This study examined the utility of two interview instructions designed to overcome children’s reluctance to disclose transgressions: eliciting a promise from children to tell the truth and the putative confession (telling children that a suspect “told me everything that happened and wants you to tell the truth”). The key questions were whether the instructions increased disclosure in response to recall questions and in response to recognition questions that were less or more explicit about transgressions, and whether instructions were differentially effective with age. Two-hundred and seventeen 4- to 9-year-old maltreated and comparable non-maltreated children played with a stranger. This included playing with a set of toys. For half of the children within each group, two of the toys appeared to break while they were playing. The stranger admonished secrecy. Shortly thereafter, children were questioned about what happened in one of the three interview conditions. Some children were asked to promise to tell the truth. Others were given the putative confession, and still others received no interview instructions. When coupled with recall questions, the promise was only effective at increasing disclosures among older children, whereas the putative confession was effective regardless of age. Across interview instruction conditions, recognition questions that did not suggest wrongdoing elicited few additional transgression disclosures; recognition questions that explicitly mentioned wrongdoing elicited some true reports but also some false alarms. No differences in disclosure emerged between maltreated and non-maltreated children. Results highlight the potential benefits and limitations of different interviewing approaches when questioning reluctant children.