The Relationship between Suggestibility and Self

The Relationship between Suggestibility and Self Abstract This report presents the survey aimed at examining the link between self-monitoring as measured by the Self-monitoring Scale and suggestibility, which is measured by the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS). In this study, it is hypothesized that there is a significant difference in the suggestibility scores between the low and high self-monitoring groups.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on The Relationship between Suggestibility and Self-monitoring specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The study involved 51 participants aged 17-48 years old. The results obtained in this study suggested that there is a significant difference in the suggestibility scores between low and high self-monitors. Furthermore, these findings support previous studies on the same topic. The studies suggest that high self-monitors are more sensitive to interrogative challenges or suggestibility when compared to low self-monitors. Thus, they a re bound to have high suggestibility scores on the GSS than the later. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference in the suggestibility scores between the two groups. Introduction Previous research studies on suggestibility are concerned with investing the factors influencing this psychological concept relative to the results of the two forms of GSS, that is, GSS 1 and 2. Self-monitoring has been identified as the major factor influencing suggestibility in the context of a variety of interviews or interrogations particularly in clinical and forensic interrogative practices (Klein et al., 2004). Very few such studies have been conducted on university students in order to explore any significant differences in suggestibility among the two levels of self-monitoring. However, a variety of studies indicate that there is a strong relationship between suggestibility and self-monitoring such that the later influences the various degrees of suggestibility. According to Bain e t al. (2006), high self-monitors score highly in almost all the four categories of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1 (GSS 1) relative to low self-monitors. Therefore, self-monitoring entails the practice of paying attention to various personal, situational, and social factors during an interrogative exercise that requires strict memory recall. The personal and social prompts include various beliefs and values held by various individuals relative to the society’s concern for the correctness of an individual’s actions. On the other hand, suggestibility refers to the degree to which, an individual in an isolated social context, accepts and comprehends the content of a query, which prompts the subsequent behavioral changes and responses categorized as suggestible or resistant. Therefore, suggestibility is dependent on self-monitoring in many aspects.Advertising Looking for report on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More According to Gudjonsson Clark (1986), self-monitoring is part of the coping mechanisms developed by the interviewee when exposed to various contextual challenges as a result of interrogative suggestibility. The scholars indicate that under interrogative suggestibility, all interviewees have a general apprehension of the situation in relation to the socially acceptable factors affecting an individual’s behavior. In this case, self-monitoring plays a major role in creating a defiant or a gullible behavioral rejoinder to the situational characteristics (Gudjonsson, 2003). In addition, a defiant or negative response to the situation is important in determining the degree of suggestibility in different contexts. The negative response alters any previous feedbacks to a given situation thereby allowing the interviewee to alter their current responses and increase their vulnerability to misinformation during questioning. A recent study investigates the connec tion between self-monitoring and suggestibility relative to the scores obtained on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1 (GSS 1). The survey employs the self-monitoring scale in measuring the degree to which some individuals relate social prompts to certain situations and their susceptibility to misinformation as recorded on the GSS (Gudjonsson, 1997). The study found out that different individuals can be categorized on the basis of self-monitoring into high and low self-monitors. The findings of the study indicate that high self-monitors are more susceptible to misinformation contained on the GSS when compared to low self-monitors. This is attributable to high self-monitors being more sensitive to situational prompts and their influence on the socially acceptable actions rather than the content on the GSS. Consequently, high self-monitors are concerned about the situational demands and the social response to their actions more than misinformation on the GSS. The present research st udy is aimed at investigating the relationship between suggestibility and self-monitoring on undergraduate psychology students. This population has not been studied in the previous surveys on the same topic. Therefore, this study will give a detailed report of a group which has not been studied in a while in relation to self-monitoring and suggestibility. In this survey, it is hypothesized that due to the influence of external social prompts, there is a statistically significant difference in the suggestibility scores between the low and high self-monitors. Method Design The survey involved a single independent variable, which was categorized into two, low and high self-monitoring.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on The Relationship between Suggestibility and Self-monitoring specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Participants Fifty one undergraduate psychology students were voluntarily recruited into the study. This sample population consisted of 11 Males and 40 Females aged 17-48 years (Mean= 23.58, SD= 8.21). Materials Self-monitoring This refers to the practice of paying attention to various situational demands or prompts, which influence the socially acceptable behavioral changes in different individuals under a given complex or challenging situation. In the present survey, self-monitoring was measured by the Revised Self Monitoring Scale (Lennox Wolfe, 1982, p. 1). The scale had 13 tabulated statements and 5 optional answers. In this scale, the participants were required to place an X in the square showing the right answer. Furthermore, the scale comprised of statements such as, â€Å"In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel that something else is called for† and â€Å"I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them† (Lennox and Wolfe, 1982, p. 1). Besides the answers to these statements i ncluded, â€Å"Never,† â€Å"Occasionally,† â€Å"Sometimes,† â€Å"Often,† and â€Å"Always† (Lennox Wolfe, 1982, p. 1). The scale gave a score range of 0-52 in which scores above 30 indicated high self-monitoring and those below 30 indicated low self-monitoring. Suggestibility This entails the various challenges or pressures to which the participants are exposed to during questioning. Therefore suggestibility is the degree to which these challenges are bound to influence behavioral changes in the participants, which indicates whether they are high or low self-monitors (Gudjonsson, 1997). Suggestibility was measured using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, which composed of 20 questions derived from a story that was presented to participants orally (Gudjonsson, 1997). Fifteen of the questions in this scale were leading questions, which had misinformation while the remaining five were true implying that they had no misleading information. The nu mber of suggestive questions answered by an individual indicated the suggestibility score. This scale provided a score range of 0-15 in which higher scores indicated a greater degree of suggestibility. Overall, the equipment used in this survey was a questionnaire, which was employed in two surveys, one involving the written questionnaire and the other involved an oral questionnaire.Advertising Looking for report on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Procedure At the beginning of the survey, the narrative was read to the participants. The participants then filled out a questionnaire on the basic demographic questions and the self-monitoring measures. Subsequently, the participants were asked to answer the 20 questions about the narrative that had been read to them earlier. In order to allow for measurement of the suggestibility scores, the immediate recall procedure was employed. At the end of the experiment, the participants were debriefed about the nature of the study. The self-monitoring scale provided two scores in which a score is given for the wrongly answered suggestive question. High suggestibility scores indicated high self-monitoring while low scores indicated low self-monitoring. On the other hand, the GSS measured the memory recall in which the correct score was awarded for the right answer to the questions about the narrative. This was based on the answers being the same as the original idea or meaning contained in the story. High scores indicated a higher vulnerability to suggestibility while low scores indicated lower sensitivity. Results According to the scoring protocols describes above, 24 participants were categorized as low self-monitors because they scored lowly in both the self-monitoring scale and on the GSS. On the other hand, 27 participants were categorized as high self-monitors because they scored highly in the two scales. The mean score for the low self-monitoring group was 5.1833 (SD= 2.00603) and that of the high self-monitoring group was 8.0370 (1.83410). Moreover, an independent-groups t-test showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the suggestibility scores between the low and high self-monitoring groups, scores (t(49) = 20.17, p 0.001). Consequently, low suggestibility implies that there was a low tendency for the participants who had low suggestibility scores to pay attention to the situational demands while high suggestibility implies that the degr ee of sensitivity to situational demands and perceptions was high among the participants who scored high suggestibility scores (Boon Baxter, 2004). Discussion This study was designed to investigate the relationship between self-monitoring and suggestibility. It was hypothesized that there is a statistically significant difference between the low and high self-monitoring groups. The findings of the study confirmed that the hypothesis was correctly stated. It was noted that the high self-monitors had high suggestibility scores compared to the low self-monitors as shown in fig. 1 below. Fig. 1  Self-monitoring score Group n Mean Standard Deviation Low Self-monitors 24 5.1833 2.00603 High Self-Monitors 27 8.0370 1.83410 t-test score (t (49)= 20.17, p0.001) The results indicate that high self-monitors are more susceptible to the challenges on the GSS, which include leading questions and negative or defiant responses. Studies indicate that paying attention to various situatio nal and social prompts determines whether an individual will provide an impressionable or resistant feedback to a GSS question (Boon Baxter, 2004). Therefore, these individuals tend to treat all the information obtained under different situations relative to the situational and social cues that influence behavioral changes. Additionally, studies indicate that high self-monitors display initial behaviors characterized as being uncertain and success-oriented. Therefore, they are bound to be more attentive to various external social prompts. The findings of the present study support these theories in many aspects. It is evident that high self-monitors experience higher degrees of uncertainty when faced with complex situations that require them to pay attention to the content rather than their perceptions of the situation. Consequently, these individuals fail to notice misinformation because they are unable to recall. This is contrary to the low self-monitoring groups who are attentive to the content rather than the social cues (Boon Baxter, 2004). Despite that the study provides strong evidence showing the link between suggestibility and self-monitoring, a number of limitations are notable. Firstly, the experimental design may not be appropriate in investigating the link between the two concepts. Since the study employed a single independent variable, it is impossible to explore the effect of other external factors on the results obtained. Therefore, inclusion of additional variables would have made the study statistically sound. Secondly, the sample selected may have been inappropriate and biased. Inclusion of an equal number of males and females would have made the study more practical. Future studies should include a different experimental design comprising of both independent and dependent variables in addition to an equal number of males and females. This kind of study can allow the experimenter to assess the effect of other factors on the relationship bet ween self-monitoring and suggestibility. Additional studies are also required to determine whether there are any significant differences between boys and girls relative to the relationship between suggestibility and self-monitoring. Conclusion The report presents the findings of a survey aimed at investigating the link between suggestibility and self-monitoring among 51 undergraduate psychology students. In this study, the self-monitoring scale and the GSS are used to measure the degree of self-monitoring and suggestibility respectively. In this study, it is hypothesized that there is a significant difference in suggestibility scores between the low and high self-monitoring groups. From the discussions above, it is indicated that high self-monitors are more susceptible to suggestibility compared to low self-monitors because they scored highly on the GSS. Therefore, it is evident that there is a significant difference in the suggestibility scores between the two groups.a Reference Li st Bain, S.A., Baxter, J.S. Ballantyne, K. (2007). Self-monitoring style and levels of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 623-630. Boon, J. C. W., Baxter, J. S. (2004). Minimizing extraneous, interviewer-based interrogative suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 229–238. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Manual. Hove: Psychology Press. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: a  Handbook. Chichester: Wiley. Gudjonsson, G. H., Clark, N. K. (1986). Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behavior, 1, 83–104. Klein, O., Snyder, M., Livingston, R. W. (2004). Prejudice on the stage: Self monitoring and the public expression of group attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(2), 299–314. Lennox, R.D. Wolfe, R.N. (1982). Concern for appropriateness as a moderator variable in the statistical expl anation of self-reported use of alcohol and marijuana. Journal of Personality, 53(1), 1-16.

What are the benefits of using simulation to teach nursing Essay

What are the benefits of using simulation to teach nursing - Essay Example Additionally, simulation display actions, conclusion and important opinion through techniques like role playing, use manikins and videos to enhance confidence and clinical skills at multiple levels of nursing practice. There are diverse benefits of using simulation to teach nursing. For instance, simulation training practice enables nursing students develop accuracy in diagnosis and treatment of patients. This helps students to develop their ability to learn and retain knowledge therefore, enhancing patient safety as theoretical and conceptual learning are practically implemented allowing student apply learned concepts. Jeffries (2005) infers that skill performance, critical thinking, satisfaction and knowledge are addressed though simulation and in turn competence among the practicing nursing students is developed. The underpinning factor therefore, is that simulation training offers student opportunities to practice interventions in a safe and sound environments, observe consequences when incorrect conclusion are made and with new developing trends in the nursing profession where time, accuracy and due diligence form the key pillars to service delivery, healthcare providers need better understanding to foster smooth transition to clinical experiences and through simulated practices adaptability to clinical environment is reached as consistent practical approaches are used to engage student (Schmidt & Brown, 2007). Simulation practices are used to challenge and support students develop and learn prioritization, teamwork, delegation, communication and leadership and in so doing transforming clinica l environment by providing institutions with the flexibility to create specific and unique learning experiences not duplicable in real clinical environment. In adapting to simulation as a style to teach nursing several challenges present themselves therefore hindering full adoption of the style by various institutions.

Structuralism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Structuralism - Essay Example The famous structuralists, like, Roman Jakobson, Roland Barthes, Claude Levi Strauss and Ferdinand De Saussure have made their contributions in justifying the fact that "a language speaks us". All of these structuralists have tried to develop the semiology or semiotics. These structuralists always took a language as a sign that reflects the thoughts of human being. The philosophies of structuralism were emerged prominently in the 20th century. The concepts that are provided by the structuralism hold more scope for making criticism. The most of the theories given by the structuralism include a margin of objectivity is the reason of the criticism. This objection is termed as the scientific objection. The structuralists tried to prove that we do not speak a language instead language speaks us. The fact is based on the thoughts that everything is produced as a result of some force or power, but the efforts of humans are not enough to produce anything. This statement has been made as a re sult of giving more attention towards the structures, patterns and the systems. (West, 170, 1996) The theories of structuralists are quite contradictory if they are compared with the theories developed by the humanists. Now, we are going to argue on the models developed for a language by the humanists as well as by the structuralists. The model that was presupposed and developed by the humanists states that the human minds are capable of understanding the real world. The human minds are rational and can get to everything that is seen. In the same manner, the rational human mind is able to portray and define the real world precisely up to some extent. This definition is given by making a use of some languages. The approach developed by the humanists relies on the fact that some of the languages are necessarily used for illustrating the real world. According to humanists, a language is the generation of the human minds. A language is totally generated by the will of human beings and no external force is involved in it. This theory suggests that an individual has the ability to decide what he wants to say. It clearly notifies the fact that we speak a language. It also defines the fact that the human minds are able to think and what to say. The human minds are also capable of understanding the meaning of the matter that has been uttered. No other external force is used by the human minds to speak. At this point, the theory of humanists regarding a language clearly denies the theory of structuralists. Every individual makes the use of a language for explaining the self essence or feelings. The individual here gets more value as in this case an individual represents the subject as well. The way of representing ideas and thoughts is also depending totally on an individual himself. Hence, the model considers the individual as the main element. All the meanings and concepts of a language are the generation of an individual's mind, and he is not being forced by any power to speak. So this theory suggests that we speak a language. (Martinez, 1, 1999) On the other hand, if the argument is made on the structuralists' model of a language that suggests

Ethical and Legal Issues on the Internet Essay Example for Free

Ethical and Legal Issues on the Internet Essay Plagiarism is probably the main concern when it comes to blogging and academic assignments. Should it be our responsibility to minimize plagiarism, yes it is. Academic Integrity helps keep higher learnings foundation strong. That is why it is very important to minimize or even try to eliminate plagiarism. Academic integrity surely includes issues like cheating and plagiarism, copyrights, patents, intellectual property. But it concerns the way in which we present ourselves to the community of which we are a part of. Its the obligation of students, administrators, faculty, and staff, to come together to educate students for personal and social responsibility. Schools offer to the learning community information about academic and research integrity, the responsible conduct of research, and about the ways in which our individual actions have an effect on our participation with, a vibrant and creative academic and social community. Plagiarism, the use of anothers words, ideas, data, or product without  appropriate acknowledgment, such as copying anothers work, presenting someone elses opinions and theories as ones own, or working jointly on a project and then submitting it as ones own. Cheating, the use or attempted use of unauthorized materials such as annotated or instructor editions of the course textbook, information, or study aids; or an act of deceit by which a student attempts to misrepresent academic skills or knowledge. Fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation or invention of any information, such as falsifying research, inventing or exaggerating data, or listing incorrect or fictitious references. There are ways for responsible blogging; as long as people can be ethical and follow them blogging may become more credible. First Bloggers should check their facts before blogging. It is so simple to produce and share content why not make sure it is 100% facts before sharing. Bloggers should respect all copyright laws, people associate online content with public domain content which can get the blogger in hot water. Bloggers should include links to a more detail source of the material that is being written. Giving credit where credit is due is very important in responsible blogging. The blogger should always reference their sources, this practice is important under an ethical point of view, but also give the reader a place to get the main source of facts.

Concepts of Masculinity in Faulkner’s The Unvanquished Essay -- Faulkn

Concepts of Masculinity in Faulkner’s The Unvanquished In The Unvanquished, the reader assumes that the narrator is Bayard Sartoris, a boy born to John Sartoris and his now deceased wife. Bayard's gender is not immediately apparent, though remote understanding of southern customs and common boyhood activities encourages one to guess that he is male. First, Ringo is more easily identified as a black boy, and by the age of twelve, black boys and white girls would likely not be permitted such intimate and unsupervised interaction. Second, the boys' infatuation with "playing war" and the chores which are assigned to them suggest that Bayard is probably male. This conclusion is finally justified for the reader when John discovers that the young lads separated from Miss Rosa. He repeats in frustration, "You damn boys" (63). Although the opening sentence implies that the narrator is looking back to childhood, the person's exact age cannot be determined. The assigned section indicates that Bayard and Ringo were approximately the same age, twelve years old at the beginning of the story ...

My First Day at University

My first day in buic I remember my first day I had wait all the summer to enter the university. I felt excited and at the same time I was very nervous because it was my first day in the university and I didn't know any person. My first day in the university was good and give my love and pain to me. I didn't know how to find my classroom. I was lost and I had to ask one person the easy way to go to there. This person was very nice and told me the right direction. I wouldn't find my classroom I arrived to classroom late. When I walked on, I saw some people and I felt strange.I approached to one girl and asked for the classroom. It’s so lucky when I knew that we were in the same group, so I felt less nervous. I introduced myself and she also did it, her name is tip. We came in the classroom when the time to start classes began. All our classmates were quiet, nobody talked at all. The teacher arrived early. She started the class and after that we introduced ourselves. There were m any people that came from different areas of over country, they were friendly and interested. tip and I sat closely and talked very much. After that, we spent the rest of the day together until we had to go home.We felt that we have many things in common with each other. Day by day, we have been best friends at university and usually helped each other in studies and also in life. At last ,days ago It was a Saturday when I first saw her. Her brown caramel eyes made my heart skip a beat for I had never seen anything so breathtaking. Her skin was a russet color and her hair was a shady black. That first moment when we saw each other is engraved in my head. I can still hear my heart throbbing loudly in my chest as her eyes landed on me in that small room.We stared at each other as she made her way to the seat in front of me and a smile flicked on her lips to seal that moment. It took a year for me to talk to her; we became best friends but nothing more, nothing that I wanted. Her life w as mine, her thoughts were mine, she was my world and she didn't even know. Everyone said that we had something between us, she always laughed because she never notice how I shatter every time she notice someone else, but what really destroyed me was the day she broke the news that she was leaving and maybe never coming back.I am always going to remember that day because I had the opportunity to meet more people ,especially made friend with tip. Finally, I think it is natural that on the first day we feel nervous, but this always have a happy ending. that's why I believe my first day in the university was very good. My love for her is like the waves in the sea, it comes and it goes and She made me cry but she also made me laugh. But she never come back to me forever.

Wesley College Admissions SAT Scores, Financial Aid...