The effect of tailored reciprocity on information provision in an investigative interview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In their study of reciprocity in investigative interviews, Matsumoto and Hwang (2018) found that offering interviewees water prior to the interview enhanced observer-rated rapport and positively affected information provision. This paper aims to examine whether tailoring the item towards an interviewee’s needs would further enhance information provision. This paper hypothesised that interviewees given a relevant item prior to the interview would disclose more information than interviewees given an irrelevant item or no item. Design/methodology/approach Participants (n = 85) ate pretzels to induce thirst, engaged in a cheating task with a confederate and were interviewed about their actions after receiving either no item, an irrelevant item to their induced thirst (pen and paper) or a relevant item (water). Findings This paper found that receiving a relevant item had a significant impact on information provision, with participants who received water providing the most details, and significantly more than participants that received no item. Research limitations/implications The findings have implications for obtaining information during investigative interviews and demonstrate a need for research on the nuances of social reciprocity in investigative interviewing. Practical implications The findings have implications for obtaining information during investigative interviews and demonstrate a need for research on the nuances of social reciprocity in investigative interviewing. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to experimentally test the effect of different item types upon information provision in investigative interviews.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".