See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232508886

Effects of Length of Sleep Deprivation on Interrogative Suggestibility

Article  in  Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · March 1996

DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.2.1.48

CITATIONS READS
73 1,155

1 author:

Mark Blagrove
Swansea University
92 PUBLICATIONS   1,297 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The UK Library Study View project

Dream-Lag projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Blagrove on 11 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Experimental Psycholo~: Applied Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1996, Vol. 2, No. 1, 48-59 I076-898X/96/$3.00

Effects of Length of Sleep Deprivation

on Interrogative Suggestibility
Mark Blagrove
University of Wales Swansea

Using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, individuals who had not slept for 43
hours showed significantlygreater yield to leading questions about a story than
did controls. When questioned again following negative feedback, they tended
to change their answers more than controls. Individuals who had not slept for
21 hours showed a trend for greater suggestibility. Sleep-deprived individuals
scored lower on the Profile of Mood States Energetic, Clearheaded, and Con-
fident scales than did controls. Sleep-deprived individuals thus have reduced
cognitive ability or motivation to discriminate and detect discrepancies between
original and misleading information. Therefore, it is recommended that police
interrogation not occur if the interviewee has been deprived of sleep.

Gudjonsson (1992) provided evidence that some
police interviewing takes place at night and that
some defendants have insufficient sleep prior to
interrogation; there have even been deliberate
attempts to disrupt (Gudjonsson, 1992) or elimi-
nate (Shallice, 1972) suspects' sleep prior to ques-
tioning. Questions can sometimes be leading; that
is, they presuppose a particular type of answer or
suggest a piece of knowledge with which the
interviewee does not initially agree. Although
attempts can be made to avoid the use of leading
questions, they may be unavoidable in many circum-
stances. For example, an interviewer may be at-
tempting to find out what to ask or may make
suggestions as to an answer. The interviewing of
sleepy people may also in some circumstances be
unavoidable. Home (1988b) has hypothesized that
sleep-deprived individuals are more credulous and
more suggestible than alert individuals and hence
may be susceptible to misperceptions or demands,
even if induced unintentionally by others. Gudjons-
This research was funded by Nutfield Foundation
Grant SOC/100/711. Participant administration and
test marking were aided by Rachael T. Donohoe.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Mark Blagrove, Department of Psychology,
University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea
SA2 8PP, United Kingdom. Electronic mail may be sent
to m.t.blagrove@swansea.ac.uk.
son (1992) has also suggested that sleep loss may
increase suggestibility. The studies reported here
investigated whether loss of sleep can cause people
to acquiesce to leading questions and whether on
repeated interviewing, sleepy people change their
answers more than do alert people.
Gudjonsson and Clark (1986) defined interroga-
tive suggestibility as "the extent to which, within a
closed social interaction, people come to accept
messages communicated during formal question-
ing, as the result of which their subsequent behav-
ioural response is affected" (p. 84). Schooler and
Loftus (1986) claimed that it is possible to alter an
interviewee's ability and/or motivation to scruti-
nize carefully the contents of the interrogator's
questions. Discrepancy detection can be affected
by altering such scrutiny of false information, for
example by including blatantly contradictory infor-
mation (Loftus, 1979), by manipulating the individ-
ual's expectation of knowing the answer (Gudjons-
son & Hilton, 1989), by warning of misinformation
(Christiaansen & Ochalek, 1983; Greene, Flynn, &
Loftus, 1982), and by utilizing differences in the
speed of reading of the misleading information
(Tousignant, Hall, & Loftus, 1986). Also, Sheehan,
Grigg, and McCann (1984) found that hypnosis
can result in "lowered critical assessment" of false
information.
In the studies reported here, it is hypothesized
that sleep-deprived participants will be deficient in

48
 SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND SUGGESTIBILITY
analyzing misleading questions and in comparing
the misleading questions with the original informa-
tion, resulting in greater suggestibility and that this
effect will increase with length of sleep loss. This is
hypothesized to be due to sleep loss-induced
deficits in speed of thinking (Dinges & Kribbs,
1991), in concentration, from lapses (Williams,
Lubin, & Goodnow, 1959), in motivation to do a
task in which there is no immediate feedback of
results (Wilkinson, 1961), in confidence (Singh &
Gudjonsson, 1984), in selective attention (Hockey,
1970; Norton, 1970), and in ignoring irrelevant or
misleading information, as measured by field-
independence (Blagrove, Alexander, & Horne,
1995). The latter sleep loss-induced deficit is
important because of the inverse relationship be-
tween field-independence and suggestibility (Bla-
grove, Cole-Morgan, & Lambe, 1994; Gudjonsson
& Clark, 1986; Singh & Gudjonsson, 1992); both
involve the influence of irrelevant, interfering, or
distracting information (Christiaansen & Ochalek,
1983).
A standard measure of interrogative suggestibil-
ity is the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Gudjons-
son, 1984, 1987), of which there are two versions,
the first (GSS 1) and second (GSS 2) suggestibility
scales. Each has a short story about an incident,
presented by audiotape recorder; listeners recall
the story and answer a set of leading questions
about it, that is, questions that cannot be answered
from the information given in the story. Listeners
are then scored for how many affirmative answers
they give to these suggestive questions and for how
many answers they change when questioned again
after negative feedback about their initial answers.
Although the Gudjonsson Scale actually measures
the suggestibility of witness observations, test scores
do relate to suggestible behavior (Gudjonsson &
Singh, 1984) and to likelihood of self-incriminating
confessions by police suspects (Gudjonsson, 1991).
Using this scale, Blagrove, Cole-Morgan, and
Lambe (1994) found that individuals deprived of
sleep for one night showed greater suggestibility
than those who had slept normally. However, in
that study the sleep-deprived participants learned
the second suggestibility scale story after sleep
loss, which resulted in significantly worse memory
recall for the sleep-deprived participants than for
controls: Thus the results were confounded in that
poor memory recall for the original information is
itself significantly correlated with suggestibility
49
(Gudjonsson, 1992; Singh & Gudjonsson, 1992). In
an attempt to remove this confounding factor the
study protocol was revised: All subjects in the
studies reported here learned the second suggest-
ibility scale story shortly after completing the first
suggestibility scale recalls and questions, in the
evening, before sleep loss had occurred for the
sleep-deprived groups. Deficits in recall as a result
of sleepiness occur only when individuals have
learned material while sleepy and not when they
have learned material while alert but are tested
when sleepy (Polzella, 1975; Williams, Gieseking,
& Lubin, 1966).
Given the importance of strength of memory of
the initial event to suggestibility (Loftus, Miller, &
Burns, 1978; Singh & Gudjonsson, 1984), the effect
of varying the number of stimulus presentations
was also examined. In the three studies reported
here, the first study had the tape of each story
played twice, whereas the second and third studies
had the tape played once, which is the normal
procedure for the scale (Gudjonsson, 1984). It was
hypothesized that individuals who heard the tape
twice would show less suggestibility than those
hearing it once.
Method
Participants
Participants were paid volunteers recruited by
advertisement and were all university students in
good health. They were not daytime nappers.
Study 1. In the sleep-loss group, ages ranged
from 19 to 23 years, with a mean of 20.5 (SD = 1.5).
There were 5 men and 8 women, with a mean usual
sleep time of 8.4 hr (SD = 0.7). Controls ranged in
age from 19 to 24 years, with a mean age of 21.0
(SD = 1.7). There were 9 men and 3 women, with
a mean usual sleep time of 8.5 hr (SD = 0.9).
Study 2. In the sleep-loss group, ages ranged
from 18 to 30 years, with a mean age of 20.1 years
(SD = 3.2). There were 5 men and 8 women, with
a mean usual sleep time of 8.3 hr (SD---0.8).
Controls ranged in age from 19 to 30 years, with a
mean age of 20.3 (SD -- 2.8). There were 6 men
and 9 women, with a mean usual sleep time of
8.1 hr (SD --- 0.8).
Study 3. In the sleep-loss group, ages ranged
from 18 to 21 years, with a mean age of 19.3
(SD = 1.2). There were 7 men and 8 women, with
50 BLAGROVE
a mean usual sleep time of 8.4 hr (SD = 0.6).
Controls ranged in age from 18 to 23, with a mean
age of 19.8 (SD = 1.4). There were 8 men and 8
women, with a mean usual sleep time of 8.1 hr
(SD = 0.4).
Procedure
Three separate studies were performed, two
involving one night without sleep, and the third
involving two nights without sleep. In each study,
the participants were divided into two groups,
matched for self-reported habitual sleep durations,
so as to control for sleep length related group
differences in personality and sleep-stage charac-
teristics (Horne, 1988b). Members of one group in
each study were to stay awake throughout the
night in the psychology department, and control
group members were to sleep at home. The sleep-
loss participants were continuously and closely
supervised throughout the nights and during the
day of the third study by a total for the three
studies of 20 shifts of research assistants. This close
supervision ensured that no sleep occurred for any
of the sleep-deprived participants at any time.
The participants were told that they were in-
volved in a memory experiment and that they
would have to answer questions about a story. For
each study, on Day 1 at approximately 6:30 p.m.,
each group listened to an audiotape recording of
the first suggestibility scale short story, which dealt
with a street robbery. Participants then immedi-
ately gave free recall, in order to check that each
sleep-deprived group had learned the text to the
same extent as its controls. After 50 min, making
the delay the same as that used previously by
Gudjonsson (1984), participants gave delayed free
recall and were then given 20 written questions
about the first suggestibility scale story, with the
instructions to answer them as accurately as they
could. Their answer sheets were then removed,
and participants were given negative feedback.
This comprised being reminded that they had been
involved in some lengthy experimentation and that
therefore their answers would not have been as
accurate as they could be if more effort was used in
answering. They then answered the same ques-
tions again, having been told to answer them as
accurately as possible. Participants next heard the
second suggestibility scale story, which dealt with a
bicycle accident, and gave immediate free recall.
The stories were played twice in Study I and once
in Studies 2 and 3.
In the first and second studies, sleep-deprived
participants gave delayed recall for the second
suggestibility scale and answered the 20 questions,
at approximately 6 a.m. on Day 2 (controls were
tested at 9:30 a.m.; this confound of condition with
time of testing and hence with circadian phase is
addressed in the Discussion section). In the third
study, they were tested on the second suggestibility
scale at 4 a.m. on Day 3 (9:30 a.m. for controls).
Sleep-deprived participants in Studies 1 and 2 thus
answered the questions on the second suggestibil-
ity scale 21 hr after last sleeping, and in Study 3, 43
hr after last sleeping. To assess possible mediating
variables, I had all subjects fill out the bipolar
Profile of Mood States (POMS; Lorr & McNair,
1980) at the start of both testing sessions.
Summary of Experimental Conditions
In Study 1, the sleep-deprived participants stayed
awake for 21 hours, and the story tape was pre-
sented twice. Sleep-deprived and control groups
were tested on Days 1 and 2. In Study 2, the
sleep-deprived participants stayed awake for 21
hours, and the story tape was presented once. Both
sleep-deprived and control groups were tested on
Days 1 and 2. In Study 3, the sleep-deprived
participants stayed awake for 43 hours, and the
story tape was presented once. Both sleep-
deprived and control groups were tested on Days 1
and 3.
Test Marking
Each story had 40 separate elements, most of
which were very short, for example, a noun and
adjective, or a simple proposition. The number of
these items that a participant recalls is scored; the
maximum recall score is thus 40. Of the 20 ques-
tions about the story, 15 are subtly leading. The 15
are scored in accordance with the keys in Gudjons-
son (1984, 1987). A yes response to a leading
question or a reply that agrees with a premise of
such a question was scored as a suggestible re-
sponse: For example, such a score was given if the
participant answered "knives," "guns," or "yes" to
the question, "Were the assailants armed with
knives or guns?" This was so because weapons
were not mentioned in the original story. Such
 SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND SUGGESTIBILITY 51

responses were summed to give an initial yield to
leading questions score (termed Yield 1 by Gud-
jonsson, 1984). Any of the 20 answers that changed
after negative feedback, even if the changed an-
swer was then correct, were summed to give a shift
score. However, a change from "don't know" to
"no," or from " n o " to "don't know," was not
classed as a shift (Singh & Gudjonsson, 1987). The
number of leading questions answered incorrectly
after negative feedback is referred to as the yield
after feedback score (termed Yield 2 by Gudjons-
son, 1984). Initial yield and shift are two distinct
types or components of suggestibility, and total
suggestibility is defined as the sum of initial yield
and shift. Therefore, each participant has a score
on initial yield and on yield after feedback of from
0 to 15; on shift, 0 to 20; and on total suggestibility,
0 to 35. Gudjonsson (1987) found highly significant
intertest (first and second suggestibility scales)
reliability for each of total suggestibility, initial
yield, shift, initial free recall, and delayed free
recall.
The bipolar POMS is an adjective checklist used
to rate participants on the dimensions of Energetic-
Tired, C l e a r h e a d e d - C o n f u s e d , Confident-Un-
sure, Elated-Depressed, Agreeable-Hostile, and
Composed-Anxious. Each dimension ranges from
+ 18 to - 1 8 , with the positive scores corresponding
to the first, more positive adjective in the dimen-
sion title.
Results
Sleep Length and Mood
Study 1. For the night before Day 1, the sleep-
deprived group had a mean self-reported sleep
time of 8.0 hr (SD = 1.2), and controls had a mean
of 8.2 hr (SD = 0.8). On the night before Day 2,
controls had a mean sleep time of 7.5 hr (SD = 0.9),
members of the sleep-deprived group had no sleep
at all. (See Table 1 for POMS scores.) Following sleep
deprivation the sleep-deprived group, compared with
controls, had significant decreases on the POMS
Energetic, Day of Testing x Condition, F(1, 23) =
4.7,p < .05, and Clearheaded, F(1, 23) = 5.1,p <
.05, scales, but not on the Confident, F(1, 23) =
2.9, p = .1, Agreeable, F(1, 23) = 1.4, ns, Com-
posed, F(1, 23) --- 0.1, ns, or Elated, F(1, 23) = 0.9,
ns, scales. All test change statistics presented

Table 1
Scores on Profile of Mood States Scales on Day I and on Day 2 for Studies I and 2 and on Day 3 for Study 3
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
D~I D~2 D~I D~2 D~I D~3
Group M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Energetic
Sleep-deprived 4.7* 8.2 -9.7* 9.2 4.5*** 7.4 -8.4*** 5.9 4.6*** 5.9 -12.5"** 6.8
Control 2.8* 8.7 0.8* 10.7 1.4"** 8.2 1.1"** 7.4 5.1"** 6.4 7.9*** 7.6
Clearheaded
Sleep-deprived 8.8* 6.8 -2.2* 6.9 10.1"** 4.4 0.4*** 6.8 8.2*** 6.0 -5.5*** 6.4
Control 4.4* 9.7 3.2* 9.9 5.7*** 6.3 8.0*** 5.2 9.1"** 3.9 10.9"** 4.3
Confident
Sleep-deprived 6.0 6.6 -1.3 5.8 5.8* 4.0 2.2* 4.9 5.2** 4.2 -0.7** 5.8
Control 3.4 8.1 2.7 10.6 -0.3* 7.5 3.0* 6.7 5.8** 4.7 6.2** 5.8
Elated
Sleep-deprived 4.5 8.8 1.2 6.1 9.4** 4.1 3.5** 6.1 9.9** 5.9 3.1"* 7.0
Control 5.7 8.5 6.2 9.3 4.7** 7.5 7.3** 3.8 9.6** 6.5 10.9"* 4.8
Agreeable
Sleep-deprived 9.0 9.1 5.0 7.6 12.2"** 5.0 6.7*** 5.5 12.5"* 3.7 6.4** 5.5
Control 9.3 6.4 9.1 7.9 8.8*** 5.3 12.1"** 2.2 12.8"* 3.6 12.9"* 4.3
Composed
Sleep-deprived 5.8 6.8 4.6 6.7 10.2"* 4.7 6.8** 6.2 7.6 5.8 4.9 6.3
Control 6.6 10.4 6.8 9.3 6.0** 7.6 10.7"* 5.5 10.6 4.1 10.6 4.4
Note. In Study 1 and 2, sleep-deprived participants were without sleep for 21 hr, and in Study 3 sleep-deprived participants were
without sleep for 43 hr. All probability values refer to Day of Testing x Condition.
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.
52 BLAGROVE

are interaction of day of testing with experimental
condition, with repeated measures analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA), a n d p values are two-tailed.
Study 2. For the night before Day 1, the sleep-
deprived group had a mean self-reported sleep
time of 8.9 hr (SD = 1.9), and controls had a mean
of 8.5 hr (SD = 1.2). On the night before Day 2,
controls had a mean sleep time of 7.4 hr (SD = 0.9),
and members of the sleep-deprived group had no
sleep at all. Following sleep deprivation, the sleep-
deprived group, compared with controls, had sig-
nificant decreases on the POMS Energetic, F(1,
26) = 20.6, p < .001, Clearheaded, F(1, 26) =
26.3,p < .001, Confident, F(1, 26) = 6.6,p < .05,
Agreeable, F(1, 26) = 16.3,p < .001, Elated, F(1,
26) = 12.4, p < .005, and Composed, F(1, 26) =
l l . 5 , p < .005, scales.
Study 3. For the night before Day 1, the sleep-
deprived group had a mean self-reported sleep
time of 8.1 hr (SD = 1.7), and controls had a mean
of 7.8 hr (SD = 1.3). On the night before Day 3,
controls had a mean sleep time of 7.5 hr (SD = 1.0),
and members of the sleep-deprived group had no
sleep at all during the day or nights. Following
sleep deprivation, the sleep-deprived group, com-
pared with controls, had significant decreases on
the POMS Energetic, F(1, 29) = 67.7, p < .001,
Clearheaded, F(1, 29) = 61.3,p < .001, Confident,
F(1, 29) = 12.2, p < .005, Agreeable, F(1, 29) =
10.3, p < .005, and Elated, F(1, 29) = 11.8, p <
.005, scales, but not on the composed scale, F(1,
29) = 2.3, ns.
Sleep Loss and Memory Recall
There were no significant differences between
the six groups either on immediate, F(5, 83) =
0.70, ns, or delayed, F(5, 83) = 1.03, ns, memory
recall on the first suggestibility scale or on immedi-
ate, F(5, 83) = 0.38, ns, or delayed recall, F(5,
83) = 0.55, ns, on the second scale. For each of the
studies, there was no significant difference in
immediate or delayed recall between each sleep
loss group and its control group on the first or on
the second suggestibility scale (see Table 2).
For Studies 1 and 2, the delayed recall on the
second suggestibility scale was given 11 hr (sleep-
deprived groups) and 14 hr (control groups) after
the immediate recall, resulting in deficits in de-
layed recall in comparison with immediate recall;
Study 1: F(1, 23) = 7.19, p < .05; Study 2: F(1,
26) = 2.63, ns; when conditions are combined. As
would be expected, the 33-hr (sleep-deprived
group) and 38-hr (control group) delayed recall in
Study 3 resulted in an even larger deficit between
immediate and delayed recall, F(1, 29) = 16.97,
p < .001, when conditions are combined. In each
study, the interaction of immediate and delayed
recall change with condition did not reach signifi-
cance, indicating that there is no confounding

Table 2
Group Scores on First and Second Suggestibility Scale Recall, Immediate
and Delayed
Immediate Delayed
Sleep-deprived Control Sleep-deprived Control
Study M SD M SD M SD M SD
First scale
1 23.3 5.3 25.2 4.7 23.5 5.4 24.3 4.5
2 24.5 2.9 24.4 5.2 24.4 2.7 24.0 5.1
3 26.2 4.7 25.5 4.0 26.7 5.3 26.1 4.4
Second scale
1 25.8 5.5 24.8 3.5 24.0 5.6 23.7 4.2
2 25.6 2.9 26.1 5.0 24.5 3.6 26.1 4.7
3 26.9 4.8 25.4 3.5 23.5 6.2 23.9 4.3
Note. Lackof effect of sleep deprivation on delayed recall, as measured by second scale story
recall. First suggestibilityscale immediate and delayed (50-min) recalls, and second suggestibility
scale immediate recall occurred on Day 1; second suggestibilityscale delayed (11 to 38 hr) recall
occurred after sleep-deprivedparticipants were without sleep on Day 2 (Studies 1 and 2; sleep
deprivation for 21 hr) or Day 3 (Study 3; sleep deprivation for 43 hr). Recall has a maximumscore
of 40.
 SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND SUGGESTIBILITY 53

factor of difference in memory between conditions
for any of the studies. There were also no signifi-
cant differences between each sleep loss group and
its control group in number of correct responses to
the five nonsuggestible questions on either the first
or second suggestibility scale.
Sleep Loss and Suggestibility
Table 3 (see Initial yield) shows that in each of
the studies, the sleep-deprived group after loss of
sleep had a higher second suggestibility scale
initial yield score than did the corresponding
control group. A more significant initial yield
occurred after two nights' sleep loss; Study 3: Day
of Testing × Condition, F(1, 29) = 5.78, p < .05;
than after one night's sleep loss; Study 2: Day of
Testing x Condition, F(1, 26) = 3.54,p < .1; and a
greater initial yield occurs after one night's sleep loss
when the suggestibility test story was read once
(Study 2) than when it was read twice; Study 1: Day
of Testing x Condition, F(1, 23) = 0.25, ns.
Table 3 (see Yield after feedback) shows that
the two nights' sleep deprivation group showed
significantly greater yield after feedback on the
second compared with the first suggestibility scale
than did controls, F(1, 29) --- 4.96,p < .05.
Table 3 (see Shift) shows that a greater shift
occurred for the sleep-deprived group after two
nights' sleep loss than for controls (Day of
Testing x Condition, F(1, 29) = 2.29, ns). Note
that a smaller shift is expected on the second
suggestibility scale than on the first suggestibility
scale because participants have already been ex-
posed to the experience of negative feedback:
Singh and Gudjonsson (1984, p. 203) found that
"negative feedback appeared to have most effect
on suggestibility and self-esteem the first time it
was applied"; Sharrock and Gudjonsson (1993)
and Gudjonsson (1992) reported that previous

Table 3
Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Initial Yield, Yield After Negative Feedback,
Shift After Negative Feedback, and Total Suggestibilityfor Sleep-Deprived
and Control Groups
Day i Days 2 and 3
Sleep-deprived Control Sleep-deprived Control
Study M SD M SD M SD M SD
Initialfield a
1 3.2 3.4 3.0 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.6 3.0
2 3.7 2.5 4.1 2.8 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.3
3 4.2* 2.9 4.4* 2.4 4.4* 3.4 2.5* 2.0
Yielda~er~edback a
1 3.6 3.6 2.9 3.1 3.8 3.7 2.6 2.7
2 5.1 2.8 4.6 3.9 3.5 2.5 3.3 3.3
3 4.5* 3.5 4.8* 3.1 5.1" 3.1 3.4* 2.6
Shift b
1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.7
2 2.4 2.2 3.2 3.5 1.2 1.3 1.9 2.4
3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.5
Totalsu~estibili~
1 4.5 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.8 4.1 3.8 4.5
2 6.1 3.6 7.3 5.1 4.5 3.2 3.9 3.5
3 6.7* 4.6 7.1" 3.7 6.5* 4.3 3.8* 2.8
Note. Day 1 provided baseline data. Second suggestibility scale was given after sleep-deprived
participants were without sleep on Day 2 (Studies 1 and 2; sleep deprivation for 21 hr) or Day 3
(Study 3; sleep deprivation for 43 hr). All probability values refer to Day of Testing x Condition.
aMaximum score = 15. bMaximum score = 20. CMaximumscore = 35.
*p < .05.
54 BLAGROVE
experience of interrogation correlates negatively
with suggestibility. Table 3 (see Total suggestibil-
ity) shows that the two nights' sleep-deprived
group showed significantly greater total suggestibil-
ity than did controls, Day of Testing x Condition,
F(1, 29) = 6.29,p < .05.
Effects of Mood and Memory Ability
With all participants together, there were no
significant correlations between any of the bipolar
POMS scales taken at baseline and first suggestibil-
ity scale initial yield, shift, or total suggestibility. In
agreement with Singh and Gudjonsson (1992), it
was thus found that hostility is not related to
suggestibility. Participants in Study 1 (story pre-
sented twice, two groups, and ns = 13, 12) and
participants in Studies 2 and 3 combined (story
presented once, four groups, and ns = 15, 16, 13,
and 15) showed significant correlations between
total suggestibility and first suggestibility scale
immediate (Study 1: r = -.58,p < .005; Studies 2
and 3: r = - . 5 0 p < .0005) and delayed (r = -.50,
p < .01;r = -.46,p < .0005)memoryrecalls. They
also showed significant correlations between total
suggestibility and second suggestibility scale imme-
diate recall (r = -.41,p < .05; r = -.36,p < .005).
These correlations are averaged from the indi-
vidual within-group correlations, all measures be-
ing taken prior to any sleep deprivation. The latter
result, with the second suggestibility scale story
recall, is important given Schooler and Loftus's
(1986) point that the assessment of the relation-
ship between general memory ability and suggest-
ibility requires the use of a memory test that is
independent of the material referred to by the
suggestible questions.
When delayed memory on the first and second
suggestibility scales was used as a covariate, sleep-
deprived participants in Study 3 still had signifi-
cantly higher initial yield, yield after feedback, and
total suggestibility than did controls; Day of Test-
ing x Condition, F(1, 28) = 5.42, p = .03; F(1,
28) = 4.56, p = .04; F(1,28) = 5.71, p = .02,
respectively. In Study 2, sleep-deprived and con-
trol groups had little change in significance of
differences in initial yield, F(1, 25) = 2.67,p = .12.
There were also no appreciable changes in these
significances when delayed memory scores, trans-
formed nonlinearly (by quadratic, log10, cubic,
square root, and inverse functions), were used as
covariates. Differences in suggestibility between
sleep-deprived participants and controls are thus
not the result of differences in story memory recall.
Effects of Delay Period in Studies 2 and 3
On the second suggestibility scale, the control
group for Study 3 showed a greater decrement
between immediate and delayed recall than did
the control group for Study 2; Day of Testing x
Study, F(1, 29) = 3.18, p < .1; which can be
interpreted as being due to the retention period in
Study 3 being 24 hr longer than in Study 2.
However, Table 3 shows that the control group for
Study 3 did not exhibit greater suggestibility than
the control group for Study 2; Day of Testing x
Study: initial yield, F(1, 29) = 0.06, ns; yield after
feedback, F(1, 29) = 0.01, ns; shift, F(1, 29) = 0.02,
ns; total suggestibility, F(1, 29) = 0.00, ns; despite
the longer retention period for Study 3. This
indicates that the greater suggestibility for the
sleep-deprived participants after two nights as
opposed to one night's sleep loss is due to differ-
ences in sleepiness and in length of sleep loss and
is not just a result of the confounding factor of
increased retention interval.
Effects of Number of Times of
Tape Presentation
On the first suggestibility scale, the participants
in Study 1 (story presented twice) showed insignifi-
cantly different immediate, F(1, 83) = 0.82, ns, and
delayed, F(1, 83) = 1.68, ns, recall from partici-
pants in Studies 2 and 3 combined (story presented
once). However, on this scale, Study 1 par-
ticipants showed less initial yield, F(1, 83) = 2.36,
ns, less yield after feedback, F(1, 83) = 3.50, p <
.1, and significantly less shift, F(1, 83) = 7.65,p <
.01, and total suggestibility, F(1, 83) --- 6.38,p < .05,
than did the participants in Studies 2 and 3
combined.
Discussion
As predicted, initial yield, yield after feedback,
and total suggestibility were significantly greater
for the two nights' sleep-deprived group than for
controls. Effects in the same direction were found
after one night's sleep deprivation and when the
 SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND SUGGESTIBILITY
number of presentations of the story tape was
increased for a one-night sleep-deprived group.
Although these one night's sleep deprivation results
did not reach significance, in Table 3, a dose-
response effect of sleep deprivation is suggested:
On the second suggestibility scale (Days 2 and 3),
the one-night sleep-deprived groups had initial
yield, yield after feedback, and total suggestibility
scores intermediate between the scores for the two
nights' sleep-deprived group and the control groups
not deprived of sleep. Sleep-deprived participants
after two nights had a greater tendency than
controls to shift answers when questioned again,
indicating a lack of reliability in answering.
There are a host of processes known to be
engendered by sleep deprivation that could ac-
count for these findings, and the confound with
time of testing may also have contributed. There
are two types of explanation, that of cognitive
discrepancy detection between questions and
memory, and a more motivational acquiescence to
the questions themselves from uncertainty and
lack of confidence. With the former type of expla-
nation, the results may indicate a failure to discrimi-
nate between stimuli originally heard and ones
later suggested, just as sleep-deprived participants
have a decreased ability to discriminate between
stimuli in signal detection tasks (Babkoff, Miku-
lincer, Caspy, & Kempinski, 1988; Deaton, Tobias,
& Wilkinson, 1971; Home, Anderson, & Wilkin-
son, 1983). The use of signal detection theory to
describe participants' decision choices in recogni-
tion memory is described by Banks (1970), Danz-
inger and Larsen (1989), Koppell (1977), and
Lockhart and Murdock (1970): Old items in a
recognition task correspond to nonleading ques-
tions in the present studies and new items to
leading questions. Similarly, suggestibility has been
related to an inability to discriminate between
memories from different sources (Dodson &
Johnson, 1993).
Gudjonsson (1991, 1992) has shown modest
negative correlations between intelligence and sug-
gestibility and has hypothesized (Gudjonsson, 1990)
a link between suggestibility and "the capacity for
logical and sequential thought" (p. 230); sleep loss
adversely affects the latter cognitive factor (Bla-
grove, Alexander, & Home, 1995; Home, 1988b;
Williams & Lubin, 1967) and may thus lead to a
deficit in discrepancy detection. Such a deficit
would also be expected because flexibility of
55
thought, as measured by tests of divergent think-
ing, has been shown to deteriorate during sleep
loss (Home, 1988a; Wimmer, Hoffmann, Bonato,
& Moffitt, 1992), as does the ability to ignore
distracting, peripheral or irrelevant information
(Blagrove, Alexander, & H o r n e , 1995). There is
also a more general "cognitive slowing" (Dinges &
Kribbs, 1991). Relevant here is the significant
impairment of POMS Energetic and Clearheaded
for sleep-deprived participants in all three studies.
However, Home and Pettitt (1985) and Wilkin-
son (1961; 1964) found that sleep deprivation leads
to a lack of motivation to perform, as well as to a
lack of ability, and Meddis (1977) has theorized
the effects of sleep loss as being due to an
unwillingness to put effort into any activity other
than that of going to sleep, resulting in the under-
mining of mood, motivation, and performance. For
the sleep-deprived participants, there may thus
also be the involvement of a lack of motivation to
resist the suggestible questions, separate from any
lack of discriminative ability regarding discrepan-
cies. A second interpretation of the results is thus
that sleep loss leads to an increased tendency to
acquiesce to the experimenter's questions and
premises. Corresponding with this, Gudjonsson
(1989, 1990, 1991, 1992) linked suggestibility with
compliance and acquiescence, Sleep-deprived indi-
viduals may therefore be changing methods of
coping, which are described by Gudjonsson and
Clark (1986), from the "active-cognitive strategy,"
comprising "attempts to manage one's thoughts"
to a strategy that "attempts to avoid confronta-
tion." This would be augmented by the impaired
confidence shown by sleep-deprived participants
in all the studies, which was significant in Studies 2
and 3, and by the significant increases in depres-
sion for sleep-deprived participants in Studies 2
and 3.
Relevant to the latter mechanism is the effect of
lack of confidence and self-esteem on suggestibil-
ity, as shown by Gudjonsson and Lister (1984) and
Singh and Gudjonsson (1984); Gudjonsson (1988)
showed a negative correlation between suggestibil-
ity and assertiveness and a positive correlation
with fear of negative evaluation. However, these
studies did not experimentally alter these confi-
dence-type variables, unlike, albeit indirectly, the
presently reported studies. Such experimental
change of self-esteem was obtained by Zellner
(1970) and was shown to influence suggestibility.
56 BLAGROVE
Furthermore, Smith and Ellsworth (1987) found
that the perceived expertise of the questioner is
essential for suggestibility to occur. Thus it can be
postulated that the low confidence of these sleep-
deprived participants, and their knowledge that
the questioner is not sleep deprived could result in
a greater expertise being attributed to the ques-
tioner, an increase in the participants' uncertainty
about their own knowledge, and hence greater
suggestibility.
Thus in the present studies, cognitive discrep-
ancy detection deficits and motivational acquies-
cence both could be operating and would be
mutually reinforcing. A similar distinction be-
tween explanations based on cognitive capacity
and those based on motivation is made by Schwarz,
Bless, and Bohner (1991) regarding persuasion.
They stated that the former type of explanation is
"content-oriented" (p. 161), emphasizing system-
atic and thoughtful processing of a message by
subjects, whereas the latter interprets the subject
as relying on the heuristic analysis of the way the
message is presented, for example, by considering
the communicator's prestige or likeableness.
It is possible that sleep deprivation could also
increase the probability of a truthful confession
from a lying, guilty suspect. Although true and
false confessors may differ in uncertainty about
what is in their memory (Gudjonsson & Clark,
1986), they can have similarities, in that true
confessions can be somewhat involuntary and in
that ratings of the likelihood of denying things
done wrong, and of admitting to things not done,
both correlate significantly with shift, the former
negatively and the latter positively (Gudjonsson &
Singh, 1984). True confession has been modeled as
"a complicated and demanding decision-making
process" (Gudjonsson, 1992, p. 64), which is suscep-
tible to a factor of external pressure (Gudjonsson
& Petursson, 1991) to the manipulation of the
suspect's anxiety about deceit and denial and to
the interviewer reducing for the suspect the per-
ceived consequences of confessing (Gudjonsson,
1992). From this model, an increase in true affirma-
tive answers would therefore be expected follow-
ing the deleterious cognitive and motivational
consequences of sleep loss, but it should be noted
that in the present studies no significant difference
between each sleep loss group and its controls was
found in their responses to the five nonsuggestible
questions on either suggestibility scale.
It should be noted that the control groups were
being tested on the second suggestibility scale with
a longer recall delay than were the sleep-deprived
participants. This difference was so that the testing
of the control groups could occur after they had
had a full night's sleep. However, there is then a
confound because of the difference between sleep-
deprived and control groups in circadian phase
when tested (Monk, 1991). The separation of the
monotonic sleep loss and circadian components in
the present results should be addressed by future
research, although sleep deprivation itself affects
circadian rhythm (Monk, 1991) and reducing this
confound by having the second testing at the same
time for both groups can increase further the
difference between sleep-deprived and control
groups in length of time spent engaged in waking
cognitive activities, such as watching television.
This latter confound may result in the groups
differing in amount of waking cognitive interfer-
ence with their memory of the story. However, this
confound is ameliorated in the present studies in
that controls still had many hours awake after
learning the second story, and Ekstrand, Barrett,
West, and Maier (1977) reported that some studies
(although not always replicated) have found that
the difference in memory retention caused by
learning being followed by a period of sleep as
opposed to a period awake is lessened when sleep
does not immediately follow learning.
Participants in Study 1 heard the story tapes
twice and were more resistant to leading questions
and to negative feedback than were the partici-
pants in Studies 2 and 3 combined who heard the
story tapes once. Thus Study 1 participants may
have had more confidence in or strength of memory
for the suggestibility scale story and better knowl-
edge of what was not in the story. However, as this
is a between-experiment comparison, it is conceiv-
able that factors other than number of story
presentations caused these differences in suggest-
ibility.
That the results reported in this article show
that suggestibility is increased by sleep loss is
important, given some of the methods that can be
used in police interrogation. Inbau, Reid, and
Buckley (1986) advised interrogators to use inter-
ruptions to stop persistent denial of accusations by
interviewees, thus decreasing their scrutiny of
questions, and they advised putting in questions
that assume the interviewee's involvement in the
 SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND SUGGESTIBILITY
crime and are hence leading. The results here
support Gudjonsson's (1992) recommendation that
amount of sleep disturbance of interviewees should
be assessed; this would help in the ensuring of
"confession voluntariness" (Inbau, Reid, & Buck-
ley, 1986, p. 243). A further application is that
general memory ability should be measured as part
of the assessment of suggestibility.
Gudjonsson (1992) found that the total suggest-
ibility scores for the two members of the Birming-
ham 6, who resisted police pressure to falsely
confess to bombing offenses in England in the
1970s, were lower than for the four members who
made false confessions by a mean of 7.5. Gudjons-
son (1991) found that the mean total suggestibility
score of suspects who retracted a previous self-
incriminating confession was 8.1 higher than for
people convicted on other evidence but who never
made a self-incriminating confession. The former,
alleged false confessors scored 3.6 higher than
convicted offenders who had confessed and not
retracted the confession (true confessors). In that
study, the suggestibility story was heard once, as is
standard. The present studies found that sleep-
deprived individuals who had heard the stories
once had mean total suggestibility greater than
that of controls by 1.8 after one night's sleep loss,
and by 3.1 after two nights' sleep loss, when
baseline differences were removed.
In Gudjonsson (1991), the difference in total
suggestibility between the false and true confessors
was 0.55 standard deviation, with standard devia-
tion of the true confessors' total suggestibility
scores. In Study 2 of this research, the difference
(in change of total suggestibility) between the one
night's sleep-deprived group and controls was 0.46
standard deviation, and in Study 3 the difference
(in change of total suggestibility) between the two
nights' sleep-deprived group and controls was 0.91
standard deviation, with standard deviations of the
change scores for the control groups from Studies
2 and 3, respectively. Thus, the effect on suggestibil-
ity of one or two nights' sleep loss is comparable to
the difference in suggestibility between true and
false confessors. Therefore, it can be concluded
that although it is possible that true confessions
may also be more likely after sleep deprivation,
confessions obtained after sleep loss should be
treated with great caution, and thus it is recom-
mended that police interviewing should not occur
if the interviewee has been deprived of sleep.
57
References
Babkoff, H., Mikulincer, M., Caspy, T., & Kempinski, D.
(1988). The topology of performance curves during 72
hours of sleep loss: A memory and search task.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A,
737-756.
Banks, W. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human
memory. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 81-99.
Blagrove, M., Alexander, C. A., & Home, J. A. (1995).
The effects of chronic sleep reduction on the perfor-
mance of cognitive tasks sensitive to sleep depriva-
tion.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 21--40.
Blagrove, M., Cole-Morgan, D., & Lambe, H. (1994).
Interrogative suggestibility: The effects of sleep depri-
vation and relationship with field-dependence. Ap-
plied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 169-179.
Christiaansen, R. E., & Ochalek, K. (1983). Editing
misleading information from memory: Evidence for
the coexistence of original and postevent information.
Memory & Cognition, 11, 467--475.
Danzinger, P. R., & Larsen, J. D. (1989). Personality
dimensions and memory as measured by signal detec-
tion. Personality & Individual Differences, 10, 809--811.
Deaton, M., Tobias, J. S., & Wilkinson, R. T. (1971).
The effect of sleep deprivation on signal detection
parameters. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 23, 449-452.
Dinges, D. F., & Kribbs, N. B. (1991). Performing while
sleepy: Effects of experimentally induced sleepiness.
In T. H. Monk (Ed.), Sleep, sleepiness and performance
(pp. 97-128). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Dodson, C. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1993). Rate of false
source attributions depends on how questions are
asked.American Journal of Psychology, 106, 541-557.
Ekstrand, B. R., Barrett, T. R., West, J. N., & Maier,
W. G. (1977). The effect of sleep on human long-term
memory. In R. Drucker-Colin & J. L. McGaugh
(Eds.), Neurobiology of sleep and memory (pp. 419-
438). New York: Academic Press.
Greene, E., Flynn, M. S., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Induc-
ing resistance to misleading information. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 207--219.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative
suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5,
303-314.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1987). A parallel form of the
Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 26, 215-221.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1988). Interrogative suggestibility:
Its relationship with assertiveness, social-evaluative
58 BLAGROVE
anxiety, state anxiety and method of coping. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 159-166.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interroga-
tive situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 10, 535-540.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1990). The relationship of intellectual
skills to suggestibility, compliance and acquiescence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1L 227-231.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The effects of intelligence
and memory on group differences in suggestibility and
compliance. Personality & Individual Differences, 12,
503-505.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interroga-
tions, confessions and testimony. Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clark, N. K. (1986). Suggestibility
in police interrogation: A social psychological model.
Social Behaviour, 1, 83-104.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Hilton, M. (1989). The effects of
instructional manipulation on interrogative suggestibil-
ity. Social Behaviour, 4, 189-193.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Lister, S. (1984). Interrogative
suggestibility and its relationship with perceptions of
self-concept and control. Journal of the Forensic Sci-
ence Society, 24, 99-110.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Petursson, H. (1991). Custodial
interrogation: Why do suspects confess and how does
it relate to their crime, attitude and personality?
Personality & Individual Differences, 12, 295-306.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Singh, K. K. (1984). Interrogative
suggestibility and delinquent boys: An empirical vali-
dation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 5,
425-430.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1970). Changes in attention allocation
in a multicomponent task under loss of sleep. British
Journal of Psychology, 61, 473-480.
Home, J. A. (1988a). Sleep loss and 'divergent' thinking
ability. Sleep, 11, 528-536.
Horne, J. A. (1988b). Why we sleep. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Horne, J. A., Anderson, N. R., & Wilkinson, R. T.
(1983). Effects of sleep deprivation on signal detec-
tion measures of vigilance: Implications for sleep
function. Sleep, 6, 347-358.
Horne, J. A., & Pettitt, A. (1985). High incentive effects
on vigilance performance during 72 hours of total
sleep deprivation. Acta Psychologica, 58, 123-139.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986).
Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Balti-
more: Williams & Wilkins.
Koppell, S. (1977). Decision latencies in recognition
memory: A signal detection theory analysis. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,
3, 445-457.
Lockhart, R. S., & Murdock, Jr., B. B. (1970). Memory
and the theory of signal detection. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 74, 100-109.
Loftus, E. F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradic-
tory information. Memory & Cognition, 7, 368--374.
Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978).
Semantic integration of verbal information into a
visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19-31.
Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1980). Profile of Mood States
Bipolar Form (POMS-BI). San Diego, CA: Educa-
tional & Industrial Testing Service.
Meddis, R. (1977). The sleep instinct. London: Routledge.
Monk, T. H. (1991). Circadian aspects of subjective
sleepiness: A behavioural messenger? In T. H. Monk
(Ed.), Sleep, sleepiness and performance (pp. 39-63).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Norton, R. (1970). The effects of acute sleep deprivation
on selective attention. British Journal of Psychology, 61,
157-161.
Polzella, D. J. (1975). Effects of sleep deprivation on
short-term recognition memory. Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 194-
200.
Schooler, J. W., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Individual
differences and experimentation: Complementary ap-
proaches to interrogative suggestibility. Social Behav-
iour, 1, 105-112.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and
persuasion: Affective states influence the processing
of persuasive communications. Advances in Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 24, 161-199.
Shallice, T. (1972). The Ulster depth interrogation
techniques and their relation to sensory deprivation
research. Cognition, 1, 385-405.
Sharrock, R., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1993). Intelligence,
previous convictions and interrogative suggestibility:
A path analysis of alleged false-confession cases.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 169-175.
Sheehan, P. W., Grigg, L., & McCann, T. (1984).
Memory distortion following exposure to false infor-
mation in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
93, 259-265.
Singh, K. K., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). Interrogative
suggestibility, delayed memory and self-concept. Per-
sonality & IndivMual Differences, 5, 203-209.
Singh, K. K., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1987). The internal
consistency of the "shift" factor on the Gudjonsson
 SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND SUGGESTIBILITY 59

Suggestibility Scale. Personality & Individual Differ-
ences, 8, 265-266.
Singh, K. K., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). Interrogative
suggestibility among adolescent boys and its relation-
ship with intelligence, memory, and cognitive set.
Journal of Adolescence, 15, 155-161.
Smith, V. L., & Elisworth, P. C. (1987). The social
psychology of eyewitness accuracy: Misleading ques-
tions and communicator expertise. Journal of@plied
Psychology, 72, 294-300.
Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E. F. (1986).
Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading
postevent information. Memory & Cognition, 14, 329-
338.
Wilkinson, R. (1961). Interaction of lack of sleep with
knowledge of results, repeated testing, and individual
differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62,
263-271.
Wilkinson, R. (1964). Effects of up to 60 hours' sleep
deprivation on different types of work. Ergonomics, 7,
175-186.
Williams, H. L., Gieseking, C. F., & Lubin, A. (1966).
Some effects of sleep loss on memory. Perceptual &
Motor Skills, 23, 1287-1293.
Williams, H. L., & Lubin, A. (1967). Speeded addition
and sleep loss. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73,
313-317.
Williams, H. L., Lubin, A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1959).
Impaired performance with acute sleep loss. Psycho-
logical Monographs: General & Applied, 73, 1-26.
Wimmer, F., Hoffmann, R. F., Bonato, R. A., & Moffitt,
A. R. (1992). The effects of sleep deprivation on
divergent thinking and attention processes. Journal of
Sleep Research, 1, 223-230.
Zellner, M. (1970). Self-esteem, reception, and influence-
ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15,
87-93.
Received November 23, 1994
Revision received September 1, 1995
Accepted September 12, 1995 •

Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates

Keeping you up-to-date. All APA Fellows, Members, Associates, and Student Affiliates
receivo--as part of their annual dues---subscriptions to theAmerican Psychologist andAPA
Monitor. High School Teacher and International Affiliates receive subscriptions to the APA
Monitor, and they may subscribe to the American Psychologist at a significantly reduced
rate. In addition, all Members and Student Affiliates are eligible for savings of up to 60%
(plus a journal credit) on all other APA journals, as well as significant discounts on
subscriptions from cooperating societies and publishers (e.g., the American Association for
Counseling and Development, Academic Press, and Human Sciences Press).

Essential resources. APA members and affiliates receive special rates for purchases of
APA books, including the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,
and on dozens of new topical books each year.

Other benefits of membership. Membership in APA also provides eligibility for

competitive insurance plans, continuing education programs, reduced APA convention fees,
and specialty divisions.

More information. Write to American Psychological Association, Membership Services,

750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

View publication stats