The aim of this study was to model various social and cognitive processes believed to be associated with true and false confessions by exploring the link between investigative biases and what occurs in the interrogation room. Using the Russano et al. (Psychol Sci 16:481-486, 2005) paradigm, this study explored how perceptions of guilt influenced the frequency and type of interrogation tactics used, suspect's perceptions of the interrogation process, the likelihood of confession, and investigator's resulting perceptions of culpability. Results suggested that investigator bias led to the increased use of minimization tactics and thereby increased the likelihood of false confessions by innocent participants. In contrast, the manipulation of investigator bias had no direct or indirect influence on guilty participants. These findings confirm the important role of investigator bias and improve our understanding of the decision-making process associated with true and false confessions.

The task force that led to the creation of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) recommended that the HIG fund a program of research aimed at establishing scientifically supported interrogative best practices. One of the ways to identify 'best practices' is to rely on direct reporting from subject-matter experts. In this study, 42 highly experienced military and intelligence interrogators were interviewed about their interrogation-related practices and beliefs, including such topics as training and selection, the role of rapport, perceptions regarding the techniques employed, lie detection, and the roles of interpreters and analysts. Interrogators indicated that excellent interpersonal skills on the part of an interrogator, an emphasis on rapport and relationship-building techniques, and the assistance of well-prepared interpreters and analysts are key components of a successful interrogation. It is our hope that the results of this study will stimulate research, influence training models, and ultimately contribute toward an interrogative best-practice model.

The primary goal of the current study was to develop a novel experimental paradigm with which to study the influence of psychologically based interrogation techniques on the likelihood of true and false confessions. The paradigm involves guilty and innocent participants being accused of intentionally breaking an experimental rule, or “cheating.” In the first demonstration of this paradigm, we explored the influence of two common police interrogation tactics: minimization and an explicit offer of leniency, or a “deal.” Results indicated that guilty persons were more likely to confess than innocent persons, and that the use of minimization and the offer of a deal increased the rate of both true and false confessions. Police investigators are encouraged to avoid interrogation techniques that imply or directly promise leniency, as they appear to reduce the diagnostic value of any confession that is elicited.

No abstract

Although analysts and interpreters have been recognized as critical members of human intelligence (HUMINT) interrogation teams, their perceptions of the interrogation process have yet to be explored in any systematic way. In a series of two studies, we interviewed a small number of highly experienced HUMINT analysts and surveyed a group of interpreters with experience supporting interrogations, about their experience with and perceptions of the interrogation process. We explored a variety of topics with each group, including training and selection, role and function, how best to utilize an analyst/interpreter, logistics (e.g., analyst models and interpreter placement), third-party observations/feedback, perceived effectiveness of interrogation techniques, and team dynamics. The results of these studies may be used to establish, for the first time, baseline knowledge and reported best practices about the HUMINT interrogation process from the analyst and interpreter perspectives, which may ultimately influence training and practice models. OverviewAlthough research on interrogation practices in the criminal law enforcement context is now commonplace, more recently, there has been an increase in interest in military and human intelligence (HUMINT) interrogations. Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, and Kleinman (2010) have called for more research on how to elicit reliable information from sources and targets in the HUMINT context. Much of the research on interrogations to date (primarily in the criminal domain) has focused on the interrogator's role, actions, and perceptions. However, although the interrogator plays a central role in a HUMINT interrogation, he or she is often materially assisted by two other critical members of the interrogation team: the interpreter, who assists with facilitating communicating and the connections that build relationships, and the analyst, who directly supports the interrogator by preparing the interrogator for the interrogation and helping to make sense of the information elicited from a target. Unfortunately, analytical and linguistic interrogation support has been largely ignored by the research community. Improving interrogative practice requires that we study the interrogation process as completely and inclusively as possible. Given that a team approach to HUMINT interrogation has become de rigueur (Kleinman, 2006), a full understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and perceptions of each member of the interrogation team is needed to shape both operational practice and future research. To that end, the purpose of the current work was to address the gaps in our knowledge about analysts and interpreters by systematically studying the perceptions of these two key groups.