait-related characteristics in interrogative suggestibility: an example from Estonia; pp. 371–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2008.4.01
Muris P, Meesters C, Merckelbach H. Correlates of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale in delinquent adolescents. Psychological reports. 2004 Feb;94(1):264-6. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.1.264-266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.1.264-266
Sharrock R, Gudjonsson GH. Intelligence, previous convictions and interrogative suggestibility: A path analysis of alleged false‐confession cases. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1993 May;32(2):169-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1993.tb01041.x
Singh KK, Gudjonsson GH. Interrogative suggestibility among adolescent boys and its relationship with intelligence, memory, and cognitive set. Journal of Adolescence. 1992 Jun 1;15(2):155-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1971(92)90044-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1971(92)90044-6
Clare IC, Gudjonsson GH, Rutter SC, Cross P. The inter‐rater reliability of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Form 2). British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1994 Sep;33(3):357-65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01132.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01132.x
Gignac GE, Powell MB. A psychometric evaluation of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales: Problems associated with measuring suggestibility as a difference score composite. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009 Jan 1;46(2):88-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.007
Singh K, Gudjonsson GH. The internal consistency of the “shift” factor on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 1987 Jan 1;8(2):265-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90183-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90183-8
Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR. The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British journal of clinical psychology. 1982 Feb;21(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x
Şenkal İ, Palabıyıkoğlu NR, Bakar EE, Çandar T, Ekinci EB, Bozoğlu EF, Çeltikçioğlu G. Bilişsel Hatalar Ölçeği İle Subjektif Bellek Yakınmaları Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Versiyonlarının Psikometrik Özellikleri.
Gilbert P, Allan S. Assertiveness, submissive behaviour and social comparison. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1994 Sep;33(3):295-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01125.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01125.x
Savaşır I, Şahin NH, editors. Bilişsel-davranışçı terapilerde değerlendirme: Sık kullanılan ölçekler. Türk Psikologlar Derneği; 1997.
Frischholz EJ, Braun BG, Sachs RG, Hopkins L. The Dissociative Experiences Scale: Further replication and validation. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders. 1990 Sep.
Yargic LI, Tutkun H, Sar V. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Dissociative Experiences Scale. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders. 1995 Mar.
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online. 2003 May 25;8(2):23-74.
Gudjonsson GH. Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual differences. 1989 Jan 1;10(5):535-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90035-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90035-4
Gutchess AH, Schwartz AJ, Boduroğlu A. The influence of culture on memory. In International Conference on Foundations of Augmented Cognition 2011 Jul 9 (pp. 67-76). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21852-1_9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21852-1_9
Wagar BM, Cohen D. Culture, memory, and the self: An analysis of the personal and collective self in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2003 Sep 1;39(5):468-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00021-0
Wang, Q. and Ross, M., 2005. What we remember and what we tell: The effects of culture and self-priming on memory representations and narratives. Memory, 13(6), pp.594-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210444000223
Anakwah N, Horselenberg R, Hope L, Amankwah‐Poku M, Van Koppen PJ. Cross‐cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2020 Mar;34(2):504-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3637
Anakwah N, Horselenberg R, Hope L, Amankwah‐Poku M, van Koppen PJ. The acculturation effect and eyewitness memory reports among migrants. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2020 Sep;25(2):237-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12179
Krauss DA, Lieberman JD. Psychological and Cultural Aspects of Interrogations and False Confessions: Using Research to Inform Legal Decision-Making. In Psychological Expertise in Court 2016 Apr 15 (pp. 47-78). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315602813-8
Gudjonsson GH. A parallel form of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1987 Sep;26(3):215-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1987.tb01348.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1987.tb01348.x
Zaragoza MS. Memory, suggestibility, and eyewitness testimony in children and adults. In Children’s eyewitness memory 1987 (pp. 53-78). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6338-5_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6338-5_4
Warren AR, Lane P. Effects of timing and type of questioning on eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. In Memory and testimony in the child witness 1995 (pp.44-60). Sage Publications
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The Bulletin of Legal Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Journal and content of this website is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open access article, as long as the author is properly attributed.
