How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information.

This research explored how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal. We theorized that interviewees estimate the interviewer's objectives based on how they frame any attempt to solicit information. Then interviewees organize the information they possess into item designations that pragmatically correspond to the perceived interviewer-objective. The more an interviewer specifies what they want to know, the more the interviewee will mentally designate information items corresponding with that objective. To examine the theory, we conducted two identical experiments wherein participants assumed the role of an informant with one of two dispositions. They were to be cooperative or resistant when undergoing an interview. The interviewer posed specific or ambiguous questions. In Study 1 (N = 210), interviewees identified applicable information items based on their interviewer's questions. And interviewees answered their interviewer's questions in Study 2 (N = 199). We aimed to demonstrate that question type influences mental designations and disposition affects disclosures. Disposition had a stronger influence on interviewees' disclosure than when reasoning about what the interviewer wants to know. But contrary to our expectations, mental designation preferences indicated that interviewees generally assume interviewers want to know complete details, irrespective of question specificity. We suggest avenues for future research.

Exploring how members of illicit networks navigate investigative interviews.

This study explored how members of an illicit network navigate investigative interviews probing their crimes. We examined how perceived disclosure outcomes, namely, the projected costs and benefits, affect what members choose to reveal. We recruited N = 22 groups, maximum of six participants per group. Each group assumed the role of an illicit network and planned for possible interviews with investigators probing into the legitimacy of a business the network owns. All participants underwent an interview after the group planning stage. The results indicated that network members navigate the dilemma interviews bring by disclosing information they perceive would likely yield beneficial (or desirable) rather than costly (or undesirable) outcomes. Additionally, much of the participants' sensitivity to potential costs and benefits was explained by the group of which they are a part: different networks likely respond to costs and benefits in unique ways. This work contributes to understanding how illicit networks manage information disclosure in investigative interviews.