To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestibility is the quality of being inclined to accept and act on the suggestions of others. One may fill in gaps in certain memories with false information given by another when recalling a scenario or moment. Suggestibility uses cues to distort recollection: when the subject has been persistently told something about a past event, his or her memory of the event conforms to the repeated message.[1]

A person experiencing intense emotions tends to be more receptive to ideas and therefore more suggestible. Generally, suggestibility decreases as age increases. However, psychologists have found that individual levels of self-esteem and assertiveness can make some people more suggestible than others; this finding led to the concept of a spectrum of suggestibility.[2]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    2 572
    17 484
    103 524
    22 203
    2 770
  • ✪ Memory Failures 2: Misattribution, Suggestibility, Bias, & Persistence (Intro Psych Tutorial #75)
  • ✪ "Suggestibility" - Watch Dr. Lorandos as an Expert Witness - NBC TV
  • ✪ What is your hypnotic suggestibility? Take the test to find out!
  • ✪ HMI Shortcuts - Hypnosis 101 Finger Spread Demo Suggestibility Test with John Melton
  • ✪ "Suggestibility" - An Expert Witness Demonstration by Dr. Lorandos


Hi, I'm Michael Corayer and this is Psych Exam Review. In this video we're going to continue looking at our list of the seven sins of memory; these memory failures and we'll continue by looking at misattribution. So this is the idea that we have a memory and the memory may be accurate but we incorrectly identify where that memory came from. This demonstrates we have fairly poor source memory. We don't usually remember where our memories come from. You've probably experienced this if you start telling your friend a story and you say "Hey did you hear that such-and-such happened?" and they say "yes I'm the one who told you that story yesterday". So you have a memory for the story you just don't remember where that memory came from. Now this could also happen if you have some factual knowledge that you tell someone and they say "wow that's really interesting, where did you learn that?" and then you say "oh I don't know if I read it in a blog post or maybe it was in a YouTube video I watched or a documentary that I saw maybe it was in the newspaper". Suddenly you can't recall where that information came from. Now this can be a real problem when it comes to things like eyewitness testimony because people might have a memory related to a crime but they might misattribute it. They might recognize a face and they might misattribute that to being the perpetrator of a crime when in fact it's the face of an innocent bystander who was also at the scene. A famous example of this comes from an Australian man named Donald Thomson who was accused of rape and Thomson had a perfect alibi in that he couldn't have committed the crime because at the time he was filming a live TV broadcast. Now it turns out what happened was the woman who was attacked had been watching this program so she recognized Thomson's face and she misattributed that to being the face of her attacker. The real irony of this story comes from the fact that this TV broadcast that Thomson was doing, Thompson is a psychologist, and he was actually talking about the reliability of eyewitness memory. Another way that misattribution can occur is that we can have false recognition. This refers to the idea that we think we recognize something when in fact we don't. The idea is that it's a new stimulus but it's similar to an old stimulus that we've already seen, so we think that we recognize it. You may have had this happen if you meet a person and feel like "I really feel like we've met before, I feel like I recognize you, but I don't know how we may have met before" and it could be the case that that person just looks very similar to somebody that you've met before and so you feel like you have a memory for their face when in fact it's actually a new face that you haven't seen before. Now this has been proposed as a way of explaining the occurrence of deja vu. Deja vu is this experience where you feel like you've lived an experience already. You've already done this or experienced this thing and it's kind of this eerie feeling when it's occurring. One proposed theory of this is that it's an example of false recognition is that what you're currently experiencing is very similar to something you've already experienced and so you think it's the same right you seem to recognize it it feels like you've done it before when in fact it's new you haven't done before you've just done something similar. You've had a similar situation. Now we also have sort of the opposite situation where we have what we think is a new idea but it turns out it's a memory of an old idea. This is called cryptomnesia. In this case we have what we think is an original idea but it's actually a memory. This can be a real problem for people like writers and musicians right? So a writer might think "wow, this is a really genius turn of phrase that I've come up with here in this sentence" and it turns out actually somebody else came up with that turn of phrase first and the writer is actually just remembering it but they don't realize that they remember it. They think it's an original idea. Or a musician might be writing a song and have some element in the music that they think is this great original idea and it turns up it's actually already existing. It's something they've heard before they just don't that they've heard it before. All right, so this can lead to this inadvertent plagiarism where a writer or a musician copies an existing song or an existing phrase or something like this and they don't realize that they're doing this. It's an accident and this would be an example of cryptomnesia. Ok, so that's misattribution. The next memory failure that we have is suggestibility and this relates to the idea that our memories are malleable. Which means that external information that's not part of a memory can actually change that memory. Our memory is being influenced by external info, influences a memory. It's being influenced by these other events that weren't part of the memory but they can cause the memory to change.One of the most famous examples of this comes from a study by Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer and what Loftus and Palmer did was they had participants watch a video and in the video they saw a car crash. After they watched the video they were asked a lot of questions about this car crash and one of the questions that they were asked was to think about when the cars "smashed" into each other or when they "hit" each other. What Loftus and Palmer found is that the participants who were asked about the cars smashing into each other gave higher estimates of speed. So they're asking how fast you think the cars were going when they smashed into each other versus the participants who were asked how fast the car was going when they hit each other tended to give lower speed estimates and they showed that this external information, this framing of the question, was influencing their memory of what happened. It was changing how fast they thought the cars were going. Now in a follow-up to this a week later, they're also asked if they remembered seeing any broken glass in the video and the video did not contain any broken glass, but the people who had previously been asked about smashing a week earlier, they were more likely to say that they remembered seeing broken glass. Whereas the people who heard the word hit in the previous question were less likely to say that they remembered seeing broken glass. This shows that these questions can influence the memory. They can shape it, they can change it. This brings up the idea that our memories are reconstructions. They're not recordings and I said this in an earlier video. It's idea that we don't record events the way that a computer stores information or a video camera records something. Instead it's an active process and each time we recall a memory there's a chance that new external information is going to influence it and change it. So our memories are reconstructions of events, they're not recordings and this is really important again, for ideas like eyewitness testimony. The fact is that the questions, let's say a police officer asks a witness after the event, can influence that witness's memory of the event and so we have to be really careful with how much we can trust these types of reports. We also have to be careful how the questions that we ask or the way that we get somebody to recall a memory could actually change that memory. Another example is that is that we can actually implant memories. So another study by Elizabeth Loftus came from where she asked participants to recall an experience and she asked them about recalling whether they had been lost in the mall as a child. So what happened was people started recalling this event and they started thinking about, you know, all sorts of things, adding all sorts of details about what happened, and you know this "there was a guy with a blue shirt who came and found me and I was crying and they announced my mom's name over the loudspeaker in the store to get her to come find me" and you know this was an event that was made up. Loftus had interviewed parents or other family members and essentially ascertained that this event didn't occur but then she gave these participants just enough detail to make them think that it happened and they sort of reconstructed this whole event. Several of them, about a quarter of the participants, became convinced that this really had happened to them. They really thought they had a vivid, accurate memory of this event that had actually never occurred. Ok, so the next failure that we'll look at is bias and this is our memory is biased and there's a number of different types of bias that can occur to our memory. So we won't go into all of these types but some of the types of bias that we see regularly in memory, one of them is egocentric bias and this is the idea that we tend to recall good things about ourselves, times when we've done well, times we've been successful. We tend to forget our failures so we're egocentric in this way where we recall the positives and we tend to forget the negatives. One way of looking at this, one study on egocentric bias looked at college students and asked them to remember their high school transcripts. Try to remember all the grades for all of your classes in high school. Turns out people tend to recall the good grades pretty well. "Okay I remember getting an A in this class and I remember getting an a-minus in this class" or something like that and they tended to forget the lower grades. So the times where they got a C are quickly forgotten. Times they got an A were easier to remember. So this is an example of egocentric bias. We also have what's called consistency bias. Consistency bias is the idea that we tend to think that we're more consistent than we actually are. In other words we think our present is more like our past than it actually is. So we tend to think that the way that we think now, the views that we have, we tend to think we've been consistent all along. We don't recognize how much that has changed over time and I think "oh yeah, I know I pretty much always thought this way" or "I pretty much always had this opinion" when in fact you probably didn't but you tend to remember it that way. Ok and the last memory failure that we'll look at, I'll make some more space here, is persistence. Persistence refers to when memories are repeatedly recalled and this usually refers to traumatic negative emotional memories. So people who have experienced some trauma may be unable to stop these memories from coming to mind. These memories keep coming back to them. This is seen in disorders like PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, and in this case it's often referred to as flashbacks. The person has, their life is being disrupted by these negative memories and they're triggered and the person can't seem to stop the triggering of these memories. They can't stop recalling them and this is something we'll go into a little more detail in the next video when we look at the relationship between emotion and memory. Okay I hope you found this helpful, if so, please like the video and subscribe to the channel for more. Thanks for watching!



Attempts to isolate a global trait of "suggestibility" have not been successful, due to an inability of the available testing procedures to distinguish measurable differences between the following distinct types of "suggestibility":[3]

  • To be affected by a communication or expectation such that certain responses are overtly enacted, or subjectively experienced, without volition, as in automatism.
  • Deliberately to use one's imagination or employ strategies to bring about effects (even if interpreted, eventually, as involuntary) in response to a communication or expectation.
  • To accept what people say consciously, but uncritically, and to believe or privately accept what is said.
  • To conform overtly to expectations or the views of others, without the appropriate private acceptance or experience; that is, to exhibit behavioral compliance without private acceptance or belief.

Wagstaff's view is that, because "a true response to [a hypnotic] suggestion is not a response brought about at any stage by volition,[a] but rather a true non-volitional response, [and] perhaps even brought about despite volition",[3] the first category really embodies the true domain of hypnotic suggestibility.

Self-report measures of suggestibility became available in 2004, and they made it possible to isolate and study the global trait.[5]


Suggestibility can be seen in people's day-to-day lives:

  • Someone witnesses an argument after school. When later asked about the "huge fight" that occurred, he recalls the memory, but unknowingly distorts it with exaggerated fabrications, because he now thinks of the event as a "huge fight" instead of a simple argument.
  • Children are told by their parents they're good singers, so from then on they believe they are talented while their parents were in fact being falsely encouraging.
  • A teacher could trick his AP Psych students by saying, "Suggestibility is the distortion of memory through suggestion or misinformation, right?" It's likely that the majority of the class would agree with him because he's a teacher and what he said sounds correct. However, the term is really the misinformation effect.

However, suggestibility can also be seen in extremes, resulting in negative consequences:

  • A witness' testimony is altered because the police or attorneys make suggestions during the interview, which causes their already uncertain observations to become distorted memories.
  • A young girl began suffering migraines which led to sleep deprivation and depression. Her therapist, who was a specialist in cases involving child abuse, repeatedly asked her whether her father had sexually abused her. This suggestion caused the young girl to fabricate memories of her father molesting her, which led to her being placed in foster care and her father being tried on charges of abuse.[1]


Hypnotic suggestibility is a trait-like, individual difference variable reflecting the general tendency to respond to hypnosis and hypnotic suggestions. Research with standardized measures of hypnotic suggestibility has demonstrated that there are substantial individual differences in this variable.[6]

The extent to which a subject may or may not be "suggestible" has significant ramifications in the scientific research of hypnosis and its associated phenomena. Most hypnotherapists and academics in this field of research work from the premise that hypnotic susceptibility (or suggestibility) is a factor in inducing useful hypnosis states. That is, the depth of hypnosis a given individual can achieve in a given context with a particular hypnotherapist and particular set of beliefs, expectations and instructions.[citation needed]

Dr. John Kappas (1925–2002) identified three different types of suggestibility in his lifetime that have improved hypnosis:

Emotional suggestibility – A suggestible behavior characterized by a high degree of responsiveness to inferred suggestions that affect emotions and restrict physical body responses; usually associated with hypnoidal depth. Thus the emotional suggestible learns more by inference than by direct, literal suggestions.

Physical suggestibility – A suggestible behavior characterized by a high degree of responsiveness to literal suggestions affecting the body, and restriction of emotional responses; usually associated with cataleptic stages or deeper.

Intellectual suggestibility – The type of hypnotic suggestibility in which a subject fears being controlled by the operator and is constantly trying to analyze, reject or rationalize everything the operator says. With this type of subject the operator must give logical explanations for every suggestion and must allow the subject to feel that he is doing the hypnotizing himself.

However, it is not clear or agreed what suggestibility (i.e., the factor on hypnosis) actually is. It is both the indisputable variable and the factor most difficult to measure or control.

What has not been agreed on is whether suggestibility is:

  • a permanent fixed detail of character or personality;
  • a genetic or chemical psychiatric tendency;
  • a precursor to or symptom of an activation of such a tendency;
  • a learned skill or acquired habit;
  • synonymous with the function of learning;
  • a neutral, unavoidable consequence of language acquisition and empathy;
  • a biased terminology provoking one to resist new externally introduced ideas or perspectives;
  • a mutual symbiotic relation to the Other, such as the African conception of uBunthu or Ubuntu;
  • related to the capacity of empathy and communication;
  • a matter of concordant personal taste between speaker / hypnotist and listener and listener's like of / use for speaker's ideas;
  • a skill or a flaw or something neutral and universal.

Conceptually, hypnotizability has always been defined as the increase in suggestibility produced by hypnosis. In practice, hypnotizability is measured as suggestibility following a hypnotic induction. The data indicates that these are different constructs. Although the induction of hypnosis increases suggestibility to a substantial degree, the correlation between hypnotic and non hypnotic suggestibility approximates the reliability coefficients of so-called hypnotizability scales. This indicates that hypnotic susceptibility scales are better measures of waking suggestibility than they are of hypnotizability.[7]

Existing research into the phenomena of hypnosis is extensive and randomized controlled trials predominantly support the efficacy and legitimacy of hypnotherapy, but without a clearly defined concept of the entity or aspect being studied, the level an individual is objectively "suggestible" cannot be measured empirically. It makes exact therapeutic outcomes impossible to forecast.[citation needed]

Moreover, it logically hinders the development of non-bespoke hypnotherapy protocol. On this latter point, it must be pointed out that while some persuasion methods are more universally effective than others, the most reliably effective method with individuals is to personalize the approach by first examining their motivational, learning, behavioral and emotional styles (et al.). Few hypnotherapists do not take a case history, or story so far, from the clients they will be working with.[citation needed]


The intrigue of differences in individual suggestibility even crops up in the early Greek philosophers. Aristotle had an unconcerned approach:

The most intelligent minds are those that can entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.

— Aristotle


This perhaps is a more accurate echo of the experience of practicing hypnotherapists and hypnotists. When anyone is absorbed in someone else's inspiring words as they outline an idea or way of thinking, the subjective attention is held because of the logic, the aesthetic, and the relevance of the words to one's own personal experience and motivations. In these natural trance states, like those orchestrated purposefully by a hypnotherapist, the 'critical faculties' are naturally less active when there is less to be naturally critical of.

It is perhaps the "necessarily believing it" that is problematic, as this conception of suggestibility raises issues of the autonomy of attributing belief to an introduced idea, and how this happens.[9]


Popular media and layman's articles occasionally use the terms "suggestible" and "susceptible" interchangeably, with reference to the extent to which a given individual responds to incoming suggestions from another. The two terms are not synonymous, however, as the latter term carries inherent negative bias absent from the neutral psychological factor described by "suggestibility".

In scientific research and academic literature on hypnosis and hypnotherapy, the term "suggestibility" describes a neutral psychological and possibly physiological state or phenomena. This is distinct from the culturally biased common parlance of the term "suggestible". Both terms are often bound with undeserved negative social connotations not inherent in the word meanings themselves.

To be suggestible is not to be gullible. The latter pertains to an empirical objective fact that can be shown accurate or inaccurate to any observer; the former term does not. To be open to suggestion has no bearing on the accuracy of any incoming suggestions, nor whether such an objective accuracy is possible (as is with metaphysical belief).

Some therapists may examine worries or objections to suggestibility before proceeding with therapy: this is because some believe there is a rational or learned deliberate will to hold a belief, even in the case of more convincing new ideas, when there is a compelling cognitive reason not to 'allow oneself' to be persuaded. Perhaps this can be seen in historical cases of mass hypnosis where also there has been media suppression. In the individual, unexamined actions are sometimes described by hypno- and psycho-therapists based on outgrown belief systems.

The term "susceptible" implies weakness or some increased danger that one is more likely to become victim to and must guard against. It therefore has a negative effect on expectation and itself is a hypnotic suggestion that suggestions must be noticed and guarded against. Hypnotic suggestions include terms, phrases, or whole concepts where to understand the concept includes making sense of a subjective sensation, or a framework for the appropriate response.... simple one-word forms of this include the word terrorism where to understand the concept, one must understand the notion of terror and then understand in the sentence that it is meant to refer to "that" given object.

Language acquisition

Cognition of a phrase must occur before the decision how to act next can occur: because the concepts must exist before the mind. Either they are suggested from the mind itself, or in response to introduced suggestions of concepts from outside – the world and its scenarios and facts, or suggestions from other people.

A suggestion may direct the thoughts to notice a new concept, focus on a specific area within the world, offer new perspectives that later may influence action-choices, offer triggers for automatic behavior (such as returning a smile), or indicate specific action types. In hypnotherapy the portrayed realistic experience of the client's requested outcome is suggested with flattery or urgency, as well as personalized to the client's own motivations, drives, and tastes.

Common experience of suggestions

Suggestions are not necessarily verbal, spoken, or read. A smile, a glare, a wink, a three-piece suit, a scientist's white coat, are all suggestive devices that imply more than the immediate action. A hypnotist uses techniques that use these instinctive "fillings-in of gaps" and changes to how we respond to a scenario or moment. In the therapy setting, a hypnotist or hypnotherapist will likely evaluate these automatic cognitive leaps, or dogma, or any self-limiting or self-sabotaging beliefs.

Being under the influence of suggestion can be characterized as exhibiting behavioral compliance without private acceptance or belief. That is, actions being inconsistent with one's own volition and belief system and natural unhindered action-motivations. This could hinder the autonomy, expression or self-determination of an individual. It could equally supersede emotions with rationally chosen, deliberate long-term results.

Experimental vs. clinical

The applications of hypnosis vary widely and investigation of responses to suggestion can be usefully separated into two non-exclusive broad divisions:

  • Experimental hypnosis: the study of "experimental suggestion", of the form:
"What is it that my group of test subjects actually do when I deliver the precise standard suggestion ABC to each of them in the same experimental context?"
(i.e., given a fixed suggestion, what is the outcome?)
  • Clinical hypnosis: the study of clinical suggestion directed at the question:
"What is it that I can possibly say to this particular subject, in this specific context, to generate my goal of having them do XYZ?" (I.e., given a fixed outcome, what is the suggestion?)

Non-state explanations of hypnotic responsiveness

According to some theoretical explanations of hypnotic responses, such as the role-playing theory of Nicholas Spanos, hypnotic subjects do not actually enter a different psychological or physiological state; but, rather, simply acting on social pressure – and, therefore, it is easier for them to comply than to disobey. Whilst this view does not dispute that hypnotized individuals truly experience the suggested effects, it asserts that the mechanism this takes place by has, in part, been "socially constructed" and does not, therefore, require any explanation involving any sort of an "altered state of consciousness".[4]


Children have a developing mind that is constantly being filled with new information from sources all around them. This predisposes children towards higher levels of suggestibility, and as such children are an important area of suggestibility investigation. Researchers have identified key factors, both internal and external, that are strong markers for suggestibility in children.[10]


  • Age: Children have a remarkable ability to remember events in their lives. The real variability between ages in suggestibility is the amount of detail provided for an event. Memory detail will be great for older children. Some younger children may need help recalling past events with the help of an adult.[11] The problem as it relates to suggestibility is when children, and even adults, blend previous knowledge of similar experiences into their recollection of a single event. Children, particularly younger children, are prone to including details that are similar yet unrelated to the specific event showing that the age of a person is critical in their susceptibility to influence.
  • Prior knowledge: As mentioned before, the possession of prior knowledge that relates to an event can be particularly dangerous when dealing with child suggestibility. Prior knowledge, as it relates to suggestibility is the use of past experiences to help reconstruct past or current events. Prior knowledge of an event can actually be effective at producing accurate recall of a particular situation, but can also be equally as effective at producing false memories. Research showed that when presented with a previously familiar situation, children were likely to falsely recall events as if they had happened.
  • Gist extraction: Although children are extremely likely to recall false memories when past events are similar to a current event, they will also recall false memory details that are seemingly unrelated to the event. Researchers named this phenomenon global gist, which is a representation that identifies connections across multiple events. Children will falsely recall information that fits with their representation of the events around them.


  • Interviewer bias: Interviewer bias is the opinion or prejudice on the part of an interviewer, which is displayed during the interview process and thus affects the outcome of the interview. This happens when interviewers pursue only a single hypothesis that supports what they already think, and ignore any details that counter their hypothesis. The goal is not to get the truth, but to simply corroborate what is already believed. Interviewer bias is commonly experienced when extracting information from children.
  • Repeated questions: It has been shown that asking children the same question over and over again in an interview will often cause the child to reverse their first answer, especially in yes or no questions. It is the child's belief that since the question is being repeated that they must have not answered correctly and need to change their answer.[12]
  • Interviewer's tone: Children are extremely perceptive of people's tones, especially in an interview situation. When an interviewer's tone dictates the questioning, a child is likely to construct memories of past events when they actually have no memory of that event. An example would be that when a positive tone is used, it has shown to produce more detailed accounts of events. However, it has also been shown to produce false information intended to appease the interviewer.
  • Peer interactions: Children's accounts of events can be greatly distorted by information from their peers. In some cases, children who were not present for an event will later recall witnessing the event as well as details about the event. This information come from hearing about the event as described by their peers.[13] These children may speak up in order to feel included.
  • Repeating misinformation: Repeating misinformation is simply when an interviewer gives a child incorrect details of an event. This technique is used over several interviews and occurs several times within a single interview. It has been shown to have a great effect on the accuracy of a child's recollection of an event, and eventually, the misinformation will be included in the child's account of a given event.

Extreme events

In extreme events such as sexual abuse, extreme anxiety or mistreatment, children can in fact be greatly subjected to suggestibility. It is possible that a child may recall something that didn't actually happen[14] or they are so traumatized that they do not want to think about what actually happened.

Little research has been carried out into the effects of anxious mood at the time of either the encoding of misleading post‐event information or the time of its possible retrieval, on subsequent suggestibility. Memory accuracy for non‐suggestible items was unaffected by the anxious mood induction. With respect to suggestibility, there was a strong effect of misleading information.[15] This is just one example of how a highly emotional situation such as an anxiety attack can create suggestibility misconception.

Another example of research is that memory, suggestibility, stress arousal, and trauma-related psychopathology were examined in 328 3- to 16-year-olds involved in forensic investigations of abuse and neglect. Children's memory and suggestibility were assessed for a medical examination and venipuncture. Being older and scoring higher in cognitive functioning were related to fewer inaccuracies. In addition, cortisol level and trauma symptoms in children who reported more dissociative tendencies were associated with increased memory error.[16] This again proves how a stressful or traumatic experience in young children can be affected by suggestibility.

Other cases

It is claimed that sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociative identity disorder (DID) are particularly suggestible.[17] While it is true that DID sufferers tend to score to the higher end of the hypnotizability scale, there have not been enough studies done to support the claim of increased suggestibility.[18]

Aspects of crowd dynamics and mob behavior, as well as the phenomenon of groupthink are further examples of suggestibility.[citation needed]

Common examples of suggestible behavior in everyday life include "contagious yawning" (multiple people begin to yawn after observing a person yawning) and the medical student syndrome (a person begins to experience symptoms of an illness after reading or hearing about it). Placebo response is also thought to be based on individual differences in suggestibility, at least in part. Suggestible persons may be more responsive to various forms of alternative health practices that seem to rely upon patient belief in the intervention more than on any known mechanism. Studies of effects of health interventions can be enhanced by controlling for individual differences in suggestibility. A search of the Mental Measurements Yearbook[19] shows no extant psychological test for this personality characteristic. The Gudjonsson suggestibility scale is questionable for this kind of purpose due to its narrow focus. In addition to health-related implications, persons who are highly suggestible may be prone to making poor judgments because they did not process suggestions critically and falling prey to emotion-based advertising.[citation needed]

See also


  1. ^ Subjects participating in hypnotic experiments commonly report that their overt responses to test-suggestions occurred without their active volition. For example, when given a suggestion for arm levitation, hypnotic subjects typically state that the arm rose by itself – they did not feel that they made the arm rise.[4]:510


  1. ^ a b "Psychlopedia – Suggestibility". Retrieved 17 May 2016.
  2. ^ Hooper, Victoria-Rose; Chou, Shihning; Browne, Kevin D. (November 2016). "A systematic review on the relationship between self-esteem and interrogative suggestibility". The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 27 (6): 761–785. doi:10.1080/14789949.2016.1201844. ISSN 1478-9949.
  3. ^ a b Wagstaff GF (1991). "Suggestibility: A social psychological approach". Human suggestibility: Advances in theory, research, and application. Florence, Kentucky: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-415-90215-1.
  4. ^ a b Spanos NP, Barber TX (December 1972). "Cognitive activity during "hypnotic" suggestibility: goal-directed fantasy and the experience of nonvolition". Journal of Personality. 40 (4): 510–24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00077.x. PMID 4642389.
  5. ^ Kotov RI, Bellman SB, Watson DB (2004). "Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS): Brief Manual" (PDF). Stony Brook University Medical Center.
  6. ^ Milling LS (April 2008). "Is high hypnotic suggestibility necessary for successful hypnotic pain intervention?". Current Pain and Headache Reports. 12 (2): 98–102. doi:10.1007/s11916-008-0019-0. PMID 18474188.
  7. ^ Kirsch I (July 1997). "Suggestibility or hypnosis: what do our scales really measure?". The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 45 (3): 212–25. doi:10.1080/00207149708416124. PMID 9204635.
  8. ^ Rock, Hugh (July 2017). "Social Theism: How can the Liberal Idea of God Speak to a Materialist Worldview?". Modern Believing. 58 (3): 253–263. doi:10.3828/mb.2017.19. ISSN 1353-1425.
  9. ^ Eisen, Mitchell L.; Quas, Jodi A.; Goodman, Gail S., eds. (1 September 2001). "Memory and Suggestibility in the Forensic Interview". doi:10.4324/9781410602251. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. ^ Principe GF, Schindewolf E (September 2012). "Natural Conversations as a Source of False Memories in Children: Implications for the Testimony of Young Witnesses". Developmental Review. 32 (3): 205–223. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.003. PMC 3487111. PMID 23129880.
  11. ^ Eisen ML, Goodman GS (December 1998). "Trauma, memory, and suggestibility in children". Development and Psychopathology. 10 (4): 717–38. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001837. PMID 9886223.
  12. ^ Bjorklund DF, Bjorklund BR, Brown RD, Cassel WS (June 1998). "Children's Susceptibility to Repeated Questions: How Misinformation Changes Children's Answers and Their Minds". Applied Developmental Science. 2 (2): 99–111. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0202_4.
  13. ^ Principe GF, Ceci SJ (September 2002). ""I saw it with my own ears": the effects of peer conversations on preschoolers' reports of nonexperienced events". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 83 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00120-0. PMID 12379416.
  14. ^ Milchman MS (April 2008). "Does psychotherapy recover or invent child sexual abuse memories? A case history". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 17 (1): 20–37. doi:10.1080/10538710701884375. PMID 19842316.
  15. ^ Ridley AM, Clifford BR (March 2004). "The effects of anxious mood induction on suggestibility to misleading post-event information". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 18 (2): 233–244. doi:10.1002/acp.963. ISSN 0888-4080.
  16. ^ Eisen ML, Goodman GS, Qin J, Davis S, Crayton J (November 2007). "Maltreated children's memory: accuracy, suggestibility, and psychopathology". Developmental Psychology. 43 (6): 1275–94. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1275. PMID 18020811.
  17. ^ Gillig, Paulette Marie (6 March 2009). "Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controversial Diagnosis". NCBI.
  18. ^ Montgomery, Guy H.; Schnur, Julie B.; David, Daniel (July 2011). "The Impact of Hypnotic Suggestibility In Clinical Care Settings". International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 59 (3): 294–309. doi:10.1080/00207144.2011.570656. ISSN 0020-7144.
  19. ^ Buros, Oscar Krisen, 1905-1978. (1972). The Nineteen forty mental measurements yearbook. Gryphon Press. ISBN 0-910674-13-2. OCLC 222605312.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Further reading

This page was last edited on 8 December 2019, at 19:18
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.