In this work, we introduce the disclosure-outcomes management model, which offers propositions to explain intelligence interviewees’ mental representation and disclosure of information. The model views disclosure as a behavior that interviewees implement to maximize their self-interests. We theorize that interviewees cooperate by managing their disclosures in response to self-interest dilemmas. That is, interviewees compare the potential outcomes of disclosing to their self-interests and estimate the extent to which the behavior will facilitate or impede those self-interests. That is to say, an interviewee’s self-interest dilemma elicits cooperation with respect to some information but not other information. We discuss how this model fits with and advances the paradigm of intelligence interviewing research.

This article examines ethical considerations relevant to the formulation of psychological investigative interviewing techniques. Psychology researchers are now devoting much attention to improving the efficacy of eliciting information in investigative interviews. Stakeholders agree that interviewing methods must be ethical. However, there is a less concerted effort at systematically delineating ethical considerations to guide the creation of interviewing methods derived from scientific psychological principles. The disclosures interviewees make have the potential to put them at considerable risk, and it is not always possible to determine beforehand whether placing interviewees under such risks is warranted. Thus, I argue that research psychologists aiming to contribute ethical methods in this context should ensure that those methods abide by a standard that actively protects interviewees against unjustified risks. Interviewing techniques should provide interviewees, particularly vulnerable ones, with enough agency to freely determine what to disclose. Researchers should explicitly indicate the boundary conditions of a method if it cannot achieve this benchmark. Journal editors and reviewers should request such discussions. The suggested standard tasks research psychologists to be circumspect about recommending psychological techniques without fully addressing the ethical boundaries of those methods in their publications.

Researchers typically note that there is much divergence about how rapport is defined in the investigative interviewing literature. We examined the scope of such variance, the commonalities of extant definitions, and how the current state of affairs impacts the scientific investigation of rapport. A formal search on the PsychInfo database obtained 228 relevant publications. Thirty-two publications explicitly defined rapport and 22 of those definitions were unique. All of the definitions implied that rapport centers on the quality of the interviewer-interviewee interaction. However, the definitions ascribed different attributes when describing how rapport relates to the quality of interpersonal interaction in an interview. A thematic analysis revealed six major attributes by which the definitions characterize interviewer-interviewee interactions that evoke rapport. The attributes were positivity, mutuality, communication, successful outcomes, trust, and respect. These attributes were disparately distributed across the definitions. Based on the considerable disparity in its definitions, we question the theoretical and practical value of the term rapport. The current situation creates ambiguity about the meaning of rapport and impedes its objective assessment. To avoid further ambiguity, we believe the field must collectively determine a finite set of attributes to denote the term rapport. Until this is achieved, stakeholders should stop indiscriminately using the word rapport to describe any collection of attributes of the interviewer-interviewee interaction.

This research explores how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal, which they may or may not disclose. The research theorizes that interviewees mentally identify applicable information items by estimating the interviewer’s objectives based on how they frame any attempt to solicit information. Interviewees then mentally organize the information they possess into item designations that pragmatically correspond to the perceived interviewer-objective. The more an attempt specifies the interviewer’s objective, the more the interviewee will mentally designate information items that pragmatically correspond with the perceived objective. This research includes three, proof of concept, experiments to test the hypothesis just described. The results would optimize further theorizing about how pragmatic considerations influence intelligence interview dynamics to possibly affect several downstream effects.