Views

CrossRef citations to date

Altmetric

Research Article

Complications and consistency: investigating the asymmetric information management ‘AIM’ technique with follow-up statements

Cody Portera Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK;b School of Social Sciences, College of Health, Science and Society, University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol, UKCorrespondence[email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2780-9067

Ed Morrisona Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Alistair Harveya Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Rachel Taylorc Psychology Department, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

Figures & data

Table 1. Omissions, commissions (i.e. new detail), and repetitions as a function of veracity or experimental condition.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 2. Discriminant analysis for the frequency of consistency codes as a function of experimental condition.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 3. Area under the ROC curve differences using new detail, omission, and repetitions.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 4. Overall detail, complications and proportion of complications reported by truth tellers as a function of phase.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 5. Overall detail, self-handicapping strategies and common knowledge details reported by liars as a function of phase.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 6. Discriminant analysis for the frequency of complication measurements as a function of experimental condition.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 7. Area under the ROC curve differences using overall detail, complications, common knowledge details and proportion of complications.

Download CSV Display Table

Complications and consistency: investigating the asymmetric information management ‘AIM’ technique with follow-up statements

Table 1. Omissions, commissions (i.e. new detail), and repetitions as a function of veracity or experimental condition.

Table 2. Discriminant analysis for the frequency of consistency codes as a function of experimental condition.

Table 3. Area under the ROC curve differences using new detail, omission, and repetitions.

Table 4. Overall detail, complications and proportion of complications reported by truth tellers as a function of phase.

Table 5. Overall detail, self-handicapping strategies and common knowledge details reported by liars as a function of phase.

Table 6. Discriminant analysis for the frequency of complication measurements as a function of experimental condition.

Table 7. Area under the ROC curve differences using overall detail, complications, common knowledge details and proportion of complications.

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Complications and consistency: investigating the asymmetric information management ‘AIM’ technique with follow-up statements

Figures & data

Table 1. Omissions, commissions (i.e. new detail), and repetitions as a function of veracity or experimental condition.

Table 2. Discriminant analysis for the frequency of consistency codes as a function of experimental condition.

Table 3. Area under the ROC curve differences using new detail, omission, and repetitions.

Table 4. Overall detail, complications and proportion of complications reported by truth tellers as a function of phase.

Table 5. Overall detail, self-handicapping strategies and common knowledge details reported by liars as a function of phase.

Table 6. Discriminant analysis for the frequency of complication measurements as a function of experimental condition.

Table 7. Area under the ROC curve differences using overall detail, complications, common knowledge details and proportion of complications.

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date