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

References

• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Farina, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and criteria based content analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Farina, F., & Vilarino, M. (2016). Criteria-Based content analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aron, R., Rosner, J. L., & Gray, J. C. (1998). How to prepare witnesses for trial. West Group.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, A. S., & Ross, B. H. (2011). The causes and consequences of reminding. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 71–88). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61(3), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond Jr, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. A. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 13(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4%3C297::AID-ACP578%3E3.0.CO;2-S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caso, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & DeLeo, G. (2006). Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and nonverbal countermeasures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X49936
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Mann, S., Granhag, P. A., & Lancaster, G. L. (2017). Suspects’ consistency in statements concerning two events when different question formats are used. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 14(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denne, E., Sullivan, C., Ernest, K., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2020). Assessing children’s credibility in courtroom investigations of alleged child sexual abuse: Suggestibility, plausibility, and consistency. Child Maltreatment, 25(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559519872825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3–34). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E., Shaboltas, A., … Houston, K. (2016a). Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit from native speakers, non-native speakers and those talking through an interpreter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 854–862. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2016b). Using the reverse order technique with non-native speakers or through an interpreter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. P., Brewer, N., & Mitchell, G. (2009). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Legal versus cognitive explanations. In R. Bull, T. Valentine, & T. Williamson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions (pp. 121–136). John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., & Leins, D. A. (2013). Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In B. Cooper, D. D. Griesel, & M. Ternes. (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 173–189). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5547-9_7
   Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.332
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Rangmar, J., & Strömwall, L. A. (2015). Small cells of suspects: Eliciting cues to deception by strategic interviewing. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 12(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (1999). Repeated interrogations — stretching the deception detection paradigm. Expert Evidence, 7(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008993326434
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000). Deception detection: Examining the consistency heuristic. In C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, J. F. Nijboer, & J. M. Reintjes (Eds.), New trends in criminal investigation and evidence (Vol. 2, pp. 309–321). Antwerpen: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Granting asylum or not? Migration board personnel’s beliefs about deception. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183042000305672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Jonsson, A. C. (2003). Partners in crime: How liars in collusion betray themselves 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 848–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01928.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the evidence framing matrix. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 341–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02047.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Anders Granhag, P., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600750264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010010
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Lafferty, M., & Nahari, G. (2017). Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component. Acta Psychologica, 174, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, L., Gabbert, F., Kinninger, M., Kontogianni, F., Bracey, A., & Hanger, A. (2019). Who said what and when? A timeline approach to eliciting information and intelligence about conversations, plots, and plans. Law and Human Behavior, 43(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, C. A., Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Hope, L., & Satchell, L. P. (2020). Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3678
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, H. C., & Matsumoto, D. (2020). The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 17(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?. American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, Rebecca J. (2004). Why people waive their miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 211–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, B., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2019). Being accurate about accuracy in verbal deception detection. PLoS One, 14(8), e0220228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2017). How a power analysis implicitly reveals the smallest effect size you care about [Blog post]. http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/05/how-power-analysis-implicitly-reveals.html
   Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. P. (2015). You cannot hide your telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leins, D., Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2011). Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(2), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532510X501775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., & Ross, S. J. (2013). Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02041.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F. (2003). Our changeable memories: Legal and practical implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mac Giolla, E., & Luke, T. J. (2021). Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human observers? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memon, A., Fraser, J., Colwell, K., Odinot, G., & Mastroberardino, S. (2010). Distinguishing truthful from invented accounts using reality monitoring criteria. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 177–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532508X401382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merckelbach, H. (2004). Telling a good story: Fantasy proneness and the quality of fabricated memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., & Pazuelo, M. (2015). Telling a convincing story: Richness in detail as a function of gender and information. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(4), 363–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014a). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02069.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014b). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802073712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., & Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palena, N., Caso, L., Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2021). The verifiability approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 155–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, C. N. (2021). Developing interviewing techniques to enhance information elicitation and lie detection (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth). Chapter 7, pp. 118–122.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, C. N., Morrison, E., Fitzgerald, R. J., Taylor, R., & Harvey, A. C. (2020). Lie-detection by strategy manipulation: Developing an asymmetric information management (AIM) technique. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, C. N., Taylor, R., & Harvey, A. C. (2022). Applying the asymmetric information management technique to insurance claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, C. N., Taylor, R., & Salvanelli, G. (2021). A critical analysis of the Model Statement literature: Should this tool be used in practice? Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 18(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, C. N., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Vernham, Z., Salvanelli, G., & McIntyre, N. (2018). Using specific model statements to elicit information and cues to deceit in information-gathering interviews. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quas, J. A., Thompson, W. C., Alison, K., & Stewart, C. (2005). Do jurors ‘know’ what isn’t so about child witnesses? Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-5523-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelleman-Offermans, K., & Merckelbach, H. (2010). Fantasy proneness as a confounder of verbal lie detection tools. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, S. E., & Benjamin, A. S. (2016). That’s not what you said the first time: A theoretical account of the relationship between consistency and accuracy of recall. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0012-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steller, M., & Kohnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based content analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, M. O., Frank, M. G., & Hurley, C. M. (2008). Training for individual differences in lie detection accuracy. In J. G. Voeller (Ed.), Wiley handbook of science and technology for homeland security (1st ed., pp. 1–13). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087923.hhs695
   Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Bogaard, G., & Meijer, E. (2021). Discriminating deceptive from truthful statements using the verifiability approach: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 374–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.v35.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt, A., van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 183–207). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_10
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2016). Baselining as a lie detection method. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 1112–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548592
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017a). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A, Hope, L, & Fisher, R P. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 129–136.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Leal, S., Jupe, L., & Harvey, A. (2018). Within-subjects verbal lie detection measures: A comparison between total detail and proportion of complications. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Dalton, G., Jo, E., Shaboltas, A., … Houston, K. (2017b). Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews. Acta Psychologica, 177, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2012). Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit: Inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(6), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.515987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Palena, N., Leal, S., & Caso, L. (2021). The relationship between complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and veracity: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walczyk, J. J., Mahoney, K. T., Doverspike, D., & Griffith-Ross, D. A. (2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar