PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

476

Title

How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Informationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

David A. Neequaye & Alexandra LorsonPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2023

Picture

Abstract

<p>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 mentally 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 pragmatically corresponding with the specified 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. There was some evidence that disposition has a stronger influence on interviewees’ disclosure than when reasoning about what the interviewer wants to know. But contrary to our expectations, the results on mental designation preferences indicated that interviewees generally assume interviewers want to know complete details, irrespective of question specificity. We suggest avenues for future research on pragmatic inferences in intelligence interviews.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

disclosure; intelligence gathering; intelligence interviewing; pragmatic inference; relevance theory

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2023-05-24 06:57:09

Recommender

Zoltan Dienes

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY