Study On Interrogative Suggestibility And Constructing The Model Of Its Effective Factors

Objective:(1) One aim of the study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Gudjosson Suggesitibility Scale (GSS) for the purpose of its applicability in China.(2) The other aim of the study was to explore characteristics of interrogative suggestibility in Chinese undergraduates and influencing factors of interrogative suggestibility, so as to promote the development and application of theory of interrogative suggestibility.Methods:(1) The psychometric study included311undergraduates recruited from Hunan province of China, and124undergraduates participated in the retest reliability assessment after16weeks. Reliability was evaluated by Cronbach’s a coefficients, interratter reliability, test-retest reliability, item-subscale correlations and correlations between factors, while validity was assessed by constructural validity.(2) Total of460undergraduates was recruited from Hunan province of China. They finished the Chinese version of Gudjosson Suggesitibility Scale-2(GSS-2), Life Event Scale (LES), the Autobiographical Memory Test (AMT), the Color-word Stroop Test (CWST), the Backward Masking Test (BMT), the Continuous Performance Test (CPT), the Trail Making Test (TMT), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFM), the Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (GCS), the Dissociative Experiences Scale Ⅱ (DES-Ⅱ), the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS), the Adult Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (ANSIE), the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD), the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), the Stanford Group Hypnotic Suscentibility Scale-Form C (SGHSS:C), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE) and the Symptom Checklist90(SCL-90). t test, variance analysis, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and structural equation modeling were used in data analysis.Results:(1) The Cronbach’s a coefficients of the GSS-1ranged from0.68to0.86; interratter consistency coefficients ranged from0.75to0.99; the test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from0.20to0.90; the correlation coefficients between item and factor ranged from0.26to0.68; the correlation coefficients among factors ranged from0.14to0.81. The factors loadings ranged from0.11to0.70. The REMEA (0.019), NNFI (0.949), CFI (0.952) all met the criteria standards for adequacy of fit.(2) The Cronbach’s a coefficients of the GSS-2ranged from0.62to0.77; interratter consistency coefficients ranged from0.74to0.99; the test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from0.18to0.91; the correlation coefficients between item and factor ranged from0.22to0.59; the correlation coefficients among factors ranged from0.25to0.83. The factors loadings ranged from0.16to0.58. The REMEA (0.007), NNFI (0.987), CFI (0.988) all met the criteria standards for adequacy of fit.(3) All factor scores of GSS of undergraduates in China, UK, Holland and Singapore were not significantly different (P>0.05), while the undergraduates of Estonia gained more the least scores of GSS than the undergraduates of the four countries (P<0.01).(4) The gender differences and the rural-urban differences were not significant in the scores of GSS (P>0.05). The scores of GSS were not related with age (P>0.05). Except the score of Shift, the scores of Yield1and Yield2in the undergraduates of science and technology were more than those in the undergraduates of arts (P<0.05).(5) The factors of GSS were related with the factors of LES, and the factor variations of GSS could be explained by the factors of LES were16.4%～20.5%(P<0.01).(6) The factors of GSS were negatively related with memory, and the factor variations of GSS could be explained by memory were16.5%～20.5%(P<0.01).(7) the factors of GSS were negatively related with the scores of BMT, CPT and TMT-B, and the factor variations of GSS could be explained by these factors of attention were14.2%～35.1%(P<0.01).(8) The factors of GSS were negatively related with the scores of CCTST-E, and their regression equations were significant (P<0.01).(9) The factors of GSS were negatively related with the scores of NEO-N, ANSIE, MCSD, GCS and CCTDI-T, and the factor variations of GSS could be explained by these factors of personality were25.1%～33.5%(P<0.01).(10) The factors of GSS were positively related with the scores of SGHSS, and their regression equations were significant (P<0.01).(11) The factors of GSS were negatively related with the scores of FNE, Somatization of SCL-90 and Photic Anxiety of SCL-90, and the factor variations of GSS could be explained by these three factors were12.6%～19.8%(P<0.01).(12) The scores of Yield2and Shift in the group with habit of drinking (≥2times/week) were more than those in the group without habit of drinking (P<0.05). The group with chronic pain (≥3months) gained more scores of GSS than the group without chronic pain (P<0.05).(13) The structural equation model including the factors of interrogative suggestibility, life events, cognition, personality, emotion and health met the fitting standards:RMSEA=0.068, GFI=0.92, CFI=0.90.Conclusions:(1) The Chinese versions of Gudjosson Suggestibility Scale-1and Gudjosson Suggestibility Scale-2represented satisfactory reliability and validity with promising prospects.(2) Interrogative suggestibility has a certain degree of cross-cultural consistency, but is affected by grade and subject of undergraduates.(3) Life event, cognitive function and personality are the important social and psychological factors of affecting interrogative suggestibility of individual.(4) Fear, chronic pain and behaviour of drinking may also affect interrogative suggestibility in some degree.