The Relative Contribution of Suggestibility and Personality Traits on Psychological and National Security Among University Students

Ibero-American Journal of Exercise and Sports Psychology

Full Length Research Article - (2023) Volume 18, Issue 5

The Relative Contribution of Suggestibility and Personality Traits on Psychological and National Security Among University Students

Al-Dowsari, Haifa Sh1* and Khatabeh, Yahya M2
*Correspondence: Al-Dowsari, Haifa Sh, Assistant Professor of Counselling, College of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia, Email:
1Assistant Professor of Counselling, College of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia
2Professor of Counselling, College of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia

Received: 04-Oct-2023 Published: 18-Oct-2023


Objectives: Measuring the effect of suggestibility and personality traits on the psychological and national security of university students, and the differences in these psychological variables according to several demographic variables, the level of suggestibility, personality traits, and psychological and national security among students.

Methods: The study sample consisted of 643 students, of which, 260 (40.4%) were males and 383 (59.6%) were females.

Results: The level of suggestibility among the participants was high (183.94±83.47). In terms of psychological security dimensions, general reassurance had the highest average (44.47) and the lowest was social relations (32.73) with a moderate overall average of 150.32. There were direct and indirect relationships between psychological security and national security, with suggestibility directly affecting psychological security (0.38), national security (0.04) and personality traits (-740.75), where the mutual relationship between them in terms of influence as well as on the emotional relationship between suggestibility in its interaction with personality types because it affects national and psychological security (0.40). The interaction between psychological security and suggestibility affects psychological and national security (0.00), while it affects a common interactive relationship in the paths (-5676015.14). The most predictive factor for psychological safety is the interaction of suggestibility and personality traits, as shown by the β value, while the most predictive factor is personality. The mediating variable affects the prediction equation between the independent variable and the dependent variable. The most predictive variable is the suggestibility variable followed by personality traits, but considering the interaction between them has a higher effect and statistical significance for coefficient β. Furthermore, the most predictive factor for psychological safety is personality traits, followed by the joint interaction between personality traits and suggestibility


Suggestibility. Personality traits. Psychological & national security university students


Suggestibility refers to the extent to which an individual is exposed to changing their behaviour based on the suggestions of others, and suggestibility affects how they retrieve memories and acts in light of that possibly pushing the individual to make negative decisions. The field of psychology has long recognised the power of suggestion on human behaviour and decision-making as one of the areas in which the power of suggestion plays an important role through the use of subtle suggestion techniques. Suggestion refers to the process of subtly influencing one's thoughts, beliefs, or behaviours through indirect signals or prompts. It enters the subconscious, bypassing rational thought processes, and can have a profound effect on decision-making. The power of suggestion shapes perceptions, creates expectations, and influences behaviour without the individual being consciously aware of it (Cialdini, 2009). Suggestion is the process of sending out stimuli, consciously or unconsciously, planned or not. Imitation is the resultant phase of the same social process and refers to reacting favourably or unfavourably, consciously or unconsciously, to the given stimulus. If there is no stimulus, suggestion does not exist and if there is no reaction, then imitation has not occurred. Suggestion cannot be separated from imitation, for without imitation, either favourable or contrary, it cannot be said to have taken place. When suggestion occurs, imitation is a counterpart and vice versa, that is, the suggestion-imitation phenomenon is a unit of conduct. Moreover, it cannot take place outside of social situations (Michael, Garry & Kirsch, 2012) and indirect suggestion may function by stimulating imaginative activity.

Indirect suggestion may involve insinuation, such as recommending an acquaintance for a position, or flattery, as it is a form of indirect suggestion that acts to inflate self-esteem. It is an excessively powerful incentive for all mechanisms organised in a person’s life around their concept of self. Releasing all energies along the usual lines, the person is less awkward than usual. Slogans, campaign symbols, newspapers, and billboard ads abound with indirect suggestions, and immediately stimulate pleasurable responses when this near future is depicted (Jones, 1910). Personality is a structure that brings together interrelated behavioural, cognitive, and emotional patterns influenced by biological and environmental factors; These interconnected patterns are relatively stable over time, but change over the entire lifespan (Chapman, 2009). Effective personality types reveal and increase knowledge and understanding of individuals rather than reducing knowledge and understanding as happens in the case of profiling. Effective patterns also allow for greater predictability of clinically relevant information about people and the development of effective treatment strategies. Personality disorders reflect the work of psychiatry, and the medical speciality, and are disease-oriented, as classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM- 5) (Jung, 1971). Psychological security is the outcome of interactions between individuals and society, and it is an important indicator reflecting adolescent mental health and self-growth. Previous studies have focused on external security rather than an individual's internal psychological security. In addition, few studies have examined the changes in psychological security over time and the influence of sociocultural environmental factors on psychological security (Zhang & Zhao, 2023).

The nature of the influential relationship of suggestibility and personality traits on an individual’s psychological and national security is based on several factors in which suggestibility significantly contributes to the feeling of security and psychological balance, including age, gender, environment, their level of psychological hardness, the ability to withstand pressure, the level of cognitive awareness, psychological fragility, psychological self-construction. Several other factors affect the suggestibility of individuals in general and adolescents of university students in particular. Social communication is used by young people in different aspects and locations, which reflects the feeling of emotional balance and security in all its forms.

Theoretical background


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, their memory of the event conforms to the repeated message. A person experiencing intense emotions tends to be more receptive to ideas and therefore more suggestible. Generally, suggestibility decreases with age but an individual’s level of self-esteem and assertiveness can make them more suggestible than others, which has led to the concept of a spectrum of suggestibility (Hooper, Chou, & Brown, 2016). Often, the terms "suggestible" and "susceptible" are used interchangeably, with reference to the extent to which a given individual responds to incoming suggestions from another. However, these terms are not synonymous as the latter 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 (Eisen, Quas & Goodman, 2001).

John Kappas (1925–2002 in Devi, 2021) identified three types of suggestibility that have improved hypnosis:

1. Emotional suggestibility: A suggestible behaviour characterised 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.

2. Physical suggestibility: A suggestible behaviour characterised by a high degree of responsiveness to literal suggestions affecting the body and restriction of emotional responses; usually associated with cataleptic stages or deeper.

3. Intellectual suggestibility: The type of hypnotic suggestibility in which a subject fear being controlled by the operator and is constantly trying to analyse, reject or rationalise 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 hypnotising himself.

Suggestibility is a personality trait that reflects a general tendency to accept messages, reflecting the balance between automatic and intentional information processing because automatic processing is likely to accept information without evaluation and suggestibility is a psychological phenomenon that every person experiences; suggestion is defined as the various psychological effects of one person on another (Kotov, Bellman & Watson, 2004).

Dafa Allah & Musa (2023) determined the level of suggestibility among university students in light of some variables, indicating that there is no suggestibility among university students and there are differences in suggestibility according to gender in favour of males, and there is no relationship between suggestibility and age. Cason (1925) investigated the effect of suggestibility of personal influence on the vitality of images evoked voluntarily, finding no reliable differences in the suggestibility between the five senses. The irregular fluctuations are more prominent than the differences in central tendencies. A person who is suggestible in one sense also tends to be suggestible in other ways, but these associations are often low and unreliable. Women are about a fifth more suggestible than men but individual same-sex differences are the most striking feature.

Silva and Ferreira (2013) investigated the nature of the relationship between personality types and suggestibility in Portugal. The study sample consisted of 258 individuals and showed that there are individual differences in suggestibility and that these differences correspond to certain personal characteristics mainly related to thinking patterns and some behaviour patterns. In addition, Al-Harbi (2017) determined the degree of suggestibility among 359 students in the College of Arts and Humanities, the College of Education, and the College of Business Administration, showing no significant differences between smokers and non-smokers in suggestibility and its components, except for the component of compatibility with comrades, where the difference was significant in favour of non-smokers, which was unexpected. The level of compatibility with comrades was average, and the level of temptation infection was lower than average. Business and each College of Arts and Humanities, College of Education, and College of Business in support of the Colleges of Arts and Humanities

Personality traits

While there is no generally agreed definition of personality, most theories focus on motivation and psychological interactions with the individual’s environment. Trait-based theories of personality, such as those outlined by Raymond Cattell, define personality as traits that predict an individual's behaviour, whereas styles based on personal behaviours are determined by learning and habits. However, most theories view personality as relatively stable (Ruiz, 2000). Although there are many ways to think about a person’s personality profile, the differences between individuals can be understood by understanding their personality traits because they reflect the basic dimensions in which people differ (Matthews, Derry, & Whitman, 2003). According to trait psychologists, there are a finite number of these dimensions (dimensions such as extraversion and conscientiousness, or agreeableness), and everyone falls somewhere on each dimension, meaning that they can be low, medium, or high on any given trait.

This is an important feature because personality traits reflect continuous distributions rather than distinct personality types, thus when personality psychologists talk about introverts and extroverts, they aren't talking about two distinct types of people who are completely and qualitatively different from each other, but rather those who score relatively low or relatively high. When personality psychologists measure traits such as extraversion, they usually find that most people score somewhere in the middle (Diener & Lucas, 2019). Personality traits are defined as relatively stable patterns of thoughts,feelings, and behaviours that set individuals apart. The essence of the development of personality traits lies in one's interpretation of the two words "relatively permanent". For many years, the tacit assumption was that traits are "lasting enough" to ignore the issue of development. Recently (Roberts, Wood & Caspi, 2008), personality type refers to the psychological classification of different individuals with personality types distinguished from personality traits, the latter embodying a smaller set of behavioural tendencies. Traits can be interpreted as quantitative differences (Haselhuhn & Clopton, 2008). According to gender theories, introverts and extroverts are two fundamentally different categories of people. According to trait theories, introversion and extroversion are part of the continuum, with many people being in the middle. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types is still very controversial (Gerlach et al., 2018).

Psychological and national security

The sense of psychological security involves multiple feelings based on similar connotations, such as the absence of anxiety and fear, the dissipation of threats and dangers to the components of the personality from the inside and outside, with a sense of reassurance, emotional and material stability, and reasonable degrees of acceptance of environmental components. Believe that psychological security is one of the most important psychological needs. It is one of the most important motives for behaviour throughout life, and it is one of the basic needs necessary for growth, compatibility, and psychological health (Londerville & Main, 1981). Psychological security is a basic psychological need allowing the individual to feel psychological stability, distance from psychological pain, psychological and social acceptance, and a sense of selfefficacy, leading to a state of contentment, tranquillity and happiness, as well as preparation for a better future, which is like an emotional state. Semipermanent reassurance, tranquillity, lack of anxiety, avoidance of feelings of fear, satisfaction of the individual’s basic needs, warm relations with important people, acceptance from those around him, and a sense of freedom in thinking and behaviour Tatiana, Kobicheva, Tokareva, & Mokhorov, 2022).

An individual's sense of security depends on many variables, including their feeling of psychological security, alienation from oneself, and anxiety about an unclear future. This leads to a significant impact on the psychological compatibility of the individual, as well as disturbances in their character which they have created so that they become unsuitable for dealing with members of society. This increases the individual’s feeling of loneliness and isolation, and thus the feeling of psychological alienation, which is a process of self-alienation in that they feel alienated from their personality (Tavaloli, Kimiaee, & Agh, 2022). The importance of security lies in allowing man to perform the function of succession in the land, and considering security as the basis of development and the goal of justice, which is the goal of all religious laws. These laws came to establish social peace among human beings (Zhang & Zhao, 2023).

National security is defined as the ability of the state to secure the continuity of the basis of its internal, external, military and economic strength in the various aspects of life to face the dangers that threaten it from within and without in the case of war and peace alike. The roots of the meaning of national security go back to the seventeenth century, after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 AD, which was the basis for the birth of the nation-state. One of the definitions of national security is that it is the ability by which the state can preserve its internal, external, economic and military sources of strength in all fields to confront threats at home and abroad in war and peace while continuing to preserve these forces in the present and the future. National security is also defined as the outcome of the vital national interests of the state (Zhuravlova et al., 2020). An individual's sense of security depends on many variables, including their feeling of psychological security, alienation from oneself, and anxiety about the unclear future. Psychological security is one of the most important psychological needs that must be satisfied in the early life of the individual, and its impact continues throughout life even after the reasons for love and belonging are achieved. A psychologically secure person is in a state of balance and harmony as long as the basic elements of their life are not at risk. Psychological security is a state in which the individual feels safe, secure and insecure. Apprehension, in which their needs are fulfilled and their satisfaction guaranteed, is a composite approach of self-possession with selfconfidence and the certainty that one belongs to human groups that have value (Zahran, 2003).

The current study

The stage of youth is regarded as the most important stage in a person's life, both present and future. It is the first stage during which a person’s acquisition and creative abilities blossom, their personality develops and the foundations are laid for their future. The ability to suggest is a psychological phenomenon that plays a significant role in the social attitudes of society members in general, and adolescents in particular, in terms of directing their behaviour. These adolescents may become vulnerable to the ideas and beliefs of others in a way that lacks accurate thinking and foresight, thus they may suffer (Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2023), frequently falling victim to rumours and targeted messages broadcasted through many forms of media and social communication. They may become victims of bad peers, and the danger of this phenomenon grows due to its negative psychological and social effects on society in general and adolescents in particular. Since the youth category is the most social group that uses social media is university students, it was confirmed by the study of Bizito Moore (2012) that the rate of use of social networks by university students regressed. The increase in the level of suggestibility among adolescents affects their personalities as well as their psychological and national security, therefore, this study was designed to verify the relative contribution of suggestibility and personality traits to the psychological and national security of university students. Social networks have transformed marketing and, as this post shows, their popularity is still growing (Shafiq & Parveen, 2023) with 60% of the world's population using social media. The average daily usage is 2 hours and 24 minutes (Astleitner, Bains & Hörmann, 2023).

The current study problem arose from the effect of suggestibility on individuals in general and adolescents in particular, as well as the psychological and social ramifications of it, and its impact on all aspects of an individual's life. Although previous studies have investigated the effects of suggestibility and personality traits on psychological and national security among college students, the combined effect of these two factors has received little attention. Therefore, this study examined the combined effect of suggestibility and personality traits on psychological and national security among university students. This not only confirms the effects of suggestibility and personality traits on psychological and national security, but also the influencing relationship between all variables, as reflected in the individual's personal characteristics, feelings of anxiety, stress, and emotional imbalance, or what is known as the common denominator.

H1: There is a mean and standard deviation in suggestibility, personality traits, and psychological and national security among university students.

H2: There is an effect (causal) relationship between suggestibility, personality traits, and psychological and national security.

H3: Suggestibility and personality traits (and the interaction between them) can be predicted through students' psychological and national security.

Materials and methods


In total, 643 students enrolled in various universities in the city of Riyadh were randomly selected to take part in the study according to the following criteria: 1. enrolled in a university in Riyadh; 2. willing to use the research tools. There were 260 males (40%) and 383 females (59%), with 188 (29.2%) aged 18-21 years and 455 (70.8%) aged 22-24 years. According to their degree specialisation, 322 (50.15%) participants were enrolled in applied sciences, 151 (23.5%) in forensic sciences and 170 (26.4%) in humanities. Regarding the most influential social networking, there were 166 (25.8%) Twitter users, 39 (6.1%) used Snapchat (39), 18 (2.8%) used Instagram, 409 (63.6) used Facebook and 11 (1.7%) used WhatsApp. Figure 1 shows the distribution of participants according to demographic variables.


Figure 1. Distribution of participants according to demographic variables.


Suggestiveness: Anchorage and Warfare (2016) used the codified scale on the Saudi environment previously developed by Kotov, Pleman, and Watson (2004) to measure resonance. The scale is divided into six dimensions: 1. persuasiveness with eleven items, while lure infection has nine.3. Psychological response (11 paragraphs). 4. paragraph on compatibility with comrades (12). 5 paragraphs on psychosocial issues (12 total). 6. Adherence to the paragraph on opinion (15). The responses were graded using a 3-point Likert scale: applied = 3 pts, somewhat applicable = 2 pts, not applicable = 1 pt, thus the higher the score, the higher the degree of suggestion. The instrument was verified by the psychometric characteristics of the scale in Portugal, where the correlation factors 1.38-0.703 and 0.552-0.401 ranged between the dimensions of the instrument as a whole. The stability was verified through the use of return stabilisation. The veracity of the instrument was verified through 1. The content was certified by presenting it to a group of professors specialising in Arabic and foreign languages, measurement and psychological evaluation, to verify the authenticity of the tool in its current form after translating and amending the paragraphs in terms of language wording; 2. Calculation of correlation matrix between scale dimensions using a correlation heatmap as follows: (Figure 2)


Figure 2. The correlation between the suggestibility scale dimensions and the overall score.

Pearson's correlation coefficients were also calculated at total dimension degree of dimension (242-618 * *), second dimension (394-680 * *), third dimension (391-580 * *), fourth dimension (293-492 * * *), fifth dimension (355- 545 * *) and sixth dimension (3447-643 * *), as well as the Alpha Cronbach persistence factor (0.80) and McDonald's ω coefficient (0.93).

Personality traits

The scale developed by Woldearegai and Das (2019) and codified on the Arab environment by Al-Otaibi & Al-Sarayra (2019) was used in this study. The scale has a total of 28 items and was verified by presenting it to several arbitrators, as well as by calculating the internal consistency coefficients, which ranged from 0.105 to 0.588 and the stability coefficients (0.75). Finally, the psychometric effectiveness was verified by arbitrators and calculating the internal consistency coefficients (268,**-595,**), as well as calculating the Cronbach alpha stability coefficient (0.72) and McDonald's ω (0.85).

Psychology-related safety

The scale comprised 54 items distributed across four dimensions: 1. Emotional comfort related to the development of the person (1–5) and future goals (20–28); 2. general assurance related to the person's everyday life (6–14 and 29–37); 3. the individual's mood (38–47); 4. social relations (15–19 and 48–54). The participants were asked to respond to the statements providing an accurate estimate of their feelings ranging from strongly agree (3 pts), agree (2 pts), disagree (1 pt), and strongly disagree (0 pt). The apparent validity was confirmed by several specialists whose psychometric properties were confirmed by the tool's creator and determining the correlation matrix between the scale's dimensions as follows: (Figure 3)


Figure 3. Correlation between the dimensions of the suggestibility scale and the total score.

The Cronbach alpha stability coefficient (0.83) and McDonald's (0.94) were also calculated. Pearson's correlation coefficient was also calculated by the total degree of the dimension, reaching values for the first dimension (277**-.670*), the second dimension (286**-.830*), the third dimension (423**-.545*), and the fourth dimension (*613-.327**).

National security scale

The security sense scale prepared by Al-Saadi (2019) consisting of 24 items was used. Its honesty coefficients ranged between (250**.) to (625.**) and the stability coefficient of the tool was (0.87). The psychometric efficiency of the tool was verified by several arbitrators and calculating the interTable 1nal consistency coefficients, which ranged between (362,**- 615,**). The Cronbach alpha stability coefficient (0.73) and McDonald's ω (0.86) were also calculated.

Table 1.

Variables Mean SD
All score suggestibility 183.98 83.478
Stick opinion 35.25 12.038
psychosomatic 31.28 13.838
Compatibility with comrades 31.45 14.150
Reaction 29.68 14.949
flattering infection 26.73 16.705
Persuasiveness 29.59 15.423
All score psychological security 150.32 47.415
Social relations 32.73 18.066
Mood 34.10 19.413
General tranquillity 44.48 9.227
Emotional tranquillity 39.00 16.333
All score national security 102.98 18.983
All score personality traits 70.97 29.533

Analytical strategy

BM SPSS Statistics (jmovi) was used to analyse the correlations among study variables, the mediating effect of normative beliefs about the relative contribution of suggestibility and personality traits on psychological and national security among university students.


Suggestibility, personality traits, psychological and national security among university students

shows the degree of suggestibility among the participants was characterized by an arithmetic mean of 183.94±83.47, while adherence to the opinion was followed by the highest of these dimensions (35.25±12.03), the degree of compatibility with coworkers (31.45±14.4), the ability to persuade (29.58±15.42) and the infection of seduction (26.72±16.70). The personality traits reached a high degree (70.97±29.53) and the arithmetic average of the security sense variable was 102.97±183.94, (32.73) with an average of (18.06) and the general average of the psychological security scale was (150.32) with an arithmetic average of (47.41).

Figure 4 shows the graphs of the arithmetic means and standard deviations according to the variables of the study.


Figure 4. The arithmetic means and standard deviations according to the study variables.

There is an effect (causal) relationship between suggestibility, personality traits, and psychological and national security

The results revealed that the suggestibility and personality traits were predicted by psychosocial and national security (Table 2).

Table 2.

  Models Info
Mediators Models  
m1 National Security ~ Suggestibility + Personality traits + Personality traits: Suggestibility
Full Model  
m2 Psychological Security ~ National Security + Suggestibility + Personality traits + Personality traits: Suggestibility + Suggestibility: National Security
Indirect Effects  
IE 1 Personality traits ⇒ National Security ⇒ Psychological Security

The model in Figure 5 shows the nature of the affective relationship and the paths between psychological and national security and the variables that affect it, as suggestibility directly affects psychological security (0.38) and national security (0.04) and personality traits (-740.75). The co-affective relationship between susceptibility and suggestibility and the interaction with personality types affects national and psychological security (0.40) and during the interaction of psychological security and the susceptibility to suggestibility interact to affect psychological and national security (0.00) while it affects a joint interactive relationship in the paths (-5676015.14). Table 3 shows the influence pathways and the direct path of the influence between suggestibility, personality traits and national security was statistically significant with a z value of 4.232. The value of z for the path of suggestibility, personality traits and psychological security was 2.130 and statistically significant, and the value of z for the effectual relationship between suggestibility and psychological and national security was also statistically significant at 2.059. Table 4 shows the effective paths between the direct and indirect relationships of the interactions between the study variables. The direct and indirect influence pathways are statistically significant between personality traits, suggestibility, and both psychological and national security, and between personality traits as well as psychological security, personality traits, and national security (Figure 5).

Table 3: Moderation effects (interactions).

Moderator Interaction Estimate SE Lower Upper β z p
Suggestibility Personality traits': Suggestibility ⇒
National Security
0.001738 4.106e-4 0.002543 9.329e−4 0.1933 4.232 < .001
  `Personality traits': Suggestibility ⇒
Psychological Security
0.002304 0.001082 1.837e-4 0.004424 0.1024 2.130 0.033
  Suggestibility: National Security ⇒
Psychological Security
0.002547 0.001237 0.004972 1.225e−4 0.4826 2.059 0.039

Table 4: Clear from Conditional Mediation.

Moderator levels   95% C.I. (a)
Suggestibility Type Effect Estimate SE Lower Upper β z p
Mean-1·SD Indirect Personality traits ⇒ National Security ⇒ Psychological Security 0.04604 0.03302 0.11076 0.018680 0.02882 1.3943 0.163
Mean-1·SD Component Personality traits ⇒ National Security 0.24016 0.03132 0.17878 0.301546 0.37364 7.6685 < .001
Mean-1·SD   National Security ⇒ Psychological Security 0.19170 0.13520 0.45669 0.073289 0.07714 1.4179 0.156
Mean-1·SD Direct Personality traits ⇒ Psychological Security 0.26616 0.08312 0.10324 0.429070 0.16663 3.2020 0.001
Mean-1·SD Total Personality traits ⇒ Psychological Security 0.18039 0.08073 0.02217 0.338616 0.11236 2.2346 0.025
Mean Indirect Personality traits ⇒ National Security ⇒ Psychological Security 0.03845 0.01528 0.06840 0.008508 0.02392 2.5168 0.012
Mean Component Personality traits ⇒ National Security 0.09510 0.02940 0.03747 0.152728 0.14796 3.2345 0.001
Mean   National Security ⇒ Psychological Security 0.40433 0.10091 0.60210 0.206551 0.16164 4.0069 < .001
Mean Direct Personality traits ⇒ Psychological Security 0.45847 0.07832 0.30496 0.611978 0.28515 5.8537 < .001
Mean Total Personality traits ⇒ Psychological Security 0.46707 0.07579 0.31853 0.615608 0.29092 6.1628 < .001
Mean+1·SD Indirect Personality traits ⇒ National Security ⇒ Psychological Security 0.03082 0.03518 0.03813 0.099776 0.01881 0.8761 0.381
Mean+1·SD Component Personality traits ⇒ National Security 0.04996 0.05566 0.15905 0.059133 0.07773 0.8976 0.369
Mean+1·SD   National Security ⇒ Psychological Security 0.61695 0.15301 0.91684 0.317055 0.24200 4.0321 < .001
Mean+1·SD Direct Personality traits ⇒ Psychological Security 0.65079 0.14720 0.36228 0.939290 0.39715 4.4211 < .001
Mean+1·SD Total Personality traits ⇒ Psychological Security 0.75374 0.14347 0.47253 1.034945 0.46948 5.2535 < .001
Note. Confidence intervals computed with method: Standard (Delta method)
Note. Betas are completely standardized effect sizes

Figure 5. Statistical Diagram- the final form indicates the best fit with the data showing the standard estimates.

Suggestibility and personality traits (and the interaction between them) can be predicted through students' psychological and national security.

Table 5 shows the R value of 0.57 and its statistical significance for the value of (F) for each study variable (personality traits, psychological security, suggestibility).

Table 5:ANOVA.

R-squared F df1 df2 p
0.5782 13.07 3.000 639.0 < .001

Table 6 shows a statistically significant value of t through the regression coefficient β, indicating that the most predictive factors for psychological security are the interaction of both suggestibility and personal traits, while the most predictive of them are personal traits compared to discrete suggestibility.

Table 6: The Total effects predicting psychological security.

Effect Estimate SE Lower Upper β df t p
Suggestibility 0.101383 0.025924 0.050476 0.152289 0.1785 639 3.911 < .001
Personality traits 0.467067 0.075965 0.317895 0.616238 0.2909 639 6.148 < .001
Personality traits: Suggestibility 0.003434 0.001061 0.001351 0.005517 0.1786 639 3.237 0.001

To verify the predictive ability, the national security variable was considered as a dependent variable, suggestibility variables and personality traits as predictive variables, and the psychological security variable as a dependent variable, as shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7: ANOVA.

R-squared F df1 df2 p
0.1140 27.39 3.000 639.0 < .001

Table 8: Regression.

Effect Estimate SE Lower Upper β df t p
Suggestibility 0.038151 0.01007 0.018387 0.05792 0.1678 639 3.790 < .001
Personality traits 0.095101 0.02949 0.037185 0.15302 0.1480 639 3.224 0.001
Personality traits: Suggestibility 0.001738 4.119e-4 0.002547 9.289e−4 0.2257 639 4.219 < .001

Mediator model

Dependent variable: National security

Table 7 shows a statistically significant R value of 0.1140 as the F value was 27.39, which indicates that the intermediate variable impacts the prediction equation between the independent and dependent variables. The value of the coefficient β and T and its statistical significance for predicting between suggestibility and personality traits and the interaction between them on the mediating variable (national security) and the dependent variable (psychological security) were all statistically significant. The most predictive is the suggestibility variable, followed by personality traits but considering the interaction between them has a higher impact and a statistical significance for the coefficient β.

Table 9 shows the value of R, its statistical significance, and the value of t which reached 0.48 for the predictive relationship in the joint interaction between national security, suggestibility, and personality traits, and the interaction between them on the national security scale as a predictable variable. The most predictive factor of psychological security is personality traits, followed by the joint interaction between personality traits and suggestibility, where the value of β was higher than the interaction between suggestibility and national security in the prediction (Table 10).

Table 9:ANOVA.

R-squared F df1 df2 p
0.8423 11.72 5.000 637.0 < .001

Table 10:Full model predicting psychological security.

Effect Estimate SE Lower Upper β df t p
National Security 0.404326 0.101381 0.603408 0.205244 0.16188 637 3.988 < .001
Suggestibility 0.379144 0.131064 0.121774 0.636515 0.20574 637 2.893 0.004
Personality traits 0.458471 0.078689 0.303948 0.612993 0.28557 637 5.826 < .001
Personality traits: Suggestibility 0.002304 0.001087 1.696e-4 0.004438 0.11979 637 2.120 0.034
Suggestibility: National Security 0.002547 0.001243 0.004988 1.065e−4 0.08513 637 .049 0.041


The degree of suggestibility among the study participants was medium and this may be explained by the students’ intellectual awareness and the role of universities and educational institutions in paying attention to intellectual awareness and warning students of psychological problems and rumours, as well as purposeful suggestion and controlling the factors that help prevent their suggestion. This was evident in the rationality of the results showing that personality traits were relatively high, which reflects the effect on suggestibility and indicates that there is a statistically significant effect between suggestibility and personal traits on the psychological and national security variables. It also demonstrates the impact of these independent variables on the dependent variables using several different models and diversifying equations and statistical indicators. This is consistent with the theoretical framework as indicated by the theory of Rogers, Festinger, Freud and Jabbar (2021). The ability to be seduced is affected by several factors, including the personality of the one who inspires, the personality of the one to whom it is inspired, the nature of the relationship between them, the subject of suggestion, and its circumstances, and psychological disorders to susceptibility to temptation (Taha et al., 2009). The school of analysis interprets the phenomenon of susceptibility to seduction as an innate tendency to satisfy the motive of subservience, while Erikson believes that it is defensive behaviour resulting from individuals' sense of ambiguity of identity, while field theorists consider that attraction is a directing force that affects individuals and moves them in a certain direction as a result of their presence in a distinct area in the field in which they are located (Al-Khazraji, 2014).


1. Holding meetings and workshops and reviewing some extracurricular activities to achieve and ensure the enhancement of psychological and national security among students.

2. Cultural and psychological awareness of the ability to suggest, inculcate national values, and enhance self-confidence among students.

3. Implementing guidance plans and preventive programmes that enhance personal competence and positive traits in students' personalities.

4. Training on positive skills and self-control for students to enhance positive traits and contribute to reducing mental disorders to which they may be exposed.

5. Conducting more applied studies with variables related to the importance of the target group, especially in light of technical development and social networking sites.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


“The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research through the project number IFP-IMSIU-2023101 . The authors also appreciate the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) for supporting and supervising this project.”


Al-Harbi, N (2017) Suggestibility and its impact on the problem of smoking among Taibah University students, educational and psychological studies, Zagazig University Journal, 96, 349 – 366

Al-Khazraji, A. (2014). The ability to be seduced by university students. Al-Fath Magazine, Iraq, p. 58, 312-332 .

Astleitner, H., Bains, A., & Hörmann, S. (2023). The effects of personality and social media experiences on mental health: Examining the mediating role of fear of missing out, ghosting, and vaguebooking. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107436 .

Cason, H. (1925). Influence of suggestion on imagery in a group situation. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20(3), 294–299.

CHAPMAN, A. L. (2009)The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology, by Philip J. Corr and Gerald Matthews (Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 904 Pages (ISBN 978-0–521-86218-9, US $199.95 Hardcover; ISBN 978-0–521-68051-6, CA $96.95,

Chapoton, B., Sarda, E., Tinquaut, F., Bègue, L., Chirain, A., Brousse, G., & Flaudias, V. (2023). Suggestibility, Facebook use and relationship with substance addictive behaviors. L'encephale, 49(3), 261-267.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education.

Dafaalla, A& Mussa, Y (2023). Suggestibility among university students. Journal of Studies in the Social and Human Sciences, 5(2), 329-345

Devi, P. U. (2021). Hypnotherapy: Healing Throught the Mind. Notion Press.

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2019). Personality traits. General psychology: Required reading, 278.

Eisen, M. L., Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S. (Eds.). (2001). Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview. Routledge.

Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature human behaviour, 2(10), 735-742.

Haselhuhn, C. W., & Clopton, K. L. (2008). The representation of applied psychology areas in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 35(3), 205-209.

Hooper, V. R., Chou, S., & Browne, K. D. (2016). A systematic review on the relationship between self-esteem and interrogative suggestibility. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(6), 761-785 .

Jabbar, M.(2021). Attractiveness and its relationship to the academic effectiveness of university students. Journal of Human Sciences, 2 (a special issue for Al-Mouther).

Jones, E. (1910). The action of suggestion in psycho-therapy. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 5(5), 217.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Personality types. The portable Jung, 178-272.

Kotov, R. I., Bellman, S. B., & Watson, D. B. (2004). Multidimensional Iowa suggestibility scale (MISS).

Londerville, Susan & Main, Mary (1981): Security of attachment, compliance, and maternal training methods in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology- vol 7(289-299)16

Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge University Press.

Michael, R. B., Garry, M., & Kirsch, I. (2012). Suggestion, cognition, and behavior. Current directions in Psychological science, 21(3), 151-156.

Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (2023). The rise of social media. Our world in data .

Pires, R., Silva, D. R., & Ferreira, A. S. (2013). Personality styles and suggestibility: A differential approach. Personality and individual differences, 55(4), 381-386.

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of personality traits in adulthood.

Ruiz, P. (2000). Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry 1(1), 938-950, Sadock, & V. A. Sadock (Eds.). Philadelphia: lippincott Williams & wilkins.

Shafiq, M., & Parveen, K. (2023). Social media usage: Analyzing its effect on academic performance and engagement of higher education students. International Journal of Educational Development, 98, 102738 .

Taha, Faraj, Qandil,SH, Mohamed, H, & Abdel-Fattah, M (2009): Encyclopedia of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian .

Tatiana, B., Kobicheva, A., Tokareva, E., & Mokhorov, D. (2022). The relationship between students' psychological security level, academic engagement and performance variables in the digital educational environment. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9385-9399

Tavaloli, T., Kimiaee, S. & Agha Mohammadian, H. (2022). The Effectiveness of Marriage Enrichment Training of TIME Plan on Improving Marital Intimacy and Women’s Psychological Security .

Zahran, Hamed (2003) Psychological security is a basic pillar of Arab and global national security - studies in mental health and psychological counseling, World of Books, Cairo

Zhang, H., & Zhao, H. (2023). Changes in Chinese adolescent college students' psychological security during 2004–2020: A cross‐temporal meta‐analysis. Journal of Adolescence

Zhuravlova, L. Pomytkina, L. Lytvynchuk, A. Mozharovska, T & Zhuravlov, V (2020). Psychological security in the conditions of using information and communication technologies. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology 2(1), 216-223 .