Faking interrogative suggestibility: the truth machine

Jim Baxter, Stella Bain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)


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. 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. 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. 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 Scale
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)219-225
Number of pages6
JournalLegal and Criminological Psychology
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2002


  • gudjonsson suggestibility scale
  • psychology
  • personality
  • interviewing
  • self-esteem


Dive into the research topics of 'Faking interrogative suggestibility: the truth machine'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this