Presented at TARMAC 2020. Access recording via link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZbFSFik30&list=PLfjltJSHA9mqEI3gjUYXylY-t6hBm6fE2&index=9

1. Lie-detection by
strategy manipulation:
Developing an
Asymmetric Information
Management (AIM)
technique.
CODY PORTER
11TH JUNE 2020
TARMAC PRESENTATION

2. Presentation
overview
Explain the rationale for a new
interviewing technique
The theoretical components of
the AIM technique
The findings from our study

3. Investigating the literature (part-1)
Lie-detection research predicts that truth tellers and liars should behave differently during
interviews (e.g. Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2017).
Truth tellers should be able to freely disclose information they can retrieve from memory and
report, thus adopting a forthcoming strategy (Hartwig et al., 2010).
Liars, in contrast, are predicted to behave differently based upon a number of influential
factors. They may be:
(i) unwilling to provide highly detailed statements
(ii) liars may be unable to fabricate such detailed information

4. Investigating the literature (part-2)
The encouraging interviewees to say more literature shows that liars can, when prompted, provide
more detailed statements (Bogaard et al., 2014; Leal et al., 2015; Vrij, et al., 2017).
= As a result, statements from truth tellers and liars appear highly similar making it hard to
distinguish between them.
We wanted to move away from this.
One way to do this was to create tools that proactively exaggerate differences between truth tellers
and liars.
Thus, the goal of our pre-retrieval AIM technique was to establish an information management
dilemma for truth tellers and liars that has different, veracity-dependent, solutions.

5. AIM instructions
• First, however, please pay close attention to the following information.
• During interviews, individuals frequently over-estimate how easily an analyst can
determine if they are being deceptive or honest.
• Actually, lie detection is not easy and I cannot take your honesty for granted.
However, you can make it easier for us to determine if you are being honest or lying.
• This is because our lie detection techniques become more accurate and reliable the
more information you provide.
• If you provide a longer, more detailed statement, we will be better able to classify
you as either honest or lying.
(i) The illusion of
transparency component
(Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998)
(Kassin, & Norwick, 2004; Kassin, 2005)
(ii) Disclosure-credibility
association component
Similar to the function of the
Verifiability Approach
(Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2014)
A report everything
instruction
(Porter et al., 2017)
(Porter, & Salvanelli, 2020)
Theoretical components

6. Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 - Truth tellers in the AIM instruction
condition will report more overall detail compared
to truth tellers in the control condition.
Hypothesis 2 - Liars in the AIM instruction
condition will report less overall detail compared to
liars in the control condition.
Hypothesis 3 - Consequently, accurate
discrimination between truth tellers and liars will
be enhanced in the AIM condition, compared to
the control condition.

7. Design
A 2 (veracity: truth teller vs. liar) x 2
(interviewing condition: AIM technique
vs. control condition) between factors
design was used.
Dependent Variable – overall detail,
based upon Reality Monitoring Criteria.

8. Procedure
Truth tellers (n = 52) and liars (n = 52)
took part in one of two
counterbalanced missions:
(i) Library mission
(ii) Drop-off mission
…. and were assigned to either the AIM
or control interviewing condition.

9. Our findings
 Truth tellers in the AIM condition
provided more overall detail compared to
truth tellers in the control condition.
t(30.90) = 4.92, p < .001, d = 1.36, 95% CI
[0.74, 1.95], BF10 = 10.90.
 Liars in the AIM instruction condition
provided less overall detail compared to
liars in the control condition.
t(42.61) = -2.05, p = .024 (one-tailed), d =
0.57, 95% CI [0.01, 1.11], BF10 = 2.93.

10. Our findings
 Accurate discrimination between truth tellers and liars was
enhanced in the AIM condition (81%), compared to the control
condition (48%).
 AIM condition (AUC = .94, SE = .03) was more effective at
correctly classifying truthful statements compared with the
control condition (AUC = .52, SE = .08), p < .001.

11. Summary
• The current study demonstrated that our new
interviewing technique can enhance information
elicitation for truth tellers, while simultaneously
encouraging liars to withhold information.
• AIM is more effective at eliciting additional
information from truth tellers (d = 1.36), than
supressing information reported by liars (d = 0.57).
• Implicit function – specifically with regards to liars.

12. For more information…
Reference
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.01.004

13. Contact details
Email: cody.porter@port.ac.uk
Twitter: @Cody_N_Porter
Address: Institute of Criminal Justice Studies
St George Building
Room 3.30
141 High Street
Old Portsmouth
PO1 2HY

14. Thank you for listening
Discussion questions next…..

15. Discussion
Questions
1. As a truth teller (or liar) how do you think
you would respond to these instructions?
2. What are your thoughts on application of
the AIM technique in the real world?
3. From a memory perspective, do you think
we can enhance the AIM technique?