HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP RESEARCH REPORT

Critical Decision-Making Among Interrogators: A Researcher’s Guide The purpose of this guidebook is to characterize interrogator and interviewer decision-making across military and law enforcement domains. To gather this information, several groups of military interrogators and law enforcement agents were provided with a simulated interrogation and asked to provide their insights and commentary as they viewed the simulation. Other groups of military interrogators and law enforcement agents were asked to reflect on difficult interrogations they had conducted and to answer questions about their decisions at critical points within those interrogations. Their responses are summarized here, with a focus on issues still to be addressed by research.

This work was conducted in 2013 for the HIG via a contract with Applied Research Associates and

authored by Drew A. Leins, Laura A. Zimmerman, and Jessica Marcon Zabecki (ARA). For questions,

contact Dr. Susan Brandon (susan.brandon@ic.fbi.gov).

The statements of act, opinion and analyses in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect

the official policy or position of the U.S. Government.

ii

This material may be reproduced by or for the U.S. Government pursuant to the copyright licence under

clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 (November 1995)

i

Disclaimer

This work was funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group contract J-FBI-12-198

awarded to Applied Research Associates, Inc. Statements of fact, opinion and analysis in the

paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the HIG or the

U.S. Government.

ii

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank participants from the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group,

HUMINT Training-Joint Center of Excellence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and

Homeland Security Investigations for sharing their experience and valuable perspectives on the

craft of investigative interviewing. The authors would also like to thank Mr. David Rababy, Mr.

Kenneth Cates, and Mr. Duward Massey, who provided their knowledge and expertise about

interrogation practices in the military and federal law enforcement.

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Interviewer Decision Making ......................................................................................................... 3

Situation Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 4 Monitor Subjects ................................................................................................................. 4 Monitor Self ........................................................................................................................ 6

Manage Information............................................................................................................ 7 Context ................................................................................................................................ 8

Experience............................................................................................................... 8 Time ........................................................................................................................ 9

Interruptions ............................................................................................................ 9 Other Personnel ....................................................................................................... 9

Physical setting ..................................................................................................... 10

Decision Making and Actions ....................................................................................................... 11 Rapport Building ............................................................................................................... 11 Information Seeking.......................................................................................................... 13

Tactic Selection ................................................................................................................. 14 Reassess and Adapt ........................................................................................................... 15

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 16

References ..................................................................................................................................... 17

1

Data Collection Methods

Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA)

consists of a family of tools used to

elicit the experiences, cognitive

demands, and skill requirements for a

specific task or domain. CTA

uncovers the cues, expectancies,

goals, strategies, and typical actions

taken by domain experts. Eliciting

this information provides researchers

and practitioners with the detailed

knowledge necessary to develop

research, create training, and shape

tactics, techniques, and procedures in

a way that matches domain decision

requirements.

Introduction

Investigative interviews are dynamic situations characterized by time pressure, shifting and

competing goals, and uncertainty. To make effective decisions under these conditions,

interviewers must simultaneously process and interpret incoming information and engage in

story building, strategizing, goal setting, and action choice selection. To date, these processes

have not been explored systematically in an interviewing context (for a general review of

decision making in dynamic situations, see Klein, 1998). Hence, the research presented here

sought to explore the cognitive processes that facilitate interviewers’ decision-making during

real-world interviews. The objective of this guidebook is to provide researchers with a

characterization of the cognitive, perceptual, and practical factors that influence interviewer

decision making. The aim is to provide information that will inform empirical questions and

methods for testing interviewer decision-making processes in laboratory and field settings.

To provide the knowledge base for informing new

research in interviewer decision making, a sample of 37

military interrogators and law enforcement agents (see

Table 1) participated in one of two types of Cognitive

Task Analysis interviews (see sidebar). The purpose of

one interview was to uncover the cognitive processes

engaged in by interviewers during previous

investigative interviews. In these interviews,

participants recounted previous experiences and

provided detailed descriptions of their decision

processes. In the other interview, participants viewed a

video of a mock interrogation and discussed their

interpretations of events and alternative action choices.

Both interview techniques allowed participants to

discuss general goals and strategies and the cues they

use to assess subjects (e.g., detainees, suspects) and make decisions. The data from these

interviews revealed behaviors and cognitive processes that interviewers engage in during

investigative interviews. Several quotes from interview participants are provided throughout this

guidebook.

Table 1. Participant Sample

This guidebook describes the interview process from the perspective of interviewers. It outlines

many of the contextual and cognitive factors that influence how interviewers operate. It begins

with a discussion of the fundamental decision processes engaged in by interviewers. A general

model of interviewer decision making is presented to offer a framework for considering how

interviewers perceive and manage information. Following these processes is a discussion of

interviewers’ decisions and actions based on the information they process and the external

factors they consider. The insights presented here are generally subjective – interviewers often

Participant Type Total Avg. Yrs. Experience U.S. Military Interrogator 19 12.66 U.S. Federal Investigator 18 13.18

2

Terminology

Information: Any information that interviewers and interrogators may

seek from another human being. This can include alibis, confessions,

admissions, denials, intelligence that is either actionable or not

actionable, and information about events, persons, locations, etc.

Interviewer: The person collecting information, or the receiver of

information.

Subject: The person possessing information sought by the interviewer.

This includes persons who are detained in the custody of military,

intelligence, or law enforcement personnel and persons not detained,

such as sources or persons of interest who are free to remove

themselves from the interaction at any time.

Interview: The process of engaging another human being to gather

some type of Information. This can include screenings, interviews,

debriefings, interrogations, and proffers, etc.

Tactics: The various strategies, techniques, and approaches that

interviewers use to gather information. This can include general

information gathering techniques and established approaches, such as

those specified in the U.S. Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Headquarters;

Department of the Army, 2006).1

1Headquarters; Department of the Army. (2006). Field Manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52)

Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

lack the ground truth necessary for determining objectively whether specific factors influenced

an interview outcome. Each section is accompanied by ideas to stimulate thoughts about how

research can address the points of discussion, provide objective results, and help improve

interviewer decision making (these ideas are marked with a ).

Because the research sample was diverse, participants used diverse terms to describe their duties

as interrogators, investigative interviewers, etc. For clarity, this guidebook uses standardized

terms that encompass a broader meaning than is typically used by practitioners in each individual

field (see sidebar for guidebook terminology).

3

Interviewer Decision Making

The general decision-making processes of interviewers are similar to those of decision makers in

other complex domains. Decision makers use situational context and cues to assess and

understand situations, make decisions, and take actions. Then they reassess the situation and

begin the cycle again (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Basic decision process.

During this decision process, interviewers monitor and manage the incoming flow of information

generated throughout the interview. Large amounts of information require that interviewers

manage their attention, sort and filter incoming information, and make decisions based on how

they prioritize this information. As the information changes, interviewers must reassess the

situation and adjust their goals and strategies appropriately. This requires them to constantly

monitor and adapt to the changing environment. The following sections discuss the discrete

processes that aggregate to allow interviewers to elicit information from resistant subjects in

adversarial interactions.

4

Situation Assessment

“With detainees, when you say something, words mean things, as simplistic as that

sounds, but you don’t know what they mean to that person until you look for that

acknowledgement that they understood it.”

To adapt their strategies effectively and achieve their goals during interviews, interviewers

continually evaluate incoming information and adjust their interpretations. As interviews unfold,

interviewers monitor subjects’ behaviors and incoming information. They also monitor the

impact of their own behavior on subjects (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Situation assessment process.

Monitor Subjects

Interviewers monitor verbal and nonverbal behavior to gauge subjects’ emotions, willingness to

cooperate, and motivations. When possible, interviewers monitor subjects’ behavior before

entering the interview room to gain a better understanding of subjects’ dispositions prior to

engagement. From this, they make initial assumptions about subjects, for instance, that a subject

is hostile, fearful, or guarded.

Interviewers only sometimes have the opportunity to observe subjects prior to their

interviews. Do differences in the opportunity to observe subjects a priori affect interviewers’

initial behavior with the subject, their interpretation of the subject after receiving new

information, or their ability to adapt during the interview?

Once inside the interview room, interviewers continually monitor subjects’ reactions to

determine if their methods are achieving the desired results. If subjects are not communicating

verbally, then interviewers are not meeting their information-gathering goals. In these cases,

5

interviewers look for non-verbal cues that indicate whether they are succeeding in moving their

subjects toward verbal communication. In general, interviewers claimed to attend to subjects’

posture, demeanor, and facial expressions. For example, multiple interviewers described a

phenomenon called “body cascading,” which is when a subject’s head and shoulders roll forward

as if they are cascading toward the floor. Interviewers interpreted this as a “defeated” posture.

This posture indicated to interviewers that a subject has come to realize, for example, the gravity

of the situation or the futility in refusing to cooperate.

“Usually when you have someone who is body cascading… he’s ripe for the picking;

he’s caught; there’s nothing he can do and he knows that you’ve got him.”

Body cascading is one potential indicator that a subject may be transitioning from non-

cooperative to cooperative responding. Research demonstrates that other non-verbal cues (e.g.,

eye contact and light touching) are associated with cooperation in non-adversarial contexts

(Kurzban, 2001). Might these or other non-verbal cues (e.g., leaning forward attentively or

head nodding; e.g., see Chaikin, Sigler, & Derlega, 1974) indicate shifts toward cooperation in

an adversarial context? Are there other non-verbal cues, such as distancing oneself from the

interviewer or avoiding eye contact, that reflect shifts toward non-cooperation?

Monitoring subjects’ verbal and non-verbal behavior allows interviewers to gauge the

effectiveness of their questioning techniques and strategies. By monitoring subjects, interviewers

determine whether to continue using a tactic, modify the tactic in some way, or switch to a

different tactic. For example, interviewers often probe subjects for insights into what may

motivate them (e.g., money, religion, power, family). When subjects respond favorably to these

probes, for instance, by nodding in tacit agreement or sharing information, interviewers can tailor

tactics to fit their apparent motivations.

“…he didn’t know much about religion. He didn’t know basic stuff. He didn’t know why

he chose his path beyond money. I told him about my difficulty repaying student loans.

His body language was a cue. He made a lot of eye contact when I brought up money…

The non-true believer is the easiest guy to talk to. He can’t answer simple questions that

one might expect in any job interview: Why are you here? Why do you want this job? He

couldn’t answer those questions.”

Can interviewers accurately identify motivation? How do different motivations change

interviewer assessments and actions?

Interviewers monitor subjects to ascertain their baseline behavior. By identifying how subjects

“normally” behave, interviewers can then look for deviations from this baseline. Deviations

might indicate stress, deception, or a change in cooperativeness. It is unclear what information

interviewers gather to establish baseline and how this information is used to diagnose subjects’

cognitive states.

6

Monitoring for a baseline of behavior and then diagnosing subjects’ cognitive states based

on adherence to or deviation from the baseline seems to be a practice that lacks a theoretical or

empirical foundation, but is heavily endorsed by interviewers. Interviewers strive to determine

baselines by observing subjects, rather than relying on assumptions or stereotypes. Can

interviewers establish baseline behavior in an investigative interview? If so, what do departures

from baseline indicate? Can interviewers determine baseline behaviors free of bias?

Monitoring subjects for deception. Many interviewers assume that subjects will lie to them, and

although they benefit from detecting deception, reliably ascertaining veracity tends to be

secondary to eliciting information. They often stated explicitly that although they are interested

in assessing credibility, they did not necessarily care about catching subjects in specific lies.

“I don’t want to insult him by telling him, ‘Hey, I think you’re going to lie to me.’ I know

he is, and it doesn't bother me.”

Although interviewers de-emphasize the need to confirm deception, they are still interested in

collecting valid information. Thus, they want to compel subjects to report truthfully. One

strategy for encouraging truthful reporting is to create an atmosphere in which the subject

believes a relationship truly exists. Interviewers strive to maintain an emotional distance while

creating an environment of mutual trust. This type of relationship is characterized by a sense of

familiarity and fluid communication (Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). Research offers mixed

results on the role of familiarity in detecting deception (e.g., see Burgoon, Buller, Ebesu, &

Rockwell, 1994). However, much of this research uses long-term acquaintances as familiar

dyads. Thus, it is unclear what effect (if any) short-term rapport building has on eliciting valid

information.

What effect does short-term rapport building have on interviewers’ ability to assess

credibility?

Interviewers often indicated using verbal behavior to assess credibility. For example, they

cited the amount of detail and consistency in a story as diagnostic cues. How do changes in

communication patterns moderate interviewers’ ability to assess credibility from verbal cues?

Monitor Self

In addition to monitoring subject cues, interviewers also monitor their own behavior and internal

states. This allows them to manage their behavior by tailoring it to fit better with a subject’s

demeanor or style. For example, an interviewer might present a self that appears sympathetic to

the subject’s situation, attitudes, or beliefs. Interviewers likely have baseline personas they

present, such as that of a professional who is there in an official capacity. They then blend other

elements into this as they gain an understanding of the subject. To present a particular “self”

sometimes requires interviewers to adopt uncharacteristic personality traits, such as being

reserved and serious when they are typically gregarious. To convey different personas

7

effectively, interviewers must continually monitor their behavior to ensure that it is

representative of the desired persona.

“One of the things that make someone a good [interviewer] is their capability to modify

their personality depending upon the individual…The idea is that you make a quick

assessment of what they want...”

“…you have to be good and sincere, and your body language has to be congruent with

what you’re saying…”

Self monitoring may become difficult when interviewers present information that is not

consistent with their natural personalities. How does presenting personality-inconsistent

information affect interviewers’ ability to self-monitor? How does presenting personality-

inconsistent information influence subjects’ perceptions and the elicitation of information?

Interviewers may also have to monitor and manage their emotions, particularly when discussing

disturbing or objectionable topics, or when frustrated by an uncooperative (or otherwise

abhorrent) subject.

“You can get frustrated, but once you start getting angry, you can’t think rationally, and

you can’t observe, and you can’t listen to a lot of the things that you want to catch and

look for. So you definitely have to be able to learn how to control your emotion.”

Regulating emotional output may be critical, but it may also be fatiguing. How does

emotion regulation and emotional load influence interviewers’ perceptions of subjects and

interpretations of the information? What is the result of displaying frustration and anger on

cooperative and uncooperative subjects?

Manage Information

Monitoring multiple channels of information allows interviewers to assess situations. However,

interviewers cannot process all information at once; thus, interviewers must manage these

channels effectively before making decisions. Interviewers sort incoming information, judge

relevance, and prioritize their subsequent information seeking. Managing and prioritizing

incoming information helps them to control the interview by controlling the flow of outgoing

information.

Given a changing constellation of information, do interviewers prioritize information

systematically? Do they systematically favor one piece of information to inform their new

strategy or tactic? Under what conditions are they able to sort relevant and credible information

from irrelevant information?

Many interviewers indicated that having a plan helped them manage information. These plans

were sometimes as simple as outlining when they would take breaks to process information and

8

regroup. Breaks allowed interviewers to maintain a level of attention and effectiveness

throughout the interview. Other plans included mapping out back-up questions a priori, so they

could refer to these questions if they lost their train of thought or when their original information

seeking strategies did not work.

“…if I’m interacting with somebody else, that’s where the focus is going to be, that

interaction. And it’s easy to… lose your train of thought during the process, and it’s easy

to look down at the pad of paper and have the next question there.”

Interviewers differ in the amount and type of planning they do prior to interviews. They also

have differing opinions on using or taking notes during interviews. How do different planning

strategies influence the ability to gather critical information? Does prior information influence

assessment of incoming information? Does taking notes during the interview influence ability to

monitor the subject, subject behavior, or information elicitation? How does a secondary

interviewer who takes notes influence interviews?

Managing information while monitoring subjects’ behaviors and self-presentation strains

interviewers’ cognitive resources. Interviewers sometimes take actions that might reduce

cognitive load, such as taking notes or breaks.

“You need to break away from it for a while. ‘Let’s talk about something completely

unrelated.’ Yes, in the back of your mind, we’re coming back, and at least half of that

break is designed with an end in sight, with an agenda in sight, but part of it, too, is just

physical relief.”

The literature on cognitive load in investigative interviewing has focused exclusively on how

cognitive load affects interview subjects (e.g., see Vrij et al., 2008). However, interviewers

tasked with managing a significant amount of information may also suffer effects of cognitive

load.

“The problem is you have so much stuff going on in the booth, trying to read the guy and

figure out where he’s coming from. You’ve got the basic techniques and you can maybe

apply one or two techniques a session. You’re trying to figure out ‘is this guy lying to

me?’ You’ve got so much going on.”

What influence does increased cognitive load have on interviewers’ ability to assess and

prioritize incoming and outgoing information? What effect does cognitive load have on

interviewers’ ability to identify alternative courses of action?

Context

A number of context factors likely influence situation assessment and decision making.

Experience. Experience influences how interviewers assess situations and interpret information.

Interviewers leverage past experiences to process the information revealed during interviews,

9

map incomplete information to existing knowledge, and interpret the situation by incorporating a

variety of factors.

“The cultural understanding, the language, it all plays a role. It's never one thing, it's all a

combination of many things that play together, and I come to a decision. I never rely on

one thing, some things are more heavily dependent or are more obvious, but it's always a

combination of the three things that you mentioned: the body language, the culture, and

your gut feeling or experience from doing so many [interviews].”

How might experience influence interviewers’ ability to assess a situation across different

contexts, for example, across time constraints and working with others? How does experience

influence interpretations of information?

Time. Interviewers usually factor time into their plans and strategies. Even when interviewers

have unlimited time with subjects, they likely have requirements that are time sensitive.

Sometimes interviewers have too little time to build an effective relationship or implement

complex tactics. Interviewers often factor time constraints into their strategies to maximize

information gain.

“…we were dealing with elements outside of the room that we couldn’t control. They

were noisy and our time was running low. He thought, ‘if I can wait these guys out it will

be over.’”

“…you only have the guy for four hours. How much time are you willing to waste on that

phone call instead of talking about his family, which will probably lead to what was

going on?”

How might time constraints moderate the relationship between information assessment,

planning, and managing information? How might it influence rapport building strategies or tactic

choices?

Interruptions. Interviews can be interrupted for various reasons. They can occur across days,

locations, and personnel. Within sessions, interviewers allow breaks to address subject needs,

such as eating or praying. These breaks can disrupt the flow of an interview, and every time there

is a disruption, there is potential for losing rapport, momentum, etc.

“Even if it’s a break, just a night, you have a break in the action. We knew we’d have to

do some work to get back to a regular exchange here.”

How do breaks impact engaging with a subject (e.g., building rapport or applying a tactic)?

What techniques might interviewers use to reduce the influence of breaks?

Other Personnel. Interviewers often work with teammates, such as other interviewers, analysts,

and interpreters. The presence of other interviewers may influence the relationship between the

10

lead interviewer and subject. Working closely with analysts may improve interviewers’ situation

awareness and allow them to be more accurate in their interpretations of information and

subjects’ motivations. Interpreters may provide valuable language and cultural interpretation, or

they may impede information elicitation.

“It was crazy, it was as if this one guy is a motor mouth and my interpreter was really

slow, like talking very, very slow, it was bad. Needless to say, I had to take one of my

good interpreters in there the next time; it was a younger guy who talked fast.”

Interviewing may foster team dynamics different from other decision-making domains. How

might interpersonal relationships between teammates influence information gain or subject

cooperativeness? What is the impact of two interviewers on information elicitation? How does

real-time intelligence gathering by analysts influence interviewer assessments? How does

information seeking through an interpreter affect information gain? When interpreters provide

cultural interpretations in addition to language interpretations, how does this affect interview

dynamics and information gain?

Physical Setting. Interviewers sometimes manipulate the physical setting of the interview: At

times, interviewers want the detainee to be comfortable, for example when establishing rapport

and demonstrating respect; whereas, at times they want the detainee to be a little less

comfortable, for instance, when interviewers are demonstrating control.

“[The room was] a plain box, small, with one table. We moved the table off to the side.

He got a plain chair, we got rolling chairs. There was not a lot of space between us. It had

to be like this. If someone is cooperating, we try to make it more comfortable for them,

but for him, it was appropriate. In other interrogations, where we have the truth, and they

vet it, we try to make it more comfortable.”

How do room configurations, temperature, and comfort levels affect cooperation and

information elicitation?

11

Decision Making and Actions

Most interviewer decisions focus on eliciting information. Interviewers gather information by

building rapport, actively seeking general information (e.g., by probing about non-threatening

topics), and using tactics that push subjects to discuss threatening or sensitive topics.

Interviewers must decide how and when they engage in these actions.

“It was like pulling teeth. As we went further forward, he would withhold information

and it would be up to me to try to find ways for him to reveal that information… If I

saw something that he was withholding, or… he didn't feel comfortable talking about

something, I'd have to find a different course and method to come back around to talk

to him.”

Figure 3. Decision process.

Figure 3 outlines the three most common types of decisions that interviewers make. These

decisions are influenced by interviewers’ assessment of the situation, but also by a number of

other factors. The aim of these decisions is to achieve generally well-defined goals. Once

interviewers decide what to do, they must decide the best way to do it. The outcome of these

decisions is observable action (e.g., disclosing personal information, probing about motivations,

presenting evidence).

Rapport Building

Interviewers’ initial decisions often focus on building rapport in an attempt to increase subject

cooperation, build trust, and open lines of communication. Rapport building also serves to define

social roles and find common ground (e.g., see Altman & Taylor, 1973). In addition to these

more traditional purposes of rapport building, interviewers seek to establish rapport as a method

for determining subject motivations and choosing tactics aimed at gathering critical information

from resistant subjects.

Interviewers identified multiple approaches to establishing rapport. One step toward establishing

rapport is to present clear boundaries and ground rules early in the interview. Ground rules

commonly identified by interviewers were to establish authority, mutual respect, and truthfulness

12

(e.g., “I won’t lie to you; don’t lie to me.”). This demonstrates to the subject that, perhaps

contrary to expectations, the interviewer is not a “bad guy.”

“I’m trying to build another type of rapport with him, where I’m empathizing with him

and I’m understanding where he’s coming from, and he’s realizing that I’m on his side,

that I’m not the bad guy, I’m the guy he needs to work with instead of against.”

Interviewers also try to foster the notion that they are “good guys” by highlighting confidentiality

and trust and by demonstrating empathy.

“You have to establish confidentiality up front. It’s important because he’s saying that if

he discloses anything he may be subject to revenge and harm.”

“The biggest thing that I’ve learned is that you have to empathize with [subjects], you

have to understand their background and see where they’re coming from. It doesn’t mean

that you sympathize or agree with what they did, certainly not, but you can at least

appreciate that you don’t come across as sincere.”

Establishing ground rules and authority runs contrary to some of the purposes of rapport

building. How does establishing authority influence suspect cooperation? Does setting the

ground rule of truthfulness reduce deception? How can interviewers convey empathy in a way

that is sincere and effective?

To enhance rapport and provide subjects with feelings of familiarity and commonality (e.g., see

Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990) interviewers often disclose personal information.

“In getting this guy to tell me about this friend of his… I may have to tell him stories

about my friends, and relate to him so that he feels more comfortable.”

However, interviewers sometimes find it difficult to relate to subjects on a personal level. They

often have little in common with subjects, particularly if subjects are from a different culture.

Young interviewers with little life experience find it especially difficult to find commonality or

relate to older subjects. Sometimes interviewers fabricate personal details to find common

ground with a subject.

“I would've shared with him how I know what it’s like to lose someone close to me, even

if I didn’t. I could make it up, so he can understand that I’m a human being like him.”

“You have an inexperienced interrogator, who has never even been to New York City, or

they don’t have family, or they’ve never had a loved one who is a dangerous place…

They can’t relate to it. That dude has underwear older than that interrogator. So, that’s

when he’s going to sit down and think, ‘How can an 18-year old relate to a guy who has a

friend for 18 years?’”

Other times, interviewers have to suppress their moral frameworks to connect with a subject.

“…we’re trying to relate to a guy who potentially doesn’t believe in our ideology.

Potentially, he wants to cause physical harm, right? Potentially, he wants to do away with

13

our way of life as we know it. And now I’m telling you to relate to this guy. I didn’t say it

was easy. But you still have to be able to do it… this is something he believes in and this

is something that he’s passionate about. And when he’s telling me the story and why he’s

done it, I’m still going to relate to him, and respect him for his passion, and respect him

for that fortitude, like it’s going to be a professional relationship.”

Mutual respect and genuineness are foundations upon which interviewers build working

relationships. However, when interviewers disclose personal information in a disingenuous way,

they risk being perceived as insincere and untrustworthy, and consequently losing rapport. What

is the impact of personal disclosure on rapport building and information elicitation? How does

false information by the interviewer affect the subject? What disclosure techniques might be

most effective in adversarial interactions?

Interviewers lose rapport when they transition too quickly from non-threatening rapport-building

topics to more substantive topics or when they are overly confrontational (e.g., calling the

subject a liar). They might also lose rapport when there are breaks in interview sessions. Once

rapport is lost, it is extremely difficult to regain and may require starting the rapport-building

process over again.

Because losing rapport can be costly in terms of time and resources, are there efficient ways

to regain it? What are effective techniques for transitioning from rapport-based conversation to

confrontation?

Information Seeking

To determine how best to build rapport and elicit information, interviewers strive to understand

subjects’ motivations and experiences. This understanding helps them to decide which rapport

strategies and tactics will influence subjects’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. For example,

interviewers may want to learn about subjects’ family relationships and dynamics. If an

interviewer learns that a subject is concerned for his or her family’s safety, the interviewer may

use that information as leverage to convince the subject that disclosing information will help

keep his or her family safe.

“Finding out what makes him tick and what’s important to him will be good for

me when it comes time to line up approaches, because those are the things I will

be able to leverage against him to make my approaches more effective and more

personal to him.”

Interviewers seek information that is concrete and verifiable. For example, interviewers may

obtain date-of-capture timelines. These timelines organize subjects’ whereabouts and behaviors

during the day they were captured, from awakening until apprehension. Gaining this information

allows interviewers to track inconsistencies, identify omissions, detect contradictions and holes

in logic, and select avenues for further questioning. Date-of-capture timelines offer cooperative

subjects the opportunity to share critical information while offering uncooperative or deceptive

subjects the opportunity to withhold critical information or offer bogus information. Interviewers

14

assess subject credibility by comparing information reported in the timelines to known

information and by looking for contradictions.

Using date-of-capture timelines or timelines in general, may be ideal for research on

memory in interviews. How do date-of-capture timelines enhance subjects’ memories as they

recount events? Do these timelines help interviewers identify contradictions and detect

deception?

Tactic Selection

Interviewers use tactics to elicit the critical information that subjects seek to conceal. When

interviewers transition from rapport building to specific tactics, they usually increase their

pressure on subjects to reveal critical information.

To select tactics, interviewers match the tactic to subject characteristics for maximum impact.

For instance, interviewers might convince subjects to talk by leveraging their love for their

family or country. They might focus on the ego of a subject motivated by status or use incentives

with a subject motivated by money. Interviewers might downplay the consequences of

involvement with subjects focused on punishment and their bleak future. Ultimately, subjects’

backgrounds, demeanor and responses will guide how and when interviewers apply tactics and

approaches.

“I would never leave the fact that his kids were killed. This is all about emotion and

manipulating emotional state. I would lean in, maybe grab his hand and try to connect

with him on that issue. I want to connect emotionally and then ask him about the guy in

the photo. But, never let the family situation go. Use the love of family approach.”

After applying tactics, interviewers assess how the tactics affected the subjects. Often,

interviewers will test out tactics by applying them in a subtle way. For instance, an interviewer

may make a comment about a subject’s family to gauge his or her level of emotional

involvement. If a subject is disinterested in family, the interviewer will switch to another tactic.

“He wasn’t concerned about anybody; he wasn’t concerned about what his buddies were

doing on the outside because he was pretty sure he was going to get back out there. Love

of country got me a little bit into him but not any conclusive results. Futility did not

work. Fear approaches did not work.”

Identifying subjects’ motivations is a key factor in determining which tactic to use. When

subjects hide their true motivations or present false motivations, how does this influence an

interviewer’s actions? How does trying multiple tactics influence information gain and subject

cooperation? Do certain tactics increase or decrease information gain and information

credibility?

15

Reassess and Adapt

“What makes a good interviewer? You have to be flexible. You have to be a chameleon.”

A key component of the decision-making cycle is an interviewer’s ability to continually monitor

incoming information and assess the subject. After interviewers take an action, they assess

whether that action was successful in achieving any of their goals. A selected course of action

will remain the same as long as the interviewer is satisfied with the results. If interviewers

determine a course of action is not having the intended results, they must reassess incoming

information, determine a new course of action, execute it and then monitor and assess again.

“Oh this guy, we had to use all of these different things on him. This was not a guy [on

whom] you used the same thing every single time. You kind of had to pick and choose,

based on his emotional state at the time, which [tactic] would be better for you to utilize

to get him to cooperate.”

Interviewers must be able to adjust action plans when incoming information changes their

interpretations of the situation. For example, if subjects stop responding, interviewers must find

other ways to compel them to respond. Generating new action plans, or modifying existing plans,

typically involves adjusting sub-goals and the strategies for achieving them. While interviewers

understand the benefit of entering an interview with a plan, they also understand that sometimes

these plans need to be abandoned.

“You have to set supplementary goals and even if you achieve those, you also need

fluctuating goals, as well. Sometimes, if you realize you cannot achieve the goals or you

realize you can't achieve the goals you set going in, you need to immediately reevaluate.”

Interviews are ongoing interpersonal interactions that require interviewers to take actions at the

same time as they assess incoming information and make decisions. This requires a real-time

flexibility in both assessment and response. Interviewers must remain open to new information

that conflicts with their current beliefs about the subject. To help with adaptability, interviewers

actively monitor subjects’ reactions and seek to confirm or disconfirm their assumptions.

“I’m going to continuously assess and I’m going to assess before I run the approaches.

Even though I assess on paper, ‘based on the circumstances, this is what should work,’

I’m going to assess again in the booth before I run this approach strategy. And we’re

going to talk, and we’re going to build a little rapport, we’re going to get to know each

other. Now, I’m going to confirm, or refute, the approach strategy I determine. And if it

changes, I can’t be afraid to change it. I have to adjust to the detainee.”

Can interviewers change their interpretation of subjects and information while still

processing new information? How might prior assumptions and bias influence their ability to be

flexible? How much information do interviewers need before they reach a conclusion? How does

continual information flow influence the ability to make a decision and take action?

16

Conclusion

Interviewing is a complex endeavor, influenced by a constellation of variables. To begin to

determine how these variables interact to influence interviewer decision making and interview

outcomes, they must be isolated and tested empirically. Moreover, they should be tested using

ecologically valid protocols. The variables, relationships, and contexts presented in this

guidebook came straight from the mouths of practitioners. Thus, this information can shape ideas

for moving practice into the lab and for enhancing the ecological validity of experimental

protocols. Researchers might more readily push findings from research founded on this field

knowledge back to the field to inform and improve practice. Thus, research and practice can feed

each other and lead to the development, testing, and implementation better methods of

investigative interviewing.

17

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal

relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A. S., & Rockwell, P. (1994). Interpersonal deception: V.

Accuracy in deception detection. Communications Monographs, 61(4), 303-325.

Chaikin, A. L., Sigler, E., & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Nonverbal mediators of teacher expectancy

effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(1), 144.

Headquarters; Department of the Army. (2006). Field manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human

Intelligence Collector Operations.

Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

Kurzban, R. (2001). The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal communication in a

public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(4), 241-259.

Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates.

Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293.

Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S. and Leal, S. (2008). A cognitive load approach to lie detection.

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 39–43.