Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

This point highlights a central, two-dimensional element of the interrogation
process. At a fundamental level, the challenge for the interrogator is to make it as
difficult (and unattractive) as possible for the source to resist and/or make it as easy
(and attractive) as possible for the source to cooperate. Choice of the component
upon which to focus is driven by both individual and contextual factors. With
regard to the former, the interrogator must judiciously select the strategy that
presents the greatest promise of success given a specific source — a decision based
on extended observation and assessment. At the same time, the choice of strategy
should enable the interrogator to most effectively leverage his or her personal
strengths, professional experience, skills in the range of interrogation tradecraft,
and language ability. Concurrently, a number of circumstantial variables must
be assiduously considered, to include the time available for the interrogation (or
series of interrogations), the nature of the existing information requirements, the
physical setting, and the operational/intelligence information available about the
source, his organization, and activities. The calculus involved represents a subset
of the KUBARK concept noted above.
From a social science perspective, this dynamic suggests the possibility
of several behavioral theories at work, including approach/avoidance (Lewin,
1935) 55 and bind-strain (Milgram, 1974). 56 Exploration of these two theories (and
perhaps others) might explain, at least in part, the compliance-resistance dilemma
facing the source, and uncover methods for shaping the source’s behavior.
The Alternative Question 57 methodology frequently employed in law
enforcement interrogations specifically seeks to present the source with what
the KUBARK manual describes as an “acceptable rationalization for yielding.”
Offering an attractive option other than outright confession to a heinous crime,
the alternative question allows the source to “save face” by agreeing with the
interrogator’s characterization of the criminal behavior as inherently positive in
intent or objective. 58
While often effective in eliciting a confession, the alternative question
method may be problematic when it comes to collecting intelligence information.
In presenting a source with two possible “alternatives” (e.g., “Did you plan to use
C4 or Semtex as the explosive in that device”), the interrogator runs the risk of
55
As first described by Dr. Kurt Lewin, approach-avoidance conflict results from the stress of
simultaneous attraction to and repulsion by the same goal.
56
In Dr. Stanley Milgram’s Model of Obedience, individuals may bind to an authority figure
through reinforcing acts of obedience (and thereby externalize responsibility for specific acts), yet also
encounter role strain when that obedient behavior becomes uncomfortable (e.g., when the acts violate
the individual’s personal moral values or when bringing harm to another contradicts the individual’s
self-image).
57
An alternative question is a question that presents two or more possible answers and presupposes
that only one is true.
58
An example of an alternative question might be, “Did you start the fire at your company because
you wanted to hurt people or as a way of calling attention to the fact that your contributions to the
company have been consistently ignored for many years and you felt you had no other options available
to you” Regardless of how an individual responds, there is an admission of guilt.
110