On Eliciting Intelligence from Human Sources: Contextualizing the Scharff‐Technique

Abstract

Three techniques for eliciting intelligence from human sources were examined. Two versions of the Scharff-technique (conceptualized as four tactics) were compared against the Direct Approach (open and direct questions). The Scharff confirmation technique used correct claims to elicit information, and the Scharff disconfirmation/confirmation technique used a mix of correct and incorrect claims. The participants (N = 119) took the role of 'sources' holding information about a terrorist attack and tried not to reveal too much or too little information during an interview. The Scharff confirmation resulted in more new information than the Scharff disconfirmation/confirmation and the Direct Approach. The sources in the Scharff conditions had a more difficult time reading the interviewer's information objectives. The sources in the Scharff conditions underestimated, whereas sources in the Direct Approach overestimated, how much new information they revealed. The study advances previous work and shows that the Scharff-technique is a promising intelligence gathering technique.

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

“…As the trained handlers asked very few questions, we were rather surprised that their sources did not end up finding it comparatively more difficult to read their handlers’ information objectives (as consistently shown in previous research, e.g., May et al ., ; Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, ). One explanation for this may be that both trained and untrained handlers were quite skilled at hiding their information objectives, as this is an essential part of their basic training to become a handler.…”

“…Third, presenting claims comes with the potential risk of influencing the source to provide unreliable intelligence by, for example, disconfirming correct claims. It should thus be noted that for the current training study, as well as for past laboratory studies, there has been no issue with the claim tactic in producing false information (Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, ). Finally, the Scharff technique is primarily aimed for custodial settings where the source expects to be questioned, and the current results may therefore not easily generalize to intelligence gathering activities taking place outside a custodial setting.…”

Eliciting Information and Detecting Lies in Intelligence Interviewing: An Overview Of Recent Research

“…Second, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique were less accurate in establishing which information the interviewer was after (e.g., Granhag et al, ; May et al, ). Third, the studies show that a large majority of the sources interviewed by the Scharff technique believed they had revealed less new information than was actually the case, whereas the majority of the sources interviewed with the Direct Approach believed they had revealed more new information than was actually the case (Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Cancino Montecinos, in press; Oleszkiewicz et al, in press; May et al, ). In other words, the Scharff technique leads the source to underestimate how much new information she or he revealed during the interview, whereas the Direct Approach leads the source to overestimate how much new information she or he revealed.…”

“…The studies show promising results in favour of the Scharff technique. First, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique reveal more new information compared with the sources interviewed with the Direct Approach (e.g., Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, in press; May, Granhag, & Oleszkiewicz, , when combining the two versions of the Scharff technique). Second, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique were less accurate in establishing which information the interviewer was after (e.g., Granhag et al, ; May et al, ).…”

Information Gathering in Law Enforcement and Intelligence Settings: Advancing Theory and Practice

“…The Special issue contains 12 papers, and we are proud to have received contributions from North America, Europe and Australia. A closer look at the papers reveal that they cover (a) experienced interrogators' (and analysts' and interpreters') views regarding their own practices (Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, ; Russano, Narchet, & Kleinman, ; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner ), (b) empirical tests and systematic field observations of different interview approaches and tactics promoting the elicitation of human intelligence (Evans et al, ; Luke, Dawson, Hartwig, & Granhag, ; Goodman‐Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, ; Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, ; Shaw et al, ; Vrij, Mann, Jundi, Hillman, & Hope, ), (c) memory enhancing techniques to assist sources who are willing to share information (Leins, Fisher, Pludwinski, Rivard, & Robertson, ; Rivard, Fisher, Robertson, & Hirn Mueller, ), and (d) an overview of current research on techniques for interviewing to elicit information and assess credibility (Vrij & Granhag, ).…”