Terrorists Among Us

Fischer, Andreas; Oswald, Margit; Seiler, Stefan

doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000094

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We hope this article informs the ongoing debate worldwide over interrogation doctrines, contributes to a fruitful collaboration between practitioners and researchers, and leads to the systematic introduction of evidence-based interrogation techniques into training and practice. acceptability of torture may also depend on social identity factors such as whether the interviewee is an ingroup or outgroup member, see Fischer, Oswald, and Seiler (2013) and Tarrant, Branscombe, Warner, and Weston (2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation

Vrij

Meissner

Fisher

et al. 2017

Perspect Psychol Sci

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2. For more on the perception of torture as “just deserts,” see Liberman (2014); for more nuanced data suggesting that the acceptability of torture may also depend on social identity factors such as whether the interviewee is an ingroup or outgroup member, see Fischer, Oswald, and Seiler (2013) and Tarrant, Branscombe, Warner, and Weston (2012). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%