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

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Asymmetric Information Management (AIM) technique encourages truth tellers to adopt a forthcoming verbal strategy and liars a withholding strategy. We investigated the effectiveness of this technique using a follow-up statement. We predicted that truth tellers in the AIM condition would provide more new and overall detail, with a higher proportion of complications, compared to control truth tellers, whereas AIM liars would use more self-handicapping strategies and common knowledge details, with fewer commissions, repetitions, and less overall detail than control liars. This was tested using a mixed-factors design in which truth tellers (n = 65) gave an honest recollection of a recent trip while liars fabricated a story (n = 62). Participants provided an initial statement and half received the AIM instructions prior to providing their second statement. Truth tellers in the AIM condition provided more new detail and complications in their second statement compared to truth telling controls. Unlike previous research, AIM instructions had no significant effect on liars’ statements. No other differences emerged. In conclusion, the AIM instructions elicit some new information from truth tellers but do not improve classification from liars.