Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

366 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
misleading questions (Yield 1) and how they respond to interrogative pressure
(Shift).
The content making up the GSS 2 narrative is somewhat simpler than that
of the GSS 1. For this reason my colleagues and I preferred to use it for research
with children and persons with mild to moderate learning disabilities (Henry &
Gudjonsson, 1999; Gudjonsson, Murphy & Clare, 2000).
Wolfradt and Meyer (1998), using a German translation of the GSS 2, report
Cronbach’s alpha coefficents of 0.79, 0.78 and 0.81 for Yield 1, Yield 2 and Shift,
respectively.
The finding that Yield 1 and Shift represent different types of suggestibility
has recently been confirmed among 98 young children (3 to 5-year-olds), using
a Video Suggestibility Scale based on the format and procedure of the GSS 1
and GSS 2 (Scullin and Ceci, 2001). Yield 1 and Shift items loaded on different
factors as found previously for adults on GSS 1 and GSS 2. The Cronbach alpha
coefficients for Yield 1 and Shift were 0.85 and 0.75, respectively, which is very
similar to that found for adults.
Confabulation
The mean number of confabulations on the GSS 2 narrative for immediate
and delayed (50 minutes) recall is typically between one and two (Clare &
Gudjonsson, 1995). Four or more confabulations on either immediate or delayed
recall will fall outside the normal range (Gudjonsson, 1997a). Similar norms
have been obtained on the GSS 1 for Icelandic prisoners.
A number of studies have been carried out into confabulation using the GSS
1 and GSS 2 (Clare & Gudjonsson 1993; Clare et al., 1994; Gudjonsson &
Clare, 1995; Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1995, 1996; Howells & Ward, 1994;
Rassin, 2001; Register & Kihlstrom, 1988; Santtila et al., 1999; Sigurdsson &
Gudjonsson, 1996; Sigurdsson et al., 1994; Smith & Gudjonsson, 1986, 1995a,
1995b; Tata & Gudjonsson, 1990).
What is emerging is that confabulation is a less reliable measure than memory
and suggestibility both in terms of poorer inter-rater reliability (Clare et al.,
1994) and being less consistent over time (Tata & Gudjonsson, 1990; Smith &
Gudjonsson, 1995a). In addition, the two types of confabulation—distortions
and fabrications—are poorly correlated and appear to be associated with different
psychological variables (Gudjonsson & Clare, 1995; Smith & Gudjonsson,
1995a; Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1995, 1996). It is therefore probably sensible
for research purposes to treat them as separate and independent measures.
The processes underlying confabulation are probably complex and multifactorial
(Gudjonsson & Clare, 1995). Confabulation is most typically studied
in relation to biological or organic conditions (see e.g. Dalla Barba, 1993) and
pseudomemory associated with hypnosis (Laurence & Perry, 1983; Register &
Kihlstrom, 1988; Sheehan, Green & Truesdale, 1992). Of particular interest to
the present book is the suggestion of Berlyne (1972) that confabulation might be
related to personality factors. In view of this, Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (1995)
investigated in a large group of prison inmates the relationship between confabulation,
as measured by the GSS 1, and a number of personality tests as well as