Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

more than actually delivering the consequence. Research — not conducted in
interrogation contexts — seems to suggest that under certain conditions fear
can facilitate compliance; however, it does not adequately address whether fear
leads to more accurate and useful information (in, for example, an intelligence
interrogation situation). That is, fear may motivate an enemy source to “talk,” but
not necessarily to provide accurate intelligence.
Research in social science, particularly in marketing and health education,
suggests that the effectiveness of a threat appears to be determined largely by the
perceived magnitude of the threat, the recipient’s perceived vulnerability, and
the perceived effectiveness of the proposed alternative to the feared outcome.
Compliance seems most likely when the appeal to fear is high and the recommended
behavior is perceived to be highly effective (Witte and Allen, 2000). This means
the source must consider the threat credible and must believe that the educer will
withdraw it if the source complies. For example, some experienced interrogators
have suggested that threatening a source with death is not particularly effective
because the source may believe that an educer who is willing to kill him might
be willing — even likely — to kill him whether he complies or not. The source’s
motivation to comply therefore diminishes.
Coercion
Little social science literature speaks directly to the effectiveness of coercive
tactics in educing accurate, useful information, but there is literature on how
coercive influence strategies, such as inducing fear, affects relationships. The
induction of fear or pain appears to be a critical element. If a source views the
educer as the cause of his aversive situation, he may react against it by increasing
his resistance and determination not to comply (see the next section). Research
has shown consistently that recipients of punishment or aversive stimuli do
distinguish between unpleasant sensations that are self-inflicted or naturally
occurring and those intentionally caused by another person. One implication for
educing information seems to be that the source should not view the primary
educer as the cause of any negative consequences; someone else should wear
the black hat if necessary. Ideally, the source should perceive that he alone is
responsible for his situation.
More generally, social science research indicates that a perception of coercion
can negatively affect the tenor of the relationship between the educer and the source
and decrease the likelihood that the source will comply or cooperate. Research
both in North America and in Asia (China) has shown that using coercive influence
strategies causes targets (or sources, in the context of educing information) to
feel disrespected, whereas persuasion strategies communicate respect. Thus,
importantly, coercion creates a competitive dynamic that facilitates rejection of
the other party’s position where persuasion creates a cooperative dynamic that
facilitates greater openness to the other party’s position and productive conflict
resolution (Tjosvold and Sun, 2001). A similar line of research has shown that
rational persuasion — and avoidance of “pressure” — increases the likelihood
of target commitment in influence interactions (Yukl et al., 1996). Interestingly,
25