Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

others within that environment.” 266 The model recognizes and incorporates the
importance of feedback to interrogative suggestibility, and conceptualizes it as “a
signal communicated by an interrogator to a witness [or suspect], after he/she has
responded to a question or a series of questions, intended to strengthen [(positive
feedback)] or modify [(negative feedback)] subsequent responses of the witness
[or suspect].” 267 The interrogator can communicate feedback both implicitly and
explicitly. 268 Repeated questioning is one example of implicit negative feedback. 269
Implicit positive feedback may consist of providing refreshments, praise, or
sympathy to the subject after he or she begins to give desired answers to the
interrogator’s questions. 270 Explicit negative feedback, on the other hand, consists
of open statements by the interrogator to the effect that he or she thinks that the
interviewee has made a mistake or is lying. 271 Similarly, an interrogator may offer
explicit positive feedback by using responses like “good,” “that’s right,” or “now we
are getting somewhere” to reinforce wanted or accepted answers by the subject. 272
Gudjonsson argues that feedback, and especially negative feedback, may have
“dramatic effects upon the subsequent behavior of an interviewee.” 273 He suggests
that negative feedback has two distinct effects: “it (a) makes interviewees change
or shift their previous answers, and (b) heightens their responsiveness to further
leading questions.” 274
As mentioned above, Gudjonsson’s model states that interrogative
suggestibility is “dependent upon the coping strategies that subjects can
generate and implement when dealing with the uncertainty and expectations of
interrogation.” 275 According to Gudjonsson, the three necessary prerequisites for
the process of suggestibility are uncertainty, interpersonal trust, and expectation
of success. 276
The uncertainty derives from the fact that the subject does not know
for certain the right answer to a question and is therefore potentially open to
suggestion. 277 This may occur, for example, when the subject’s memory about the
event is incomplete or nonexistent. 278 According to Gudjonsson, subjects can only
be described as suggestible when they “privately accept the suggestion offered
or at least believe it to be plausible.” 279 Thus, suggestible subjects are different
from compliant ones, who “accept a suggestion contained in a leading question,
266
Id., p. 281.
267
Id..
268
Id.
269
Gudjonsson, see note 110, p. 350.
270
Id.
271
Id.
272
Id.
273
Id., p. 350-51.
274
Id., p. 351.
275
Gudjonsson, see note 253, p. 281.
276
Id.
277
Id.
278
Gudjonsson, see note 110, p. 348.
279
Id.
161