Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing accusatorial and information-gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm.

Abstract

Substantial research has assessed interrogations seeking to obtain a criminal confession, and consequently much has been learned regarding the potential problems with confession evidence. However, an increasing focus on counter-terrorism, and therefore intelligence interrogations, reveals an obvious gap in the literature. Intelligence interrogations are primarily focused on collecting information from individuals as opposed to a confession linked to an alleged event, and little of the extant psychological literature can speak directly to such a scenario. The current research developed an experimental paradigm to test interrogation approaches in an intelligence-gathering context, providing a method for gathering empirical data on human intelligence collection. In the first implementation of this paradigm, accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation strategies were tested using a procedure high in psychological realism. Results indicate that an information-gathering approach yields more relevant information than an accusatorial approach and leads to more diagnostic impressions by third party observers.

Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review

“…We also note that because a dichotomous, yes/no confession variable (as opposed to amount of information) has been the most-often used outcome in the studies we reviewed (and ultimately deemed eligible), our focal outcome measure by necessity is also confession (true and false). A novel experimental paradigm focusing on the elicitation of guilty knowledge from noncooperative individuals has only recently been introduced to the empirical literature (see Evans et al 2013). …”

Eliciting information from human sources: Training handlers in the Scharff technique

“…Gathering information from human sources is a fundamental and unceasing endeavour in the prevention of crime. However, researchers have only recently begun to develop and evaluate methods for gathering human intelligence (Evans et al ., ; Granhag, Cancinos Montecinos, & Oleszkiewicz, ; Granhag, Vrij, & Meissner, ; Justice, Bhatt, Brandon, & Kleinman, ). Broadly speaking, the aim of this work is to be able to suggest effective and ethically defensible strategies for collecting information from human sources.…”

Drawing the fine line between interrogation and torture: towards a Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing

“…Different experimental paradigms in social psychology using students or volunteers have shown that an information-gathering approach yields more relevant information than an accusatorial approach and leads to more diagnostic impressions by third party observers (see for instance Evans et al, 2013). Positive (praise) and negative (deprecation) emotional approaches to interrogation are more efficient than a direct, accusatorial approach (Evans et al, 2014).…”