A (Nearly) 360° Perspective of the Interrogation Process

Narchet, Fadia M.; Russano, Melissa B.; Kleinman, Steven M.; Meissner, Christian A.

doi:10.1002/9781118769133.ch8

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent systematic interviews with military and intelligence interrogators, including those who interrogated high-value targets, confirm these findings—professionals frequently reference the use of torture as the least effective technique for gaining cooperation, with such tactics seen as more often producing resistance (Narchet, Russano, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2016; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014). It is notable that these findings are consistent with the views of Markus Wolf, chief of the East German foreign intelligence service during much of the Cold War, who asserted that “interrogation .…”

Section: Overcoming Resistance and Achieving Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation

Vrij

Meissner

Fisher

et al. 2017

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the United States have claimed that such methods are necessary for obtaining information from uncooperative terrorism subjects. In the present article, we offer an informed, academic perspective on such claims. Psychological theory and research shows that harsh interrogation methods are ineffective. First, they are likely to increase resistance by the subject rather than facilitate cooperation. Second, the threatening and adversarial nature of harsh interrogation is often inimical to the goal of facilitating the retrieval of information from memory and therefore reduces the likelihood that a subject will provide reports that are extensive, detailed, and accurate. Third, harsh interrogation methods make lie detection difficult. Analyzing speech content and eliciting verifiable details are the most reliable cues to assessing credibility; however, to elicit such cues subjects must be encouraged to provide extensive narratives, something that does not occur in harsh interrogations. Evidence is accumulating for the effectiveness of rapport-based information-gathering approaches as an alternative to harsh interrogations. Such approaches promote cooperation, enhance recall of relevant and reliable information, and facilitate assessments of credibility. Given the available evidence that torture is ineffective, why might some laypersons, policymakers, and interrogation personnel support the use of torture? We conclude our review by offering a psychological perspective on this important question.

show abstract

Section: Overcoming Resistance and Achieving Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation

Vrij

Meissner

Fisher

et al. 2017

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a survey of U.S. federal agents, military interrogators, and state/ local police investigators found that Rapport and Relationship Building was the most frequently endorsed approach to interrogation regardless of context, while Confrontation/Competition was perceived as least effective (and least utilized; Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, 2014). Rapport and Relationship Building was also found to be critical among samples of highly experienced military and intelligence interrogators (including those who conduct "highvalue target" interrogations; Narchet, Russano, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2016;Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014), and in cross-national samples of interrogation professionals from Australia and southeast Asia (Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014).…”

Section: Developing Cooperation Via Rapport Persuasion and Conceptual...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.

Meissner¹,

Surmon-Böhr²,

Oleszkiewicz³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interrogation practices in the United States have been roundly criticized both for their accusatorial ethos, at times leading to false confessions by the innocent, and for a history of applying physical and psychological coercion in law enforcement, military, and intelligence contexts. Despite decades of psychological research demonstrating the failures of such approaches and despite recent positive advances in countries such as the United Kingdom moving to an information-gathering framework, little change has occurred in the training or practice of U.S. interrogation professionals over the past 50 years. This paper describes recent historical events that have led to the development of the first unclassified, government-funded research program on the science of interviewing and interrogation. Since 2010, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) Research Program has identified effective approaches for developing cooperation and rapport, eliciting information, challenging inconsistencies by presenting evidence or information strategically, and assessing credibility using cognitive cues and strategic questioning tactics. The program has also examined the influence of culture and language, and has facilitated the translation of research from the laboratory to the field. In this context, we review the significant contributions of psychologists to understanding and developing ethical, legal, and effective interrogation practices, and we describe important future directions for research on investigative interviewing and interrogation. DEVELOPING AN EVIDENCE-BASED PERSPECTIVE 3 Developing an Evidence-Based Perspective on Interrogation: A Review of the U.S. Government's High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group Research Program The interrogation practices adopted by law enforcement, military, and intelligence professionals in the United States have been criticized both for their accusatorial ethos leading to false confessions and wrongful conviction of the innocent (Kassin et al., 2010; Lassiter & Meissner, 2010), as well as a dark history of applying torture in the interrogation booth (Costanzo & Redlich, 2010; Vrij et al., in press). Despite decades of research demonstrating the problems with such approaches and despite recent advances in countries such as the United Kingdom moving toward an information-gathering framework (Bull & Milne, 2004), little change has occurred in the training or practice of U.S. interrogation professionals over the past 50 years. This paper describes recent historical events that have led to the development of the first unclassified, government-funded research program on the science of interviewing and interrogation, and details its significant contributions to understanding and developing best practices. Notably, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) research program has been shaped, almost exclusively, by an international cadre of research psychologists conducting studies in the laboratory, in training academies, and in the field. As detailed below, the HIG research progr...

show abstract

“…There is growing consensus among practitioners and researchers that a rapport-based approach to interviewing is more reliable and productive than a confrontational, accusatorial approach (e.g., Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015; Narchet, Russano, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2016; Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, 2014). Successfully building rapport with initially reluctant sources is thought to overcome their resistance (e.g., Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013), increase the amount of information they provide (e.g., Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014; Redlich et al, 2014), and promote the likelihood of eliciting a true confession (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002; Kebbell, Alison, Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2010; Wachi et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing cooperation and disclosure by manipulating affiliation and developing rapport in investigative interviews.

Brimbal

Dianiska

Swanner

et al. 2019

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We sought to identify motivations to resist cooperation in intelligence interviews and develop techniques to overcome this resistance. One source of resistance can arise because of concerns for affiliations (e.g., “I do not want to inform on my friends/family/fellow countryman”). We investigated two avenues of rapport building—approach and avoidance—designed to overcome this concern. In a modified cheating paradigm, our participants (N = 116) became affiliated with a confederate who they then witnessed cheating. Participants were interviewed about the event in a 2 (approach: present vs. absent) × 2 (avoid: present vs. absent) design. The interviewer used either an approach technique that aligned them with the interviewer (portrayed as a morally good person) or an avoid technique that moved them away from the culprit (portrayed as nefarious), neither, or both. The approach technique increased rapport between the interviewer and participant. However, the avoid technique decreased the amount information elicited. When submitted to a mediation model, the approach technique had a positive indirect effect on information yield via perceived rapport and cooperation, while this was not the case for the avoid technique. An exploratory moderator analysis revealed that sympathy for the confederate moderated the effect of the avoid technique on information disclosed, where the more sympathy a participant felt for the confederate, the less information he or she provided. Implications for interviewing are discussed.

show abstract

A (Nearly) 360° Perspective of the Interrogation Process

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation

Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation

Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.

Enhancing cooperation and disclosure by manipulating affiliation and developing rapport in investigative interviews.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About