Facilitating sensitive disclosures by building rapport: the sensitive topic paradigm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigative interviews are critical to both the investigative process and its subsequent outcome. It is not uncommon, however, for interviewees to be reluctant to disclose all that they can remember due to negative feelings (e.g. shame, embarrassment). To overcome such feelings and facilitate detailed disclosures, researchers and practitioners across a variety of professional contexts have advocated for the use of rapport building. There exists little research, however, where rapport building has been experimentally evaluated within an ecologically valid paradigm. Within the current study, participants underwent an interview regarding a topic that we be believed to be inherently uncomfortable to discuss (i.e. details of their self-pleasuring behaviours) and were questioned using either a Rapport or No Rapport approach. Across N = 39 participants, results indicated (1) the outlined paradigm may be an effective method of examining interviewing tactics in an ecologically valid manner and (2) establishing rapport is an effective method of overcoming feelings of discomfort and facilitating disclosures. Practical and theoretical implications, as well as potential next steps are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it