Susceptibility to memory distortion: how do we decide it has occurred?

When given suggestive information, some people can be led to believe that they had experiences that they did not actually have. For example, they may come to believe falsely that they got sick eating particular foods as children, and as a result of that belief they may avoid the foods. But how do we know that someone has developed a false belief or memory in this research? The criteria we choose when classifying whether someone has fallen for the suggestion are somewhat arbitrary. We reanalyze our prior data, using different criteria for deciding that a person fell for the suggestion (called a "believer") or did not (called a "non-believer"). Changing criteria obviously affects the percentage of people who are called susceptible and could conceivably affect the conclusions reached about that group. Comparisons between false memories and true memories could differ, too, depending on how memories are defined.     

Why are some individuals not racially biased? Susceptibility to affective conditioning predicts nonprejudice toward blacks

Two studies investigated the psychological underpinnings of racial nonbias, defined as extremely low or null bias on measures of implicit and explicit racial attitudes. In Study 1, racially nonbiased Whites showed differential susceptibility to affective conditioning compared with subjects with greater bias. A significant two-way interaction emerged, indicating that nonbiased individuals were significantly less likely than other individuals to acquire negative affective associations to neutral stimuli in a classical conditioning paradigm, but were more likely than other individuals to acquire positive affective associations to neutral stimuli. This pattern of findings was replicated in Study 2, in which the identification of nonbiased Whites was facilitated by their nomination by an African American acquaintance. Implications for bias formation and prejudice reduction are discussed.     

State-dependent changes of prefrontal–posterior coupling in the context of affective processing: Susceptibility to humor

The aim of the present study was to examine whether interindividual differences in the coupling or decoupling of prefrontal and posterior cortices during the exposure to social–emotional information may predict an individual’s positive emotional responsiveness. Susceptibility to humor was assessed in a behavioral paradigm several weeks after the EEG recordings. State-dependent changes of prefrontal–posterior EEG beta coherence were recorded during stimulation with other people’s auditory expressions of cheerfulness and sadness. Greater decreases of coherence during the stimulation with positive affect expressions prospectively predicted greater positive emotional responsiveness, indicated by higher amusement ratings in response to cartoons and higher scores in a questionnaire measure of exhilarability. Greater increases of coherence during the stimulation with negative affect expressions did not predict perceived funniness but were related to shorter response latencies to the amusement ratings. The results further support the notion that a more loose prefrontal–posterior coupling may be related to loosening of control of the prefrontal cortex over incoming emotional information and, thus, to a propensity to deeper emotional involvement and a greater impact of perceptual input, whereas increased prefrontal–posterior coupling may be related to strong control and the propensity to protect oneself from becoming emotionally affected.     

Better the Devil You Know? High-Risk Individuals’ Anticipated Psychological Responses to Genetic Testing for Melanoma Susceptibility

Purpose: The psychological consequences of genetic testing for mutations among individuals at increased risk of developing melanoma remain unexamined. The present study aimed to explore anticipated emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and familial responses to hypothetical genetic testing for melanoma susceptibility. Methods: Forty semi-structured interviews were undertaken with affected (n=20) and unaffected (n=20) individuals at either high or average risk of developing melanoma due to family history. Results: In-depth thematic analysis revealed that, in response to being identified as a mutation carrier, most participants with a family history anticipated calmly accepting their increased risk; either increasing precaution adoption or maintaining already vigilant behavioral practices; perceiving such information as important and valuable; and communicating genetic test results to family members, despite the acknowledgement of potential difficulties. In response to being identified as a non-carrier, the majority of participants expected to feel relieved; to maintain current precautionary health practices; to still perceive themselves at some risk of developing melanoma; and to be wary of the potential negative behavioral consequences of disclosing such information to family members. Women appeared more likely than men to acknowledge the potential for depression and worry following genetic testing. In contrast, more males than females expected to carry a gene mutation, and viewed their current preventive practices as optimum. Conclusion: Genetic testing for melanoma risk is likely to elicit a complex array of emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and familial responses for both testees and their family members, and these responses are likely to bear subtle differences for males and females.     

The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents’ Experiences

Genomic microarray may detect susceptibility loci (SL) for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and epilepsy, with a yet unquantifiable risk for the fetus. The prenatal disclosure of susceptibility loci is a topic of much debate. Many health care professionals fear that reporting susceptibility loci may put a psychological burden on pregnant couples. It is our policy to disclose prenatal susceptibility loci as we recognize them as actionable for prospective parents. The aim of this report was to evaluate the psychological impact of disclosing a prenatal diagnosis of susceptibility loci. The psychological impact of disclosing susceptibility loci was evaluated in the first patients who received such results. Eight out of 15 women who had a susceptibility locus disclosed and four of their partners consented to share their experiences through a telephonic evaluation (n?=?12). Follow-up time ranged from 3 to 15 months after their prenatal test result. The reporting of susceptibility loci was initially ‘shocking’ for five parents while the other seven felt ‘worried’. Ten out of 12 participants indicated they would like to be informed about the susceptibility locus again, two were unsure. Most had no enduring worries. Participants unanimously indicated that pregnant couples should have an individualized pre-test choice about susceptibility loci (non)disclosure. We observed no negative psychological impact with the prenatal diagnosis and disclosure of SL on participants. A key factor in mitigating parental anxiety with SL disclosure appears to be post-test genetic counseling. Our report confirms that pregnant women and their partners prefer an individualized choice regarding the scope of prenatal testing.     

Do Strength‐Related Attitude Properties Determine Susceptibility to Response Effects? New Evidence From Response Latency,Attitude Extremity,and Aggregate Indices

A great deal of research has shown that small changes in question wording, format, orordering can sometimes substantially alter people's reports of their attitudes. Althoughmany scholars have presumed that these so-called response effects are likely to be morepronounced when the attitudes being measured are weak, a number of studies have disconfirmedthis notion. This paper presents several new tests of this hypothesis using a variety of measuresand analytic techniques. The findings largely replicated previously documented effects andnon-effects but also uncovered new effects not previously tested. No single strength-relatedattitude attribute emerged as a consistent moderator of all response effects. Rather, differentindividual attributes moderated different effects, and a conglomeration of strength-relateddimensions did not emerge as a reliable moderator. Taken together, these results support theconclusions that different response effects occur as the result of different cognitive processes,and that various strength-related attitude attributes reflect distinct latent constructs rather than asingle one.