China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Questioning autistic people
Published in Nichola Tyler, Anne Sheeran, Working with Autistic People in the Criminal Justice and Forensic Mental Health Systems, 2022
Michelle Mattison, Clare Allely
Compliance and suggestibility are two important factors to consider in the context of the criminal justice system. While both factors are related, there are important distinctions to note. Compliance refers to the tendency of an individual to outwardly agree or assent to propositions while internally disagreeing. Alternatively, suggestibility refers to an individual’s internal acceptance of information, particularly when recalling information. This definition refers to suggestibility more generally, rather than investigative suggestibility. Within a forensic context, such as an investigative interview context, suggestibility is a potential vulnerability during questioning. For instance, an individual who is significantly suggestible may be vulnerable to leading questions and interrogative pressure (e.g., Gudjonsson, 2018).
Making an accurate assessment
Published in Helen Taylor, Ian Stuart-Hamilton, Assessing the Nursing and Care Needs of Older Adults, 2021
There is also evidence that memories are vulnerable to ‘suggestibility’,25 with leading evidence distorting the recall of the event. An example of this would be if a nurse was specifically asked how many times a patient had experienced episodes of incontinence that day, and this then induced recollections of episodes that did not actually occur. It could even be said that the wording of descriptors in assessment tools might have a suggestive effect on the nurse’s memories of that patient, evoking recollections which would not have been made if the nurse had not been asked that question. For example, if a nurse is asked whether a patient has ever demonstrated aggressive behaviour, they might think, ‘Well, now you come to mention it… the other day, he did get a bit upset. Was that aggression? I suppose it could be in a way’.
Hypnosis
Published in Eli Ilana, Oral Psychophysiology, 2020
Rapport — The rapport between patient and hypnotist tends to prevent the subject from responding to any stimuli other than those arising from the hypnotist. This causes the subject to respond more effectively to suggestions from the hypnotist than from others. The increased rapport, and the patient’s heightened suggestibility, are used to elicit the desired responses, such as muscular relaxation, hypoalgesia, etc.
Clinical hypnosis as a nondeceptive placebo: empirically derived techniques
Published in American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 2023
The clinician can begin assessing suggestibility by administering one or two very easy suggestions prior to the induction. The Chevreul-pendulum illusion is ideal for this purpose (see Kirsch, 1993, for a detailed description of the procedure). It is easily accomplished by most clients, yet is impressive enough to provide striking experiential confirmation of the power of suggestion. The main purposes of administering easy prehypnotic suggestions are to enhance response expectations and to convey the notion that hypnotic responses are under the control of the client rather than of the therapist. At the same time, clients who have great difficulty getting the pendulum going are likely to be relatively unresponsive to more difficult hypnotic suggestions. Hypnosis might still be used with these clients, but ideomotor and challenge suggestions should be avoided.
Individual Differences in Children’s Suggestibility: An Updated Review
Published in Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2020
J. Zoe Klemfuss, Alma P. Olaguez
In Bruck and Melnyk’s review, the authors provided direction for the burgeoning field of individual differences in suggestibility, pointing out that “although not entirely consistent, there are indeed some concepts and skills that may mirror underlying mechanisms of suggestibility in childhood and deserve future study” (p. 949). The present review addresses the extent to which this call has been answered. However, Bruck and Melnyk also concluded that the only individual difference informative to forensic practice was intellectual impairment. At the time, the body of literature had not identified any other individual differences with sufficiently robust relations with suggestibility. A second goal of the present review was to revisit this question and assess whether we can offer additional guidance to forensic practitioners regarding which characteristics may make children most susceptible to suggestive influence.
HYPNOTIC RESPONSIVENESS AND NONHYPNOTIC SUGGESTIBILITY: DISPARATE, SIMILAR, OR THE SAME?
Published in International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 2020
Anthony F. Tasso, Nicole A. Pérez, Mark Moore, Robert Griffo, Michael R. Nash
Yet, it has been more than 50 years since concerted attempts have been made to determine if specific methods of suggestion hold together via factor analytic methodologies. Are there different kinds of suggestibility? Is suggestibility a single attribute (i.e., “g” factor), or many? If the latter, how many? Further, the six prior factor analytic studies offer only modest clues as to what the structure of suggestibility might be (Benton & Bandura, 1953; Duke, 1963; Eysenck & Furneaux, 1945; Grimes, 1948; Hammer, Evans, & Bartlett, 1963; Stukát, 1958). Given the frequency with which contemporary psychology is leaning on the constructs of suggestion and suggestibility and the more powerful statistical tools now available to explore the structure of a construct, the present study sought to undertake a fresh empirical look to determine if suggestibility is multifactored and singularly factored or if each method of suggestion is completely unique.