Interrogation: a Review of the Science
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INTERROGATION: A REVIEW OF THE SCIENCE HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP SEPTEMBER 2016 2016 FOREWORD THE HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) is a specialized interagency interrogation capability that brings together intelligence professionals, subject matter experts, and an international and multi-disciplinary team of researchers. Since its creation in January 2010, the HIG has served as the locus for advancing the science and practice of interrogation within the United States government. To date, the HIG has commissioned a body of scientific research on interrogation that has resulted in more than 100 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Equally important, this research has been incorporated into HIG best practices via a continuous cycle of research advising training, training informing operations, and operational experience identifying research gaps and updating training models. SCOPE OF THE REPORT The objective of this report is to provide a systematic review and evidence synthesis of the science related to interrogation. It is not intended as a manual or practitioners’ guide. The emerging science of interrogation relies on a variety of relevant disciplines and fields of study for its theoretical and scientific foundations, many of which have provided decades of data. For instance, research on interrogations in the criminal justice system has been steadily accumulating for decades, providing data on topics such as effective and ineffective interrogation and interview methods, the conditions under which victim, witness, and suspect memories are most vulnerable, valid cues to deception, and the conditions under which individuals confess to crimes they did not commit. During the same period, there has been an emergence and growth of science on negotiation and social influence, persuasion, resistance, priming and embodied cognition, and cognitive-based cues to deception. To the extent that this research is relevant to an interrogation, it is included in this report. This report provides a comprehensive review of HIG-funded research and other science relevant to interrogations: assessing cooperation and countering resistance (Chapter 1), influencing tactics (Chapter 2), interview methods (Chapter 3), and detecting truth and deception (Chapter 4). Based on the comprehensive research and field validation studies detailed in this report, it is concluded that the most effective practices for eliciting accurate information and actionable intelligence are non-coercive, rapport- based, information-gathering interviewing and interrogation methods. METHODOLOGY The HIG supports research and development of an effective, science-based model of interrogation. To this end, the HIG Research Program commissions basic and applied science and field validation studies to rigorously examine current and new approaches to interrogation. Interdisciplinary and cross-domain in scope, researchers have devised novel experimental paradigms (e.g., mock terrorism scenarios, induced cheating paradigms and multiparty negotiations) to systematically evaluate existing and proposed interrogation techniques in real and/or simulated interrogation contexts. A majority of the findings discussed in this report arose from laboratory settings with a diverse population and methodology (e.g., surveys, in-depth interviews, and experimental manipulations), which allow for identification of cause and effect relationships. In contrast, field validation studies (e.g., analyses of actual interviews and interrogations recordings) allow assessment of the impact of the science-based methods in real-world settings. To the extent that field validation studies are available, they are included in this report. Together, the laboratory and field data provide complementary insights and best practices to be translated into training and operational environments. Notably, some readers may observe that a majority of the field research cited has been conducted within law enforcement settings (e.g., field validation study of interrogations with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC]) and assume, therefore, that the data and findings are not relevant to military/intelligence interrogations. However, the goal of collecting information is often true in criminal interrogations as well. The underlying processes of communication, decision-making, memory, cognition, and social dynamics are fundamentally the same in the law enforcement and intelligence gathering settings. There are fewer field data from intelligence contexts because there have been fewer opportunities to study interrogations in military/intelligence settings, especially since the implementation of DoD Instruction 3216.02, Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards, which prohibits any human subjects research involving detainees, including observational studies. TERMINOLOGY This report uses the terms “interrogation” and “interview” interchangeably and generally follows the Department of Defense definition of an interrogation to mean, “the systematic process of using approved interrogation approaches to question a captured or detained person to obtain reliable information to satisfy intelligence requirements, consistent with applicable law and policy” (AFM, 2006, 1-20). The subject of an interrogation is referred to as the “subject.” PROTECTIONS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS OF RESEARCH The HIG conducts its mission consistent with domestic law and United States’ obligations under international law, and the research program adheres to applicable U.S. government guidelines for scientific experimentation and the protection of human subjects in scientific research. The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or "Common Rule" mandates that researchers abide by the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice; these regulations have been adopted by federal agencies that conduct, support, or otherwise regulate human subject research. PEER REVIEW PER OMB GUIDANCE M-05-03 An earlier draft of this report was peer-reviewed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” (M-05-03) issued December 16, 2004. These reviews are summarized in Appendix A. AGENCY REVIEW This report was reviewed by FBI, CIA, USD(I), DIA, USMC, and Army G2X. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................................ 1 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 1: ASSESSING COOPERATION AND COUNTERING RESISTANCE ...................... 9 CHAPTER 2: INFLUENCING STRATEGIES ................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3: INTERVIEWING METHODS ..................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 4: DETECTING TRUTH AND DECEPTION .................................................... 33 NOTES ..................................................................................................................... 46 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 55 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW PER OMB M-05-03 .............................. 90 3 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1: THE CYLINDRICAL MODEL ........................................................................ 9 FIGURE 2: ADAPTIVE AND MALADAPTIVE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR CIRCLES ..... 26 FIGURE 3: THE EVIDENCE FRAMING MATRIX .......................................................... 50 4 SUMMARY The following is a list of current interrogation practices that are supported by the science described in this report. This list is not meant to be exhaustive or static, because effective practices will change as more research is available and as the transition from research to practice is evaluated, via field validation exercises of real-world interrogations. (Note 1) It should be noted that an interrogation is a dynamic event, and expert interrogators adapt to the situation while still pursuing their goals. Prepare, plan, and support an interrogation as a multidisciplinary team. All members of the team – which may include an analyst, an interpreter, a subject matter expert, as well as one or two interrogators – receive the same training on interrogation best practices. The team members who are not directly interacting with the subject observe the interrogation and provide feedback to the interrogator, especially about interpersonal dynamics between the subject and the interrogator. Prepare for an interrogation in a manner that distinguishes hard facts from inferences. Hard facts and inferences, together with intelligence requirements, are used to set long-term and short- term objectives, infer the subject’s motivations, and predict likely responses to interrogation strategies. Create a context conducive to a productive interaction. The physical context of the room, what the interrogator wears, and the language he uses is strategically tailored so as to influence the subject to disclose information. Manage first impressions. The team hypothesizes what type of person the subject is most likely to respond to and develops a corresponding, but genuine, brand for the interrogator. The interrogator works