07.02.2015 Views

Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

4,405 published entries. Not surprisingly, however, virtually none of these studies<br />

replicate the context of an intelligence interrogation or use samples similar to the<br />

populations of interest. Nevertheless, these findings and concepts may help point<br />

the way toward a more specialized body of scientific or systematic inquiry.<br />

Influence Strategies<br />

Knowles and Linn (2004) drew one of the most fundamental distinctions<br />

among types of influence strategies, and one of the most useful for thinking<br />

about applications to educing information. They assume that most attitudes and<br />

judgments emerge from an “approach-avoidance” model of conflict (Knowles,<br />

Butler and Linn, 2001). Basically, this model rests on the premise that whenever<br />

we contemplate an act or objective, our decisions result from an internal struggle<br />

between forces that push or draw us toward the action (called approach motives)<br />

and those that inhibit or pull us away from it (called avoidance motives) (Dollard<br />

and Miller, 1950, Lewin, 1958, Miller, 1959). Knowles and Linn suggest that one<br />

major implication of this model is that:<br />

there are two fundamentally different ways to create change,<br />

two different strategies for promoting movement toward<br />

some goal. Alpha strategies promote change by activating the<br />

approach forces, thereby increasing the motivation to move<br />

toward the goal. By contrast, Omega strategies promote change<br />

by minimizing the avoidance forces, thereby reducing the<br />

motivation to move away from the goal (Knowles and Linn,<br />

2004, 119, emphasis added).<br />

Increasing a Source’s Motivation to Share <strong>Information</strong><br />

Rapport<br />

Most training materials and guides on law enforcement interrogation<br />

emphasize the need for one or more interrogators to develop a rapport with the<br />

subject. Indeed, rapport is widely regarded as an essential foundation for most<br />

successful LE interrogations. For example, a survey of 100 British detectives<br />

(Walkley, 1987) found that nearly half (42%) believed that a previous interviewer’s<br />

failure to establish satisfactory rapport with a suspect had contributed to the<br />

suspect’s denial. Once good rapport had been established with another detective<br />

the suspects typically confessed.<br />

Rapport usually begins to develop during conversation — maybe even “small<br />

talk” — and serves at least two functions. First, research studies say, it helps to<br />

“induce” or facilitate compliance with subsequent requests — and gets the source<br />

talking. Second, it allows the educer to identify and assess potential motivations,<br />

interests, and vulnerabilities. The way the target perceives the agent (and their<br />

relationship) — and this may be important for educing information — becomes<br />

especially critical under conditions in which the target is unmotivated or unable<br />

to devote mental energy to thinking about the agent’s arguments and analyzing<br />

them.<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!