Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

knowing that it is wrong, because they are eager to please the interrogator or are
reluctant to disagree with the suggestion openly.” 280
Interpersonal trust is important because, to yield to suggestion, the subject
must believe “that the interrogator’s intentions are genuine and that there is no
trickery involved in the questioning.” 281 According to Gudjonsson, interviewees
who are suspicious of the interrogator’s intentions “will be reluctant to accept
suggestions offered, even under conditions of increased uncertainty.” 282 Finally,
Gudjonsson points out that although uncertainty and interpersonal trust are
necessary to make people yield to suggestion they are not sufficient, because an
uncertain subject can answer with “don’t know,” “not sure,” or “can’t recall.” 283
Consequently, it is important that the interrogator communicate, either implicitly
or explicitly, an expectation of success about the subject’s performance: the goal
is to make the subject feel that he or she should be able, and indeed is expected, to
provide a definite answer to the interrogator’s questions. 284
Ultimately, the model predicts that “most people are open to suggestion
when the necessary conditions of uncertainty, interpersonal trust and heightened
expectations are present.” 285 From these predictions, it can be hypothesized
that “the three components, uncertainty, interpersonal trust, and expectations
can be manipulated by the interrogator to alter the subject’s susceptibility
to suggestion.” 286 Similarly, it can be theorized that “people who enter the
interrogation with a suspicious cognitive set (e.g., those who do not trust the
police or are suspicious of them) are less suggestible than those with a trusting
cognitive set.” 287 Gudjonsson also hypothesizes that “people with poor memory
recollection and low intelligence are generally more suggestible than those with
high cognitive capabilities,” and that suggestibility is “related to such variables as
low self-esteem, lack of assertiveness, and anxiety.” 288
Gudjonsson developed a suggestibility scale to test his interrogative
suggestibility model and the hypotheses derived from it. The Gudjonsson
Suggestibility Scale can be used “to assess the individual’s responses to ‘leading
questions’ and ‘negative feedback’ instructions when being asked to report a
factual event from recall.” 289 The scale employs a narrative paragraph describing
a fictitious mugging, which is read aloud to the subjects. They are then asked
to report all they can recall about the story, after which each person is asked
20 specific questions, 15 of which are subtly misleading. After answering the
20 questions the person is told that he or she has made a number of errors, and
280
Id.
281
Id., p. 349.
282
Id.
283
Id., p. 350.
284
Id.
285
Gudjonsson, see note 253, p. 282.
286
Id.
287
Id.
288
Id.
289
Id., p. 283.
162