The Who, What, and Why of Human Intelligence Gathering: Self‐Reported Measures of Interrogation Methods

Abstract

A great deal of research in the past two decades has been devoted to interrogation and interviewing techniques. This study contributes to the existing literature using an online survey to examine the frequency of use and perceived effectiveness of interrogation methods for up to 152 military and federal-level interrogators from the USA. We focus on the who (objective and subjective interrogator characteristics), the what (situational and detainee characteristics), and the why (intended goal of interrogation). Results indicate that rapport and relationship-building techniques were employed most often and perceived as the most effective regardless of context and intended outcome, particularly in comparison to confrontational techniques. In addition, context was found to be important in that depending on the situational and detainee characteristics and goal, interrogation methods were viewed as more or less effective.

Structured Interviews of Experienced HUMINT Interrogators

“…Although there were some differences found between HVT and non‐HVT interrogators, the general trends were similar for both groups. The finding that rapport‐based approaches are perceived to be more common and effective than confrontational, accusatorial approaches is highly consistent with reports from North American police officers (Kassin et al, ), U.S. HUMINT and law enforcement interrogators (Redlich et al, ), experienced HUMINT analysts and interpreters (Russano et al, ), and observational studies (e.g., Leo, ). In addition, laboratory‐based research (e.g., Evans et al, ; also see Meissner, Redlich, Bhatt, & Brandon, , for a review) consistently suggests that rapport‐based techniques are more effective that accusatorial‐based methods at eliciting reliable information.…”

“…For example, Evans et al () developed a novel laboratory paradigm for studying interrogations in the HUMINT context; in their first demonstration of the paradigm, inquisitorial, information‐gathering approaches led to greater information gain than accusatorial approaches. Other researchers have begun the process of surveying U.S. interrogation communities about their interrogative practices (e.g., Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, ).…”

“…Redlich et al () surveyed U.S. HUMINT, military, and criminal law enforcement interrogators, with a wide range of practical experience, about their interrogation practices. In reporting their results, Redlich et al relied on a new taxonomy for classifying interrogation techniques (which will also be used to present a portion of the data from the current study), proposed by Kelly, Miller, Redlich, and Kleinman ().…”

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

“…Although definitions of rapport vary widely (e.g., Army Field Manual 2-22.3, 2006; Grahe & Bernieri, 1999;Kleinman, 2006;Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990), it is commonly (and internationally) acknowledged to be fundamental to successful interviews (e.g., Fisher & Geiselman, 1992;Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014;Gudjonsson, 2003;Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, 2014;St-Yves & Meissner, 2014). Rapport is assumed to include elements of mutual attention (indicated by good listening), coordination (the degree to which the conversation is "in-sync," which might be reflected in verbal or nonverbal mimicry and matching motivational frames), and positivity (a generally pleasant demeanour; Abbe & Brandon, 2012.…”

Emotional Intelligence in Police Interviews—Approach, Training and the Usefulness of the Concept

“…Examples are military investigations and for the purpose of gathering human intelligence (e.g. Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013;Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, 2014), police investigative interviewing of children (e.g. K. Collins et al, 2014;Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin, & Horowitz, 2007), and criminal suspects (e.g.…”