Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Suggestibility: Historical and Theoretical Aspects 343
It is important to realize that the studies of Asch and Crutchfield are concerned
with influence in the context of group pressure, whereas obedience research
focuses on how subjects react to pressure from a person in authority.
However, the behaviour of the subject in each setting may be mediated by similar
factors, such as a desire to be liked, eagerness to please, the need to maintain
self-esteem, the need to fulfil role obligations and expectations and avoidance
of conflict and confrontation.
The powerful influence of perceived authority on behaviour has not just been
demonstrated by laboratory studies, such as those of Milgram. For example,
Bickman (1974) studied the effects of uniform on people’s compliance in a natural
social setting. He found that when the experimenter was dressed in a guard’s
uniform 83% of pedestrians obeyed his instruction to give a confederate a ‘dime’
for a parking meter in contrast to 46% when he was dressed in civilian clothing.
Within the field of social psychology the term ‘conformity’ is used to refer
to a change in behaviour or belief as a result of pressure, real or imagined,
from a group or a person (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1970). According to Kiesler and
Kiesler, there are basically two types of conformity, which correspond to the
terms ‘compliance’ and ‘private acceptance’. With regard to compliance, people
behave as others wish them to behave but without their believing in what
they are doing. Kiesler and Kiesler argue that obedience studies, like those
of Milgram, give a good illustration of compliance without private acceptance.
Private acceptance, on the other hand, is more commonly seen in studies into
suggestibility.
REINFORCEMENT AND SUGGESTIBILITY
The effects of prior reinforcement upon suggestibility (see e.g. Kelman, 1950)
has important implications for interrogative suggestibility. The general finding
is that individuals who experience success in a task when they are first
examined tend to be more resistant to subsequent suggestions than those who
experience failure. Such findings can be interpreted both along motivational
(e.g. strength of the anxiety drive) and cognitive (thought processes) lines. The
work of Kelman is particularly supportive of motivational factors in that certain
personality factors (e.g. traits of submissiveness, inferiority feelings, anxiety)
seem to interact with differential reinforcement. Related to this is the work of
Seligman and his colleagues on ‘learned helplessness’ (Abramson, Seligman &
Teasdale, 1978).
SUGGESTIBILITY: A STATE OR A TRAIT?
There is a considerable disagreement in the literature about whether suggestibility
should be viewed as a ‘trait’ or a ‘state’. Implicit in the concept of
suggestibility is the idea that it refers to some stable tendency of the individual
to respond in a particular way to a given situation. Prideaux (1919) viewed suggestibility
as a general trait of the individual. The work of Eysenck (1947) on