Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviewsuse asterix (*) to get italics

David A. Neequaye, Timothy J. Luke, Kristina KollbackPlease 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"

2024

<p>We introduce the disclosure-outcomes management model. The model views disclosure in intelligence interviews as a behavior interviewees use to profitably navigate self-interest dilemmas. We theorized that interviewees compare the potential outcomes of disclosing to their self-interests. They evaluate the extent to which disclosure will facilitate or impede those self-interests: an interviewee’s self-interest dilemma elicits cooperation with respect to some information but not other information. A Preliminary Study (N = 300) supported the model’s predictions. We proposed a Replication Study (N = 369) to examine the model further. Participants assumed the role of an intelligence source undergoing an interview. They decided what information to disclose, contending the typical dilemma in an intelligence interview wherein disclosure could jeopardize or advance their self-interests. The results from the Preliminary and Replication studies were broadly in line with our proposition: perceived benefits positively influenced the likelihood of disclosing. However, a negative interaction between costs and benefits observed in the Preliminary Study did not replicate. That finding may be due to power constraints, not evidence against the existence of an interaction effect. Our proposal that—generally speaking—interviewees are likelier to disclose information units that seem less versus more risky requires further examination. Individual level sensitivity to benefits, costs, and their co-occurrence varied substantially in our studies. We discuss avenues for future research.</p>

disclosure, intelligence interviewing, information management, self-interest dilemma

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

Social sciences

Jason Chin suggested: I'm sorry, I just took on an editorial role and am snowed under.

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

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

2024-02-29 17:26:19

Zoltan Dienes