Investigative interviews are structured social interactions where interviewers seek information from interviewees to address various objectives (e.g., Neequaye, 2023). Across diverse contexts such as eyewitness recall or intelligence gathering (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1986; Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), interviewees must first identify their interviewer’s goals before deciding whether to cooperate or resist their requests. This is the central focus of the current study.

 

In a prior study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) made an unexpected discovery: interviewees tended to assume their interviewer was interested in all the information they possessed on a topic, regardless of the specificity of the questions (high vs. low specificity). The current submission by Neequaye and Lorson (2025) seeks to replicate these findings while addressing two potential confounds from the earlier research.

 

Replication 1 utilizes a within-subjects design for question-specificity trials, while Replication 2 employs a between-subjects design. In both replications, participants indicate what they believe their interviewer wants to know using free-text responses rather than selecting from predefined options. The authors present clear hypotheses, predicted outcomes, and alternative predictions, supported by well-reasoned rationales. Furthermore, the methodology, including data collection and analysis plans, is described in detail and has undergone review by three experts. Based on the expert reviews and the authors’ responses, the recommender concluded that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Social Psychological Bulletin
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open 
   

 

1. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422492

 

2. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: A Conceptual Overview. In A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10

 

3. Neequaye, D. A. (2023). Why Rapport Seems Challenging to Define and What to Do About the Challenge. Collabra: Psychology, 9, 90789. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90789

 

4. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information. Royal Society Open Science, 10(8), 230986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230986

 

5. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2025). How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9suze

An interviewee in an intelligence interview can face competing interests in disclosing information: The value in cooperating because, for example, information given leads to the arrest of a narcotics gang, making the neighbourhood safer; and the risk that disclosing the information leads to reprisals from the gang. Different pieces of information will compete with each other for disclosure, depending on this balance of risks to self-interest. According to the disclosure-outcomes management model of Neequaye et al., information will be disclosed more with a high than low probability of reward, as might be straightforwardly expected, but this difference will be larger when there is a low probability of cost rather than a high probability. The high probability of cost will induce more a variable response to the possible benefits.

Neequaye et al. (2024) invited participants to assume the role of an informant, with the goal of maximizing their points according to stated probabilities of costs and benefits of disclosing pieces of information relating to given scenarios. The degree to which each type of information was disclosed in a subsequent interview wase assessed. Perceived benefits positively influenced the likelihood of disclosing information. The crucial interaction, obtained in a Pilot study, was not significant in the pre-registered replication. The study had decent power to pick up an interaction the same size as found in the pilot, but not half the size, which would still have been interesting.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria.

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

Neequaye, D. A., Luke, T. J., & Kollback, K. (2024). Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 11 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tfp2c

An interviewee in an intelligence interview can face competing interests in disclosing information: The value in cooperating because, for example, information given leads to the arrest of a narcotics gang, making the neighbourhood safer; and the risk that disclosing the information leads to reprisals from the gang. Different pieces of information will compete with each other for disclosure, depending on this balance of risks to self-interest. According to the disclosure-outcomes management model of Neequaye et al., information will be disclosed more with a high than low probability of reward, as might be straightforwardly expected, but this difference will be larger when there is a low probability of cost rather than a high probability. The high probability of cost will induce more a variable response to the possible benefits.

Neequaye et al. (2023) will invite participants to assume the role of an informant, with the goal of maximizing their points according to stated probabilities of costs and benefits of disclosing pieces of information relating to given scenarios. Then the degree to which each type of information is disclosed in a subsequent interview will be assessed: this way the crucial interaction can be tested.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

Neequaye, D. A., Luke, T. J., & Kollback, K. (2023). Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ru8j5