Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Suggestibility: Empirical Findings 395
desirability as measured by the EPQ Lie Scale. Similarly low, but significant
correlations, between GSS 1 suggestibility scores and social desirability have
been reported by other authors (Tata, 1983; Haraldsson, 1985). In a large
study of prison inmates, Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (in preparation) found
no significant relationship between the GSS 1 suggestibility scores and the
scores on the Other and Self Deception Questionnaires of Sackeim and Gur
(1979).
As far as compliance is concerned, I found a low but significant relationship
with social desirability in one study (Gudjonsson, 1989c), but in other studies
no relationship with social desirability has been found (Birgisson, 1996;
Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, in preparation).
SUGGESTIBILITY AND COPING STRATEGIES
The Gudjonsson–Clark (1986) model emphasizes the importance of coping
strategies in the suggestion process. The findings from one study strongly support
the view that suggestibility is significantly related to the coping strategies
subjects can generate and implement when faced with the demands of the interrogative
situation.
The study investigated the impact of coping on suggestibility among 30 normal
subjects (Gudjonsson, 1988a). All subjects completed the GSS 1 and were
afterwards asked about the coping strategies they had utilized during the GSS
1 interrogation. The subjects’ descriptions of their coping strategies, both behavioural
and cognitive, were classified according to the ‘methods of coping’
described by Billings and Moos (1981) and Moos and Billings (1982). These fell
into three groups:
1. ‘active–cognitive’ methods (i.e. the subjects try actively to manage their
thoughts and appraisal of the situation);
2. ‘active-behavioural’ methods (i.e. behavioural attempts by the subjects to
deal directly and critically with the situation);
3. ‘avoidance coping’ (i.e. the subjects avoid a critical appraisal of the situation).
It was hypothesized that the ‘avoidance coping’ would be associated with heightened
suggestibility, whereas ‘active–cognitive’ and ‘active–behavioural’ methods
facilitate a critical analysis of, and coping with, the situation and therefore
make the subject more resistant to suggestions.
A highly significant relationship between suggestibility and coping strategies
was found. That is, subjects who reported having utilized ‘avoidance coping’
had much higher suggestibility scores (i.e. Yield 1, Yield 2 and Shift) than the
subjects who had been able to use the active–cognitive/behavioural methods.
A typical coping strategy of a suggestible subject was to give answers that to
them seemed plausible and consistent with the external cues provided rather
than attempting to critically evaluate each question and only giving definitive
(affirmative) answers to questions they could clearly remember. Typical selfstatements
of this group were ‘I gave plausible answers’, ‘I didn’t want to look