Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

After drilling a small hole in the temple on each side of the
skull, the surgeon then inserts a dull knife into the brain,
makes a fan-shaped incision through the prefrontal lobe, then
downward a few minutes later. He then repeats the incision on
the other side of the brain.... The patient is given only local
anesthetic at the temples — the brain itself is insensitive—and
the doctors encourage him to talk, sing, recite poems or prayers.
When his replies to questions show that his mind is thoroughly
disoriented, the doctors know that they have cut deep enough
into his brain. 690
How could this procedure receive rave reviews Apparently, the flaw in
these early studies was simply that physicians who provided these treatments also
rated the results. We know of no evidence to suggest that these physicians were
intentionally biased or deceitful; or that they had anything other than the best
interest of their patients at heart.
For a more contemporary example, consider the presumed ability of law
enforcement interrogators to evaluate their subjects. Professional interrogators
view nonverbal cues as important for detecting deception. Such cues include level
of eye contact; movement of legs, feet, head and trunk; shifting body positions;
“covering gestures” such as a hand over the mouth while talking; ear tugging; etc.
All of these have been tested; none is substantiated as an indicator of deception. 691
A similar result occurs when interrogators are asked to determine (on the basis
of case summaries and interrogation videotapes) whether a confession is true or
false. Most studies show that trained and untrained evaluators (e.g., police officers
and college students) are equally poor at distinguishing between the confessions
of guilty and innocent study subjects, even when viewing videotaped interviews
from law enforcement situations. Often, however, law enforcement personnel
have more confidence in their abilities than untrained subjects — even though
their detection capabilities are no better. 692
Associated with such examples is an extensive scientific literature on human
judgment. We will not review this literature here, but simply note that the examples
noted above should not be considered atypical. 693 Natural human judgment biases,
such as the Law of Small Numbers (the tendency to jump to conclusions on the
basis of too little data) and the Confi rmation bias (the tendency to underweight or
ignore evidence inconsistent with current beliefs), are very strong. These biases
690
This description of the history of lobotomy was drawn from R. Dawes, House of Cards:
Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth (New York, The Free Press, 1994).
691
Research on detection deception is summarized in G. Hazlett, “Detection of Deception Research
Review,” prepared under the auspices of this ISB study.
692
See S. M. Kassin, Meissner, and R. J. Norwick, ”I’d Know a False Confession If I Saw One”:
A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29
(2005), 211-227.
693
For review of this research see R. Hastie, and R. Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain
World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
2001).
304