Faking interrogative suggestiblity: the truth machine

James S. Baxter, Stella A. Bain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to investigate possible indicators of malingering or ‘faking bad’ on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. It was hypothesized that participants who were issued with a set of instructions that primed them to appear gullible and susceptible to pressure would exhibit a unique pattern of scores on the scales that would differentiate them from both normal adults and genuinely vulnerable populations.
Methods: The study had a single factor between participants design. Participants were tested in either one of two conditions: standard or faking. Forty-two participants took part in the study. Participants were a mix of undergraduates, postgraduate students, and professionals.
Results: Only Yield 1 scores were found to be significantly different between the two conditions. Participants in the faking condition gained higher scores on this measure on both the GSS 1 and GSS 2.
Conclusions: Results indicate that whilst fakers may identify the need to yield to leading questions as a strategy for faking interrogative suggestibility, they do not identify the need to make shifts in their responses. An elevated Yield 1 score in the absence of any other raised scores on the scales may therefore be indicative of faking bad on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)219-225
Number of pages7
JournalLegal and Criminological Psychology
Volume7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • interrogative suggestiblity
  • interview techniques
  • Gudjonsson suggestibility scales.

Cite this