Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Suggestibility: Empirical Findings 377
suggestibility the fact that both concepts are concerned with information obtained
in response to questions or statements and when in doubt subjects may
give affirmative answers. The main difference between the two concepts is that
with regard to acquiescence the questions are not structured in such a way as
to specifically suggest the wanted or expected answer, which is the case with
suggestibility.
It is conceptually possible to break an acquiescent response into three stages
(Gudjonsson, 1990b). First, the person has to read or listen to the question or
statement. This links acquiescence with such factors as attention, interest,
reading ease and powers of observation. Second, the person has to understand
the words, concepts and meaning of the question. Here conceptual judgements,
comprehension, general knowledge, vocabulary and concept formation
are likely to play an important part. If the question asked is too difficult for the
person to read or to understand then uncertainty or doubt is created, which is
a prerequisite for an acquiescence response to occur (Gudjonsson, 1986). Third,
when subjects are uncertain about how to answer the question they have three
choices of action:
1. they can refuse to give simple yes–no or true–false answers;
2. they can give the answers they consider most plausible;
3. they can guess and give answers at random.
Out of the three available options, option two is most closely associated with
an acquiescent response.
The above conceptual framework views acquiescence as resulting primarily
from cognitive and motivational factors. Finlay and Lyons (in press) have
argued that two additional factors should be added to this framework. First, uncertainty
can arise when the person understands the question or statement but
is uncertain about how to answer it. Second, interviewees may misperceive the
question and respond in the way they perceive it, rather than feeling uncertain
about the question.
Acquiescence can also be construed as a personality trait related to submissiveness
and eagerness to please (Finlay & Lyons, 2001).
How can acquiescence be measured? Finlay and Lyons (2001) describe four
different ways in which acquiescence can be measured: asking nonsense or
absurd questions where the correct answer should be ‘no’, asking pairs of questions
with opposite meaning (item-reversal techniques), using pairs of questions
which ask the same questions in different formats, and comparing self-reports
with those of informants. The best, and most common, way of measuring acquiescence
is by way of an item-reversal technique (Sigelman et al., 1981;
Winkler, Kanouse & Ware, 1982). This consists of employing matched pairs
of logically opposite items or statements. The degree of acquiescence is then
measured by the number of items or statements where the person agrees affirmatively
with both. For example, the statement ‘I am happy most of the time’
is logically opposite to the statement ‘I am sad most of the time’. If the person
answers both statements affirmatively then his response is acquiescent. If
he answers both statements negatively then he is being inconsistent but not
acquiescent.