Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

nine steps of their technique “[t]he interrogator [...] will be meeting all of the
guidelines established by the courts in conducting proper interrogations to develop
admissible confessions from guilty suspects.” 172
Decision-Making Model
Hilgendorf and Irving have suggested an alternative concept of interrogations
and confessions. 173 Their model provides a framework for analyzing “the
circumstances in which any particular confession was made in terms of the
decision-making task of the suspect, the information with which he is provided,
the social pressures which are brought to bear on him, and the physical character
of the interrogation.” 174 It conceptualizes interrogation as a complicated and
demanding decision-making process. 175 The subject of an interrogation must make
many choices, some of which include whether to speak or remain silent; whether
to make self-incriminating admissions or a confession; whether to tell the truth,
part of the truth, or lie; how to answer the questions asked by the interrogator; and
what attitude to adopt toward the police. 176
Hilgendorf and Irving’s model predicts that subjects will seek to make the
best possible choice among the courses of action available by choosing “that
course for which the product of (1) the probability of occurrence and (2) the
value to him (or utility) of the consequences, is largest.” 177 The subject’s action
will have consequences for him or her: criminal charges may be filed; he or she
may be detained; the police may check the information provided for accuracy
and truthfulness. 178 Thus, he or she will attempt to evaluate the probabilities of
each consequence’s occurrence, and his or her decision about how to act will be
a “result of some balancing of the likelihood of various consequences in relation
to their utilities for him [or her].” 179 Consequently, an interrogation subject’s
decisions are determined by:
• Perceptions of the available courses of action.
• Perceptions concerning the probabilities of the likely occurrence of
various consequences attached to these courses of action.
• The utility values or gains attached to these courses of action.
Hilgendorf and Irving make clear that the subject’s decision making is
governed not by the objective probabilities that given consequences may occur,
but by the subjective probabilities of their occurrence. 180 In other words, decisions
172
Id.
173
E.L. Hilgendorf and B. Irving, “A Decision-Making Model of Confessions,” in Psychology in
Legal Contexts: Applications and Limitations, M.A. Lloyd-Bostock, ed. (London, UK: Macmillan,
1981), 67-84.
174
Id., p. 81.
175
Id., p. 69.
176
Id.
177
Id.
178
Id.
179
Id., p. 70.
180
Id., p. 71.
150