Individual differences in eyewitness memory and suggestibility: Examining relations between acquiescence, dissociation and resistance to misleading information

Mitchell L. Eisen*, Danielle Y. Morgan, Laura Mickes

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate relations between acquiescence, dissociation, and resistance to misleading information. A total of 111 participants took part in a series of staged events and then completed both the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). The participants returned to the lab 1 week later and were questioned about the details of their experiences during the previous session. As predicted, acquiescence as measured by the True Response Inconsistency Scale (TRIN scale) of the MMPI-2 was found to be significantly related to errors on misleading questions and repeated questions, but was not related to errors on non-suggestive specific and open questions. Scoring on the DES was found not to be related to acquiescence as measured by the TRIN scale, or errors on misleading, specific, or repeated questions. However, pathological dissociation was found to be related to both errors on misleading questions and indiscriminant variable responding as measured by the Variable Response Inconsistency Scale (VRIN scale) of the MMPI-2. These findings add to our developing understanding of factors that contribute to suggestibility in the interrogative context.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)553-571
Number of pages19
JournalPersonality and Individual Differences
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2002

Keywords

  • Acquiescence
  • Dissociation
  • Eyewitness memory
  • Suggestibility

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Individual differences in eyewitness memory and suggestibility: Examining relations between acquiescence, dissociation and resistance to misleading information'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this