바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.25 No.1

Citation Share

한국판 초등아동용 피암시성 척도

Suggestibility Scale for Primary School Children in Korea

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.1, pp.57-75
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.1.004
오영록 (충북대학교)
표지민 (충북대학교)
박광배 (충북대학교)
오영록, 표지민, & 박광배. (2011). 한국판 초등아동용 피암시성 척도. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(1), 57-75, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.1.004

초록

본 연구는 성인의 심문 피암시성(interrogative suggestibility)을 측정하기 위한 GSS(Gudjonsson, 1984, 1987)의 측정 절차와 척도내용을 수정하여, 한국판 초등아동용 피암시성 척도를 개발하고, 그 척도의 신뢰도와 타당도를 검증한것이다. GSS의 측정절차에서 수정이 이루어진 것은 피암시성 측정에 오염을 초래하는 기억 강도의 효과를 최소화하는 절차가 추가된 것이고, 척도내용에서 수정이 이루어진 것은 신뢰롭지 못한 것으로 알려진 심문 피암시성의 하위요인 ‘번복(Shift)’을 제거하고, 그 대신 피암시성의 중요한 측정국면인 오정보 효과를 측정하기 위한 오정보 질문이 추가된 것이다. 57명의 초등학생이 한국판 초등 아동용 피암시성 척도로 측정되었는데, 이들 중 피암시성이 높은 아동들과 낮은 아동들이 타당도 검증을 위해 비디오를 이용한 실험에 참여하였다. 한국판 초등 아동용 피암시성 척도의 내적 일관성 신뢰도(KR20)는 .76 이었고, 타당도 검증을 위한 실험에서 고피암시성 집단이 저피암시성 집단보다 유의하게 더 많은 오류를 보임으로써 타당도가 지지되었다. 피암시성의 이론적 함의와 아동 피해자 및 목격자를 대상으로 이루어지는 범죄 조사 과정에 대한 실질적 함의가 논의되었다.

keywords
피암시성, 아동기, 기억, 취학 연령, GSS, suggestibility, childhood, memory, school age, GSS

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a Suggestibility Scale for Primary School Children in Korea(SS-PSCK) by modifying the procedure and the content of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale(Gudjonsson, 1984, 1987), and to test the convergent validity of the scale. The modification of the measurement procedure included a new procedure implemented to minimize the effect of the strength of memory trace on the suggestibility score. The modification of the scale content involved replacing the Shift subscale, which has been known to be unreliable, with misinformation questions to measure misinformation effect which is one of the most important phenomena suggestive of suggestibility. 57 primary school children were measured with the new scale. And those who obtained high suggestibility scores and low suggestibility scores participated in the experiment designed to test the convergent validity of the scale. The internal consistency reliability(KR20) of the SS-PSCK was 0.76. In the validity experiment, the high suggestibility group made more errors in answering suggestive questions than did the low suggestibility group. The results were discussed for theoretical implications for the construct of suggestibility and practical implications for the investigations of crimes either committed against or witnessed by children.

keywords
피암시성, 아동기, 기억, 취학 연령, GSS, suggestibility, childhood, memory, school age, GSS

참고문헌

1.

교육과학기술부 (2007). 초등학교교육과정해설2. 한솔사.

2.

대검찰청 (2009). 범죄분석. 서울 : 대검찰청.

3.

Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1995).Developmental differences in eyewitnesssuggestibility and memory for source. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 60, 57-83.

4.

Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1998). Memorialconsequences of forced confabulation: Agedifferences in susceptibility to false memories.Developmental Psychology, 34, 1358-1372.

5.

Belli, R. F. (1989). Influences of misleading posteventinformation: Misinformation interference andacceptance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 118, 72-85.

6.

Bereiter, C. (1963). Some persisting dilemmas in themeasurement of change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.),Problems in measuring change (pp. 3-20).Madison, Wisconsin: University of WisconsinPress.

7.

Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Melnyk, L. (1997). Externaland internal sources of variation in the creationof false reports in children. Learning andIndividual Differences, 9, 289-316.

8.

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of thechild witness: A historical review and Synthesis.Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-439.

9.

Clifford, B. R. (1993). Witnessing: a comparison ofadults and children. In Children Evidence andProcedure, Clark, N. K. and Stephenson, G. M.(Eds). Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, No. 20. Leicester: British Psychological Society.

10.

Cohen, R. L., & Harnick, M. A. (1980). Thesusceptibility of child witnesses to suggestion.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 201-210.

11.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and theinternal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,297-334.

12.

Cunningham, J. L. (1988). Contributions to thehistory of psychology: XLVL. The Pioneer workof Alfred Binet on children as eyewitnesses.Psychological Reports, 62, 271-277.

13.

Deffenbacher, K. A. (1989). Forensic facial memory:Time is of the essence. In A. W. Young & H.D. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on FaceProcessing. Amsterdam: Elsevier SciencePublishers.

14.

Eisen, M. L., Winograd, E., & Qin, J. (2002)."Individual differences in adults' suggestibility and memory performance". In Memory &suggestibility in the forensic interview, 205-233. Eisen, M. L., Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S.,eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

15.

Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999).Repetitions, warnings, and video: Cognitive andmotivational components in preschool children'ssuggestibility. Legal and CriminologicalPsychology, 4, 129-146.

16.

Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., &Sanders, J. (2002). Science in the law: social andbehavioral issues. St. Paul, Minn: West Group.

17.

Gignac, G. E., & Powell, M. B. (2009). Apsychometric evaluation of the GudjonssonSuggestibility Scale: Problems associated withmeasuring suggestibility as a difference scorecomposite. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 46, 88-93.

18.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1983). Suggestibility, intelligence,memory recall and personality: An experimentalstudy. The British journal of psychiatry, 142,35-37.

19.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale ofinterrogative suggestibility. Personality andIndividual Differences, 5, 303-314.

20.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1987). A parallel from of theGudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 215-221

21.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1988). The relationship ofintelligence and memory to interrogativesuggestibility: The importance of range effects.The British Psychological Society, 27, 185-187.

22.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). Interrogative suggestibility:factor analysis of the Gudjonsson SuggestibilityScale(GSS2). Personality and IndividualDifferences, 13, 479-481.

23.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clark, N. K. (1986).Suggestibility in police interrogation: A socialpsychological model. Social Behavior, 1, 83-104.

24.

Gudjonsson, G. H., Young, S., & Bramham, J. (2007).Interrogative suggestibility in adult diagnosedwith attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD). A potential vulnerability during policequestioning. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 43, 737-745.

25.

Harris, P., Brown, E., Marriott, C., Whittall, S., &Harmer, S. (1991). Monsters, ghosts and witches:Testing the limits of the fantasy-realitydistinction in young children. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 9, 105-123.

26.

Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure andpresupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior, 13, 530-538.

27.

King, M., & Yuille, J. (1987). Suggestibility and thechild witness. In S. J. Ceci, M. Toglia, & D.Ross (Eds.), Children's Eyewitness Memory.New York: Springer-Verlag.

28.

Liebman, J. I., McKinley-Pace, M. J., Leonard, A.M., Sheesley, L. A., Gallant, C. L., Renkey, M.E., & Lehman, E. B. (2002). Cognitive andpsychosocial correlate of adults' eyewitnessaccuracy and suggestibility. Personality andIndividual Differences, 33, 49-66.

29.

Lindsay, D. S., Gonzales, V., & Eso, K. (1995).Aware and unaware uses of memories ofpost-event suggestions. In Zaragoza, M. S. &Graham, J. R., Gordon, C. N., Hirschman, R., &Ben-Porath, Y. (Eds.), Memory and Testimonyin the Child Witness (pp. 86-108). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

30.

Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Falsememories and the source monitoring framework: Reply to Reyna and Lloyd (1997). Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 145-161.

31.

Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978).Semantics integration of verbal information intoa visual memory. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4,19-31.

32.

McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleadingpostevent information and memory for events:Arguments and evidence against memoryimpairment hypotheses. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General, 114, 1-16.

33.

Nurmoja, M., & Bachmann, T. (2008). On the role oftrait-related characteristics in interrogativesuggestibility: An example form Estonia.Trames, 12, 371-381.

34.

Ornstein, P. A., Gordon, B. N., & Larus, D. (1992).Children's memory for a personally experiencedevent: Implications for testimony. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 6, 49-60.

35.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams, and Imitation inChildhood. (C. Cattegno & F. M. Hodgsen.Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Originalwork published 1945).

36.

Quas, J. A., Qin, J., Schaaf, J. M., & Goodman, G.S. (1997). Individual differences in children's andadults' suggestibility and false event memory.Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 359-390.

37.

Scullin, M. H., & Ceci, S. J. (2001). A suggestibilityscale for children. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 30, 843-856.

38.

Singh, K. K., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1987). Theinternal consistency of the "Shift" factor on theGudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Personality andIndividual Differences, 8, 265-266.

39.

Singh, K. K., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992).Ineterrogative suggestibility among adolescentboys and its relationship with intelligence,memory, and cognitive set. Journal ofAdolescence, 15, 155-161.

40.

White, R., & Willner, P. (2005). Suggestibility andsalience in people with intellectual disabilities:An experimental critique of the GudjonssonSuggestibility Scale. The Journal of ForensicPsychiatry & Psychology, 16, 638-650.

41.

Zaragoza, M. S. (1987). Memory, suggestibility, andeyewitness testimony in children and adults. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, D. F. Ross (Eds.),Children's Eyewitness Memory. New York:Springer-Verlag.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책