Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Jun 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 11
Human Intelligence Interviewing
and Interrogation: Assessing the
Challenges of Developing an Ethical,
Evidence-based Approach
Maria Hartwig, Christian A. Meissner and Matthew D. Semel
The purpose of this chapter is to review the available research on Human Intelligence
(HUMINT) interrogations. We will argue that there has been a recent paradigm
shift in the approach to HUMINT interrogations. We will describe the conceptual,
methodological, and practical implications of this paradigm shift. The chapter will be
structured as follows. First, we will describe the defining characteristics of HUMINT
interrogations and outline the scope of our discussion. We will describe how the
challenges of HUMINT interrogations may be similar as well as different from
interrogations in criminal settings. Second, in order to provide a context for our
claim of a paradigm shift, we provide a historical overview of practice and research
on HUMINT interrogations. Third, we offer a review of the current state of knowledge
about the psychology of HUMINT interrogations, with a particular focus on methods
that have been shown to be effective. Finally, we will outline several challenges for
future research in this domain, and discuss how research on HUMINT may proceed
to fill the gap in current knowledge.
Interrogations in HUMINT and Criminal Contexts
Interviews and interrogations are major elements of intelligence gathering. The pri-
mary goal of intelligence collection from human sources is to elicit accurate and
operationally useful information from another person. As straightforward as this may
seem at first glance, HUMINT collection is associated with substantial difficulties,
M. Hartwig ()
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NewYork, USA
e-mail: mhartwig@jjay.cuny.edu
C. A. Meissner
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
e-mail: cmeissner@iastate.edu
M. D. Semel
e-mail: mds417@optonline.net
R. Bull (ed.), Investigative Interviewing, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_11, 209
© Springer Science+Business Media NewYork 2014
210 M. Hartwig et al.
involving for example, the complexities of cross-cultural interactions, the unreliable
nature of human memory, and the inherent difficulties of distinguishing between true
and false statements (Evans et al. 2010). In the last decade, the use of psychologically
and physically coercive interrogation techniques that aim at reducing resistance and
producing compliance has received considerable attention in the media, particularly
the notorious so-called enhanced interrogation techniques employed under the Bush
administration (e.g., Hersh 2004). Such techniques have been met with wide crit-
icism, based on the arguments that they are ineffective and that they may violate
international laws (Costanzo and Gerrity 2009). It is outside the scope of our chapter
to provide a discussion of the legality and ethics of harsh interrogation techniques
(for such discussions, see Abeles 2010; Boehm 2009; Zimbardo 2007). The point
is simply that HUMINT policy and practice is now a common topic in the public
discourse. However, the empirical body of work on HUMINT interrogations is still
relatively small—an issue we will return to later in this chapter.
Interrogations are conducted in the realm of intelligence gathering. In the crimi-
nal justice systems, interviews and interrogations of suspects are important elements
of criminal investigations. Recently, research has suggested that there may be sub-
stantial problems in current interrogation practice. More specifically, a wave of
DNA exonerations has demonstrated that false confessions produced during a po-
lice interrogation are significant contributors to erroneous convictions (Cutler 2012;
Drizin and Leo 2004). For example, data from the Innocence Project suggests that
false confessions are involved in around 25 % of the known large number of erro-
neous convictions cases (www.innocenceproject.org; see also Sheck et al. 2000).
A substantial proportion of these false confessions appear to stem from coercive
and manipulative interrogation techniques (Kassin et al. 2010; Leo 2001). Partly as
a function of the problem of false confessions, interrogations in criminal contexts
have received considerable empirical attention in the last decades (Gudjonsson2003;
Kassin and Gudjonsson 2004).
Before we review the available research on interrogation, let us briefly outline the
similarities and differences between HUMINT and criminal interrogations. First,
how can interrogation be broadly defined? Evans et al. (2010) note that there is no
consensus on a definition, after which they proceed to offer one definition of inter-
rogation as “the systematic questioning of an individual perceived by investigators
as noncooperative, within a custodial setting, for the purpose of obtaining reliable
information in response to specific requirements” (p. 3). We rely on this definition
here, with the exception that we do not consider interrogation to necessarily involve
lack of cooperation on behalf of the individual being questioned.
Based on this definition, HUMINT and criminal interrogations have in com-
mon that they involve questioning of a suspect or source, with the particular aim
of producing information. However, in our view, one of the critical differences be-
tween HUMINT and criminal interrogations is in the kind of information they aim at
producing. Criminal interrogations typically focus on generating information about
isolated, past events. Within this focus, there are some cultural differences in the
focus of criminal interrogation. For example, interrogations in criminal investiga-
tions in the USA are heavily geared towards producing confessions (Kassin 1997).
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 211
In many western European legal systems, the focus is instead on generating objec-
tive facts about the crime in question (Bull and Milne 2004). Regardless of these
differences, a characteristic element of criminal interrogations is that they are retro-
spective, closed-ended, and often confirmatory in nature, meaning that they typically
attempt to produce information about single events in the past.
Compared to criminal interrogations, HUMINT interrogations may be more com-
plex in nature. Generally speaking, HUMINT interrogations aim to map not only
isolated past events, but also networks of people and events—i.e., large-scale oper-
ations. Moreover, they may be both retrospective and prospective in nature. That is,
the goal of the interrogation may include not only mapping the past but also generat-
ing information about intentions, plans, and possible future events. It may be worth
noting that the challenges of HUMINT are, in these respects, similar to those facing
investigators of organized crime.
An additional difference between criminal and HUMINT interrogation is in the
sociocultural dynamic between the interrogator and the source. In contrast to most
criminal interrogations, HUMINT interrogations are frequently cross-cultural inter-
actions. That is, the interrogator and the source may not share ethnicity, culture, or
language. Because of this, HUMINT interrogations are sometimes conducted with
the use of interpreters. Unfortunately, the dynamics of interviewing using interpreters
have not been extensively mapped (Granhag et al. 2005).
A Historical Overview of HUMINT Interrogation Practice
and Research
Before we turn to the current scientific research on HUMINT interrogations, we
provide a brief historical overview of HUMINT interrogation. The purpose of this
overview is to illustrate the fundamental change in the ethos of HUMINT interro-
gation policy, practice, and research. First, a note on the chronological scope of our
review. We believe that a turning point in HUMINT policy and practice occurred in
2009, when President Obama signed Executive Order 13491, formally establishing
the “United States Army Field Manual 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Oper-
ations” as the norm for HUMINT interrogation (Brandon 2011). By simultaneously
revoking order 13440, President Obama established that all HUMINT interrogation
should conform to the Geneva convention, effectively banning the Bush regime’s
program of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. Furthermore, the executive
order called for the creation of a special task force, charged with the task of studying
and evaluating current interrogation practice (i.e., the effectiveness of the techniques
outlined in the Army Field Manual). Subsequently, the High-Value Detainee Inter-
rogation Group (HIG) was formed. HIG’s mission statement describes that it “will
study the comparative effectiveness of interrogation approaches and techniques with
the goal of identifying the most effective existing techniques and developing new
lawful techniques to improve intelligence interviewing.” Thus, an official research
agenda to examine HUMINT interrogation techniques was put in place. In the sec-
tion below, we aim to summarize the state of the field leading up to Obama’s policy
change.
212 M. Hartwig et al.
Sources of Data. How might one find information about past interrogation policy
and practice? There are several sources of data. A body of descriptive literature ex-
ists chronicling the experiences of HUMINT collectors and some of the techniques
they have employed over the course of a number of conflicts. In addition, official
manuals used in HUMINT interrogations are widely available both from booksellers
and general sites on the Internet. Journalists have also reported extensively about
HUMINT interrogations and have described practices sanctioned by the military
as well as methods that the US military has not officially approved. Moreover, re-
searchers have examined the behavior ofAmerican prisoners of war (POWs) during
their internment and have sought to understand under what circumstances POWs
become compliant and provide their captors with information. This early empirical
work, designed to develop defensive interrogation strategies, or the ability to resist
interrogations, ceased after the Korean War but still represents some of the most
significant research to date about interrogations in the military context. In addition,
individual interrogators, from World War II through the recent conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, have described their activities. Official information about the policies
and practices of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are more difficult to find.
Reports generally consist of historical documents and books that use declassified
material (McCoy 2006; Otterman 2007; Weiner 2007). Some declassified historical
documents from the CIA are accessible via the Internet (e.g., Pribbenow, n.d.). Re-
tired agents have written accounts of their service but these are subject to approval
by the CIA (e.g., Scheuer 2007). Most significantly, the CIA sponsored much of the
early scientific research about offensive and defensive interrogation strategies until
alarm over the research caused the agency to cease its sponsorship (McCoy 2006).
Accounts from POWs:WorldWar II and the Korean War. Accounts of the treat-
ment of the US POWs in World War II and the Korean War suggest that the stresses
of war and capture can make sources compliant, but have a negative effect on their
ability to provide accurate and actionable intelligence (Biderman 1957,1959). Isola-
tion, sensory deprivation, and poor living conditions in prison camps were found to
be negatively correlated with prisoners’ability to provide accurate intelligence, and
would sometimes induce false confessions (Biderman 1960; Biderman and Zimmer
1961). With the advent of the ColdWar, communist regimes frequently used interro-
gations to elicit false confessions or other propagandistic statements from captured
US military personnel. For example, in the Korean War, 36 American airmen con-
fessed to “a plot to bomb civilian targets” after undergoing what was then called
“touchless torture” (Margulies 2006). High-value prisoners were isolated from all
human contact, except for their interrogators, and at least one airman was held in
solitary confinement for 10 months. The North Koreans and the Chinese subjected
these prisoners to stress positions, such as standing for hours, and prolonged inter-
rogation sessions during which questions were repeated over and over to disorient
the subject. Guards threw food at the prisoners and forced them to defecate in pub-
lic. According to Margulies, after being “exhausted and demoralized”, the airmen’s
resistance was overcome and they eventually confessed. All the confessions elicited
under these conditions were false.
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 213
Farber et al. (1957) also examined techniques to elicit false confessions, self-
denunciations, or propagandistic statements used on American prisoners of war
captured during the Korean conflict (see also Carlson 2002). During their captivity,
American military personnel were subjected to extreme conditions including sleep
deprivation, malnutrition, isolation, poor medical care, and continual threats of death
or bodily harm. Farber et al. suggested that the prisoners’ confinement included three
overall elements (debility, dependency, and dread—DDD) that interacted to produce
an overall, psychologically weakened effect on the prisoners. Debility was produced
because prisoners were deprived of sleep, were denied consistent meals, and suffered
from fatigue. In addition, prisoners were often in chronic pain resulting from un-
treated wounds and other medical problems that were ignored. As a result, captured
personnel could not resist even minor physical abuse. Dependency was induced by
the captives’ weakened physical state and the fact that they were incapable of ful-
filling their most basic needs. Dread resulted because prisoners were subjected to
violence and continual threats of violence, loss of control, and even their inability to
satisfy the demands of their interrogators.
In stark contrast to the approaches described above are the interrogation tech-
niques employed by the legendary interrogator Hanns Joachim Scharff, who worked
for the German Luftwaffe during World War II. Scharff was famed for his charm
and his ability to extract information without coercion (Shoemaker 2008; Toliver
1997). His approach was characterized by two critical elements: First, he employed
a humane approach to the people he interrogated. His style was conversational rather
than adversarial, and he did not press the subjects for information (Scharff 1950).
Instead, he learned as much as he could about the backgrounds of his subjects, in-
cluding detailed personal information, before he started an interrogation. During the
interrogations, he often told elaborate stories rather than bombarding the source with
requests for information (Granhag et al. in press). Second, he approached interro-
gation strategically, viewing its purpose as gaining reliable information. In fact, his
conversational style and tendency to tell stories (and allowing the subject to correct
him or to confirm certain information in his stories) was a highly deliberate strategy,
aimed at what is referred to as information elicitation. The goal of information elici-
tation was to produce information in such a fashion that the source remains unaware
of the real aim of the exchange (Brandon et al. 2011). In other words, by creating an
“I already know it all” illusion, sources would inadvertently supply information that
Scharff did not previously know (Granhag et al. in press).
In sum, the evidence stemming from studies of POWs suggests that HUMINT in-
terrogation during parts of the twentieth century were, with a few notable exceptions,
characterized by psychological and physical coercion. Such methods certainly had
powerful effects on subjects—they produced confessions and propaganda. However,
such methods did not appear to be effective in generating reliable and actionable
intelligence.
US Government Sponsored Research. The CIA directly or indirectly sponsored
much of the research on offensive interrogation techniques until the 1970s (Kleinman
2006; McCoy 2005,2006; Otterman 2007). Offensive interrogations are those de-
signed to elicit information from a subject (in contrast to defensive interrogation
214 M. Hartwig et al.
techniques, which are designed to help military personnel withstand interrogation).
A range of avenues were explored, including manipulation of the physical environ-
ment and psychological states through sensory deprivation isolation, and the use of
psychoactive drugs. At its height, the research involved 80 institutions, 44 of them
colleges or universities (Thomas 1977).
Sensory deprivation is aimed at drastically reducing the level of a person’s nor-
mal sensory stimulation for a relatively prolonged period of time (Goldberger 1982).
Anecdotal evidence from people who have experienced some form of sensory de-
privation, such as prisoners, explorers, and the victims of ship wrecks, uniformly
describe a craving for sensual stimuli as well as changes in thinking, feeling, and
perception that can be accompanied by hallucination-like visions (Kubzansky 1961).
Hinkle (1961) discussed experiments conducted by Hebb, another sometime CIA-
funded researcher, on sensory deprivation. He concluded that within a few hours,
sensory deprivation began to exact a toll on brain function, similar to the effects
of beatings, starvation, or lack of sleep. In experiments where researchers reduced
levels of perceptual sensation, primarily by restricting visual input, subjects expe-
rienced a generally disorganizing effect. In studies on general sensory deprivation
(with the deprivation ranging from 3 min to 6 days), researchers observed a variety of
cognitive and behavioral effects, including breakdown of visual-motor coordination,
loss of accuracy in tactual perception and spatial orientation, difficulty in focusing,
fluctuating curvature of lines and surfaces, and a general decrease in the efficiency
of perceiving relevant stimuli (Kubzansky 1961).
Researchers also studied the psychological effects of isolation. Across studies, iso-
lation negatively affected subjects’ cognitive and decision-making capacities. Bexton
et al. (1954) found that even after the experiment concluded, some subjects still expe-
rienced confusion. Overall, the predominant experiences after isolation were fatigue,
drowsiness, confusion, loss of orientation, and a need to reorient oneself to the fa-
miliar aspects of reality (Kubzansky 1961). Kubzansky commented that depending
on the relationship between interrogator and subject, the interrogator, in a case of
isolation, might become associated with a relief from discomfort. As a result, a sub-
ject may be more willing to cooperate with the interrogator even though cognitive
abilities and hence the ability to provide accurate information would be substantially
impaired.
In addition, the CIA supported research on the effectiveness of psychoactive
drugs to induce compliance and produce information. For example, the agency kept
nine federal inmates high on LSD for 77 days to test the drug’s effects (Weiner
2007). There were also experimental studies on other hallucinogenic drugs such
as mescaline, as well as barbiturates (e.g., amobarbital). The conclusion from this
work was that while subjects under the influence of drugs may produce information
they otherwise would not, the reliability of this information was in serious doubt
(Gottschalk 1961).
In sum, the CIA research corroborated the results of the POW studies and rein-
forced the conclusion that sensory deprivation and isolation, even for short periods,
can seriously debilitate subjects. Hence, such techniques are not conducive to effec-
tive intelligence gathering. Although we acknowledge the glaring ethical problems
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 215
this research raises, we will not discuss them here (see Skerker 2012 for an excellent
and extensive treatment of these issues). Instead, we want to highlight the implicit
model of HUMINT interrogation inherent in this research. It seems to be based on
what we may a compliance through stress model. This model has at least three as-
sumptions. First, sources will be reluctant to cooperate during interrogation. Second,
by applying psychological (or physical) stress, such resistance will be broken down.
And third, when resistance has been broken down, sources will be willing (and able)
to produce reliable intelligence. As our review of current research will show, this
model sharply contrasts with modern views on effective interrogation.
Relevant Research on Interviewing and Interrogation
As we note above, the modern scientific literature focusing specifically on HUMINT
interrogation is slim. However, there is a large body of empirical work that has
bearing on the challenges of HUMINT. Here, we review some of this research,
and suggest important avenues for future research. First, we discuss the available
literature on interview and interrogation techniques, focusing on approaches that
both promote cooperation and effectively elicit information from memory. Second,
we describe research on the challenges of assessing the credibility of information
elicited during an interrogation, with a focus on recent research suggesting that
certain interview approaches may facilitate the detection of deception. Finally, we
identify several areas in need of further research with the goal of developing ethical,
evidence-based approaches to HUMINT interrogation (see also Evans et al. 2010).
Methods of Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation. At the heart of an ef-
fective HUMINT interview lies the methods used by an interrogator to break a
subject’s resistance, solicit and maintain their cooperation, and elicit from them
detailed strategic information relevant to national-security interests. Much of the
current training that both criminal investigators and intelligence personnel receive
is based upon customary knowledge—interview practices that have developed over
time through experience, that are handed down through observational learning and
storytelling, and that are ultimately codified in manuals, policies, and regulations.
Unfortunately, such knowledge lacks a systematic and unbiased perspective from
which to determine causality. We propose that it is ultimately scientific knowledge
that will improve the effectiveness of interview and interrogation methods—a per-
spective that is drawn from independent observation, is theory driven and empirically
derived, and is founded upon the principles of replication and peer review. In this
section, we briefly review the available research literature on methods of interview-
ing and interrogation, identifying those methods with the potential for improving
HUMINT interrogations that seek to elicit critical intelligence information.
Empirical research on the efficacy of interview and interrogation approaches was
initially motivated by claims of actual innocence in the US criminal justice system
(e.g., Scheck et al. 2000). Over the past two decades, researchers have sought to
understand how suspects may be led to falsely confess (see Gudjonsson 2003; Kassin
216 M. Hartwig et al.
et al. 2010), and the process by which memory may become contaminated through
the interview process, leading witnesses and victims to misremember or misinterpret
their experiences (see Brainerd and Reyna 2005; Loftus 2005). Much has been
learned from this research that is relevant to the challenges of collecting HUMINT
as a product of interview and interrogation methods (see Loftus 2011).
First, modern interrogation approaches often rely not upon physical coercion,
but rather psychological manipulation of a source to elicit a statement or confirm
available information—these approaches are often referred to as accusatorial in-
terrogation methods. As described by Kassin and Gudjonsson (2004), accusatorial
interrogations often involve three phases in which (a) a source is detained in a small
room and left to experience the anxiety, insecurity, and uncertainty associated with
police interrogation; (b) the source is then accused or confronted (sometimes falsely)
with available information, is prevented from denying his/her involvement and is
warned of the potential for significant consequences associated with their affiliations
or actions (referred to as maximization); and finally (c) a now sympathetic interroga-
tor attempts to gain the source’s trust, offers face-saving excuses or justifications for
their involvement, and implies more lenient consequences should the source provide
information (referred to as minimization). Although customary knowledge (prior ex-
perience) leads experienced interrogators to purport that these methods are effective
in producing confirmatory information from a source, scientific assessments suggest
that accusatorial methods actually increase the likelihood of both true and false infor-
mation when compared with a control (direct interview) condition (see Kassin et al.
2010; Meissner et al. 2012)—that is, these methods ultimately lead to confirmatory
information gathering that is counterproductive to the HUMINT objective.
In contrast, several high-profile false confessions in England and Wales led to en-
actment of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE)Act of 1984 (Bull and Soukara
2010; Home Office 2003). This act prohibited the use of accusatorial methods and
mandated the recording of custodial interrogations. In 1992, a new model of in-
vestigative interviewing was introduced in Great Britain (referred to as the PEACE
model, see Milne and Bull 1999) that focuses on developing rapport, explaining
the allegation and the seriousness of the offense, and emphasizing the importance
of honesty and truth gathering. Individuals are provided the opportunity to offer
their perspective without interruption, and only thereafter may interrogators engage
using positive confrontation and identifying inconsistencies or contradictions. Ul-
timately, the goal of such information-gathering methods is one of “fact-finding”
rather than that of obtaining a confirmatory statement (with an emphasis on the
use of open-ended questions). In a recent systematic review of the available em-
pirical literature on information-gathering approaches, Meissner et al. (2012) found
that these approaches significantly increased truthful information from guilty indi-
viduals and significantly reduced the incidence of false information from innocent
individuals when compared with accusatorial methods—in other words, information-
gathering methods proved more diagnostic and productive to an investigation. Using
a novel experimental paradigm that attempts to model the HUMINT interrogation
context, Evans et al. (2013) recently replicated these findings and demonstrated
that information-gathering approaches produced more information from guilty and
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 217
innocent participants, including critical guilty knowledge that would further an in-
telligence investigation. Although further research and replication of these findings
is warranted, the available research suggests that information-gathering approaches
offer an effective alternative to modern accusatorial methods that pervade HUMINT
training doctrine (i.e., customary knowledge).
Research has also highlighted the significant role of confirmatory hypothesis test-
ing (or confirmation bias) on the elicitation of information in forensic settings. For
example, compelling research by Loftus (2005,2011) and others (e.g., Brainerd and
Reyna 2005; Ceci and Bruck 1995) has detailed the ease with which human mem-
ory can become contaminated via suggestive and presumptive interview approaches,
particularly for events in the distant past (Payne et al. 1994) and when the suggestive
information is provided by another individual (Gabbert et al. 2003)—conditions that
are relevant to the HUMINT interrogation context. Importantly, confirmation bias
not only distorts the potential memory of the source, but it also has been shown to
influence both perceptions of source veracity and the interrogation process itself. For
example, as discussed below, Meissner and Kassin (2002) first demonstrated the role
of investigator biases in judgments of truth and deception by showing that experi-
ence investigators demonstrate a proclivity to assume guilt or deception on the part of
interviewees (see also Kassin et al. 2005; Meissner and Kassin 2004). This presump-
tion of guilt has also been shown to influence the type of questions or interrogative
approaches that investigators use in a suspect interview, leading to behavioral re-
sponses from the suspect that are consistent with this prior belief (including false
information or confessions from innocent suspects)—a cycle of behavioral confir-
mation that only further increases an investigator’s confidence in his/her hypothesis
(see Kassin et al. 2005; Narchet et al. 2010).
A number of structured interview protocols have been developed to address the
potential role of confirmatory hypothesis testing and memory contamination in the
forensic setting, including protocols aimed at improving the recall of critical in-
formation from adults and children (cf. Lamb et al. 2008; Fisher and Geiselman
1992). Generally speaking, these interview protocols emphasize the importance of
establishing rapport with the source, and encouraging the interviewer to introduce
very little information during the interview but to instead allow opportunities for
uninterrupted, free narrative responses from the individual. One interview protocol,
the cognitive interview, further encourages the use of mnemonic prompts (such as
context reinstatement, changing perspectives, or affording relevant retrieval cues)
that have been shown to facilitate recall in basic memory research. A recent meta-
analysis of the cognitive interview literature demonstrated a large and statistically
significant increase in correct recall (d=1.20) when the cognitive interview proto-
col was compared with that of a standard or structured interview protocol, with no
significant effect on the accuracy of information elicited (Memon et al. 2010). Given
the importance of eliciting event or person information from HUMINT sources, in-
tegration of the cognitive interview with a source that has been led to be cooperative
is likely to significantly improve the amount of intelligence information elicited. As
described below, use of the cognitive interview and its mnemonic prompts may also
produce a corollary benefit—namely, enhancing interrogators’ability to distinguish
between truth and deception.
218 M. Hartwig et al.
Distinguishing between truth and deception in an interrogation. Veracity judg-
ments are an important component of interrogations. Interrogators may face
deception in many forms: For example, sources may misrepresent their identity,
conceal information, or produce deliberately false information (Buller et al. 1994).
Given that the aim of interrogation is to generate reliable information, it is criti-
cal for interrogators to assess the veracity of the information that is elicited during
interrogation.
Psychologists have studied interpersonal deception and its detection for roughly
half a century, and there is now a substantial body of research on the issue (for a
comprehensive overview, see Vrij 2008). This research focuses on three primary
questions. First, are there valid and reliable cues to deception? That is, do people
behave differently when they provide false statements compared to when they are
telling the truth? Second, how accurate are people at distinguishing between true and
false statements? Third, are there ways in which people’s ability to detect deception
can be improved? Below we provide an overview of the major findings related to
each of these questions.
There are hundreds of studies mapping the behavioral patterns of liars and truth
tellers. Researchers have examined both verbal and nonverbal aspects of behavior in
order to answer the question of whether there are cues to deception. This vast litera-
ture was synthesized in a meta-analysis by DePaulo et al. (2003), which incorporated
120 studies and 158 behavioral cues. Some cues were based on minute coding of
behavior (e.g., the number of words spoken, the frequency of particular body move-
ments), while others tapped into more global, impressionistic aspects of behavior
(e.g., whether the communicator appeared positive, tense, or cooperative). Overall,
the meta-analysis showed that the behavioral signs of deception are faint. That is,
few of the 158 behaviors included in the meta-analysis were related to deception,
and those that were actually associated with deception were only weakly linked. For
example, contrary to widespread beliefs (Global Deception Research Team 2006),
gaze aversion is not a reliable sign of deception, nor are frequent body movements
and posture shifts (Strömwall et al. 2004). Behaviors that are most strongly linked to
deception tend to be impressionistic cues—for example, liars appear more ambiva-
lent and tense, they are perceived as less cooperative, and their speech seems less
immediate and more uncertain.
How accurate are people at distinguishing between true and false statements?
Researchers have examined human lie detection accuracy in a variety of ways (Frank
2005; Hartwig 2011). In the most typical approach, people are exposed to videotaped
statements provided by participants in laboratory studies who generate either truthful
statements or deliberately false statements about their opinions or attitudes, or about
events that they have witnessed or participated in. In other studies, people are exposed
to real life, high-stake lies in which others lie or tell the truth about serious crimes
such as murder, rape or arson (Mann et al. 2004; Vrij and Mann 2001a,b). Summaries
of this literature show that people obtain mediocre accuracy rates when facing this
task—a meta-analysis of 206 lie detection studies showed an average accuracy rate of
54 %, which is far from impressive given that 50 % accuracy can be expected from
chance alone (Bond and DePaulo 2006). Contrary to commonsense assumptions,
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 219
meta-analytic results further show that lie detection accuracy rates are not higher
when lies are told under high-stakes conditions. Instead, lie catchers are more prone
to show a bias towards rendering lie judgments for statements told under high-stake
conditions, suggesting that they may misinterpret the signs of pressure and motivation
to convince emitted from both liars and truth tellers as signs of deception.
It is intuitively appealing to think that some people are better than others at de-
tecting lies, due to some inherent skill, or as a function of training and “on-the job”
experience (DePaulo and Pfeifer 1986, Garrido et al. 2004). Indeed, a large survey
of US law enforcement officers showed a purported accuracy rate of 77 % (Kassin
et al. 2007). There are two bodies of empirical evidence of relevance to this question.
First, a meta-analysis of individual differences in lie detection accuracy showed that
people differ no more in their ability to detect deception than what can be expected
by chance (Bond and DePaulo 2008). This suggests that lie detection cannot readily
be construed as a skill that some people possess to a greater extent than others (see
also Leach et al. 2009). Second, comparisons of lay people and presumed lie ex-
perts such as police officers, customs officers, and prison guards show that they too
obtain hit rates around the level of chance (Bond and DePaulo 2006; Hartwig et al.
2004; Kassin et al. 2005; Kraut and Poe 1980; Meissner and Kassin 2002,2004).
Thus, the self-reported accuracy rates of law enforcement officers reported by Kassin
et al. (2007) appear to be substantial overestimates of their actual performance. Even
though presumed lie experts achieve similar hit rates as lay people, it is worth noting
that their decision making differs in critical ways: they demonstrate a bias towards
rendering lie judgments, and they show overconfidence in these judgments when
compared to lay people (Kassin et al. 2005; Meissner and Kassin 2002,2004).
In sum then, a large body of empirical literature offers a rather robust conclusion
that human lie detection accuracy is mediocre. This finding holds true for low- and
high-stake lies and for lay people and presumed lie experts alike. Recently, Hartwig
and Bond (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of the deception literature with the aim
of understanding why lie detection accuracy rates are so consistently poor. Their
analysis suggested the primary reason is that cues to deception are so weak—that is,
lie catchers have little diagnostic material to rely on.
So far, we have painted a rather pessimistic picture of the possibilities of making
accurate judgments of veracity. It seems that judgments of deception are error prone,
even when made by experienced investigators who routinely assess credibility as
part of their professional life. However, a wave of research produced in the last
decade provides the basis for some optimism. This body of research is based on the
premise that while liars might not automatically leak observable cues to deception,
it may be possible to elicit cues to deception through strategic interview methods
(Levine et al. 2010). That is, through strategic questioning it may be possible to
magnify the behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers (Vrij and Granhag
2012), which in turn may lead to higher lie detection accuracy rates (Hartwig and
Bond 2011). This line of research on interviewing to detect deception is of particular
relevance for HUMINT interrogations, as it has clear practical implications for how
such interrogations may be planned and carried out.
220 M. Hartwig et al.
The methods to elicit cues to deception have in common that they emphasize
cognitive rather than emotional differences between liars and truth tellers. That is,
they assume that while liars may not necessarily be more nervous, uncomfortable,
or anxious than truth tellers, they may differ in the amount of mental load they
experience, and/or in the way they strategize and plan their statements (Vrij and
Granhag 2012). For example, the cognitive load approach posits that lying is more
mentally taxing than telling the truth, because liars face a more demanding task (for
a discussion on cognitive load during lying, see Vrij et al. 2006,2008). The cognitive
load approach further suggests that by imposing additional cognitive load on liars and
truth tellers, liars (who are already taxed by the mental burden of lying) may display
more signs of being mentally burdened than truth tellers. Several studies support
these assumptions. In brief, these studies show that when liars and truth tellers are
asked to provide their statements under cognitively demanding conditions (e.g., by
being asked to maintain eye contact with the interviewer, or by being asked to tell
their story in reverse chronological order), liars display more cues to deception, and
lie catchers are more accurate at distinguishing between true and false statements
(e.g., Evans et al. 2013; Vrij et al. 2008).
Another approach to elicit cues to deception is based on the assumption that liars
plan some, but not all of their responses. That is, they anticipate certain questions,
and they prepare answers in response to these. This strategy makes sense—planning
might make lying easier, and planned lies are generally associated with fewer cues to
deception (DePaulo et al. 2003). However, the fact that liars only plan some of their
responses can be exploited in order to produce cues to deception (Lancaster et al.
2013). In one study, researchers interviewed pairs of mock suspects, some of whom
were telling the truth about going to lunch together, some of whom were lying about
going to lunch in order to conceal a transgression. In response to the anticipated
questions (e.g., regarding what they did in the restaurants), liars’ responses were
consistent with each other. In contrast, when asked questions they had not anticipated
(e.g., when they were asked to provide a sketch of the outline of the restaurant),
discrepancies between the liars’ accounts emerged (Vrij et al. 2009). In another
study, liars and truth tellers were interviewed about an upcoming trip (Warmelink
et al. in press). Liars offered significantly less detailed responses to questions that
were unanticipated (e.g., “What part of your trip was the most difficult to plan?”)
compared to questions that were anticipated (e.g., “What is the reason for your trip?”;
for a related finding, see Sooniste et al. in press).
A third line of research, similarly anchored in the notion that liars plan and strate-
gize prior to an interrogation is the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique
(Hartwig and Granhag in press). More specifically, the SUE approach is based on
the assumption that liars have different counter-interrogation strategies than truth
tellers. In other words, while liars and truth tellers share the goal of convincing an
interrogator of their story, they differ in the approaches they take to reach this goal
(Granhag and Hartwig 2008). In particular, they differ in terms of information man-
agement strategies—in contrast to truth tellers, liars are by definition motivated to
conceal certain information from an interrogator. For example, they may want to
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 221
conceal information about their involvement in a transgression, or they may hold
information about other people’s identities and actions that they are motivated to
keep the interrogator ignorant about. Indeed, research on liars’ counter-interrogation
strategies suggests that a primary focus concerns information management: their
verbal strategies tend to be either avoidance (i.e., not mentioning being at a certain
place) or escape/denial (i.e., denying being at a certain place when asked about it).
The SUE approach exploits these information management strategies by using the
available background information strategically in order to highlight liars’avoidance
and escape strategies. For example, in the first study of the SUE approach, liars stole
a wallet from the briefcase, while truth tellers merely moved the briefcase in order
to look for an item. The interrogator had some relevant background information in
the form of witnesses placing the suspect at the scene of the crime, as well as the
suspect’s fingerprints on the briefcase. When this information was strategically with-
held during the interrogation, and the interrogator asked a series of questions about
the suspect’s whereabouts and actions (see Hartwig et al. 2011), liars’ stories were
inconsistent with the known facts (e.g., they tended to avoid mentioning being at
the scene of the crime, and they often denied having seen or handled the briefcase).
Furthermore, law enforcement trainees who were taught the SUE principles and tac-
tics, obtained substantially higher hit rates in distinguishing between truths and lies
than what is typically observed in the deception literature (Hartwig et al. 2006). For
further discussion of the SUE approach and the tactics derived from it, see Granhag
et al. (2012).
In conclusion, while detecting deception is a difficult task, recent research suggests
that strategic interviewing methods may increase the chances of correct judgments of
credibility. Such interview methods are based on an understanding of the challenges
liars face, and the planning and strategizing they engage in order to successfully
deceive. Taken together with recent empirical research on effective interview and
interrogation approaches, we believe that a rather firm evidence base exists to begin
moving HUMINT interrogation practice from a customary to a scientific basis.
Future Directions in HUMINT Interviewing and Interrogation
While recent research efforts in the areas of interviewing, interrogation, and cred-
ibility assessment offer an empirical perspective that can be readily applied to the
HUMINT context, a number of other issues, some unique to the intelligence gath-
ering challenge, will require further scientific inquiry. Based upon our interactions
and collaborations with intelligence interrogators, we discuss below a few areas that
require further focus and consideration by researchers.
Facilitating Communication Between Researchers and Practitioners: A Com-
mon Language. A grand challenge often faced in our attempts to share important
research insights with practitioners has to do with the terminology used by researchers
to describe the various interview and interrogation methods that we assess. Quite
222 M. Hartwig et al.
simply, our research will only have impact to the extent that we (a) accurately re-
flect the use of certain interview and interrogation approaches and contexts in our
studies and (b) facilitate understanding of key concepts and interrogative methods
in our communication with practitioners. Terms such as minimization versus maxi-
mization, mnemonic cues, cognitive load, or positive confrontation have meaning to
psychologists in the investigative interviewing arena, but can be quite confusing and
misinterpreted when shared with practitioners. As we have noted here and elsewhere
(see Meissner et al. 2010), we believe that collaboration between scientists and prac-
titioners is key to improving the practice of interviewing and interrogation—and the
foundation of any successful collaboration is a shared conceptual and linguistic un-
derstanding of the topic area. It will be important for researchers and professionals
to generate a common language from which to operate. A wonderful example of this
can be seen in a recent paper by Kelly et al. (2012), in which the authors (researchers
and a practitioner) propose a taxonomy of interrogation methods that is grounded in
both psychological theory and operational experience.
Cross-Cultural Perspectives in the Booth. HUMINT interrogations often involve
foreign national sources or high-value suspects who have knowledge of threats to
the security of the government. Such interviews or interrogations present occasions
that necessarily invoke cross-cultural (and intergroup) processes—including com-
munication, person perception, and social influence among others. Unfortunately,
there is only a small body of literature applying basic, cross-cultural research on
such processes to the investigative interviewing context, despite the critical need for
such research. Recent studies by Buene et al. (2011,2010,2009; Giebels and Taylor
2009) provide an excellent model for addressing this challenge. Further research on
the role of culture in judgments of credibility is also warranted (see Bond and Rao
2004), including the potential influence of cultural biases (see Castillo and Mallard
2012).
Interviewing Through an Interpreter: Linguistic Challenges to Communi-
cation, Persuasion, and Credibility Assessment. A related characteristic of
HUMINT interrogations is their frequent use of interpreters to facilitate commu-
nication with foreign nationals. As may be evident, the use of an interpreter presents
many challenges to an already complex interaction between the source and the in-
terrogator. Interpreters may influence the flow and accuracy of information that is
communicated across the parties, and may hinder the use of certain interrogation
strategies or approaches (see Lai and Mulayim in press). Interpreter expertise and
prior experience/knowledge of interview and interrogation methods may moderate
these effects. Further, the mode of interpretation (consecutive intervals vs. simul-
taneous translation) and placement of the interpreter within the interview context
may further influence communication, rapport development, and the effectiveness of
attempts at persuasion. Finally, the impact of language on judgments of credibility
must also be considered, with recent research suggesting effects on both accuracy
and response bias (see Da Silva and Leach 2011; Evans et al. 2013).
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 223
Conceptualizing and Measuring Rapport. Professional interrogators will often
describe the importance of rapport in facilitating cooperation and eliciting informa-
tion from suspects (see Kleinman 2006; St. Yves 2006). Although rapport has been
more widely assessed in clinical and negotiation contexts (see Tickle-Degnen and
Rosenthal 1990), there is a critical need to both conceptualize and assess rapport
in the interview and interrogation context. An excellent review of the relevant basic
research literature has been offered byAbbe and Brandon (2013), as the authors high-
light the importance of developing our understanding of rapport in the investigative
interviewing context. Recent empirical studies by Bull and Soukara (2010), Driskell
et al. (2013), and Vallano and Schreiber Compo (2011) have demonstrated the im-
portance of rapport in police interviews on the elicitation of quality information from
sources or witnesses (see also Walsh and Bull 2012). Further research that provides
a strong theoretical basis for conceptualizing and measuring the behavioral manifes-
tations of rapport in both the interviewee and interviewer, including the influence of
pseudo rapport (see DePaulo and Bell 1990), appears warranted.
Moving From the Laboratory to the Field: Empirically Assessing the Ef-
fectiveness of Evidence-Based Methods in the Training Academy and in the
Field. Finally, generating data from experimental research will undoubtedly lead
to a strong evidence base from which to inform training and practice; however, we
should be careful about simply “handing off” our research findings with the assump-
tion that our findings will generalize beyond the laboratory. It will be important for
researchers to partner with training academies and agencies to support experimental
evaluations of the methods we develop in the laboratory in comparison with those
methods currently trained and used in the field. Over the past few years we have
begun such a process of partnering with trainers to develop training assessments—
experimental tests of our methods versus that trained by the academy. These studies
help to inform trainers and operators about the scientific process and provide an
empirical basis for a potential policy change in the academy’s curriculum. Further,
it will be important to monitor the effectiveness of the training materials that are
developed, and to assess the effectiveness of our novel approaches when deployed
into the operational environment.
Conclusions
In the current chapter, we have sought to provide a historical overview of HUMINT
interrogation practices and to describe the contemporary challenges faced by in-
terrogators in this context. We have also reviewed research in the investigative
interviewing realm that can offer a scientific perspective to the current use of custom-
ary knowledge. We believe that ethical, evidence-based approaches can be developed
that offer an effective alternative to the use of physical or psychologically coercive
methods. Ultimately, we hope that other researchers will join us in addressing the
unique challenges offered by the HUMINT context.
224 M. Hartwig et al.
References
Abeles, N. (2010). Ethics and the interrogation of prisoners: An update. Ethics & Behavior, 20,
243–249. doi:10.1080/10508421003798976.
Bexton, W. H., Heron, W., & Scott, T. H. (1954). Effects of decreased variation in the sensory
environment. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8, 70–76.
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me? Influencing be-
haviour and culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 597–617.
doi:10.1080/10683160802442835
Biderman, A. D. (1957). Communist attempts to elicit false confessions from Air Force prisoners
of war. Bulletin of the NewYork Academy of Medicine, 33, 616–625.
Biderman, A. D. (1959). Effects of Communist indoctrination attempts: Some com-
ments based on an Air Force prisoner-of-war study. Social Problems, 6, 304–313.
doi:10.1525/sp.1959.6.4.03a00040.
Biderman, A. D. (1960). Social-psychological needs and “involuntary” behavior as illustrated by
compliance in interrogations. Sociometry, 23, 120–147. doi:10.2307/2785678.
Biderman, A. D., & Zimmer, H. (Eds.). (1961). The manipulation of human behavior. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Boehm, D. (2009). Waterboarding, counter-resistance, and the law of torture: Articulating the legal
underpinnings of U.S. interrogation policy. University of Toledo Law Review, 41, 1–41.
Bond, C. F. Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality & Social
Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.
Bond, C. F. Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy
and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.134.4.477.
Bond, C.F., Jr., & Rao, S.R. (2004). Lies travel: Mendacity in a mobile world. In P.A. Granhag,
& L.A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 127–147).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Brandon, S. (2011). Impacts of psychological science on national security agencies post-9/11.
American Psychologist, 66, 495–506.
Brandon, S., Bhatt, S., Justice, B. P., & Kleinman, S. M. (2011). Army field manual 2-22.3
interrogation methods: A scientific review. (FOUO).
Buene, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me? Influencing be-
haviour and culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 597–617.
doi:10.1080/10683160802442835.
Buene, K., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2010). Patterns of interaction in police inter-
views: The role of cultural dependency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 904–925.
doi:10.1177/0093854810369623.
Buene, K., Giebels, E., Adair, W. L., Fennis, B. M., &Van DerZee, K. I. (2011). Strategic sequences
in police interviews and the importance of order and cultural fit. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
38 (9), 934–954.
Bull, R. (1999). Police investigative interviewing. In A. Memon & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of interviewing (pp. 279–292). Chichester: Wiley.
Bull, R., & Milne, B. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In G. D.
Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181–196). NewYork: Kluwer.
Bull, R. & Soukara, S. (2010). What really happens in police interviews. In G. D. Lassiter & C.
A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and
policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., White, C. H., & Ebesu, A. S. (1994). Interpersonal deception: VII.
Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation, and concealment. Journal of Language &
Social Psychology, 13, 366–395. doi:10.1177/0261927X94134002.
Carlson, L. H. (2002). Remembered prisoners of a forgotten war. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 225
Castillo, P. A., & Mallard, D. (2012). Preventing cross-cultural bias in deception judgments: The
role of expectancies about nonverbal behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (6),
967–978.
Ceci SJ, Bruck M. 1995. Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony.
Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Costanzo, M. A., & Gerrity, E. (2009). The effects and effectiveness of using torture as an interro-
gation device: Using research to inform the policy debate. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3,
179–210. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2009.01014.x.
Cutler, B. L. (2012). Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13085–000.
DePaulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1990). Rapport is not so soft anymore. Psychological Inquiry, 1(4),
305–308. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0104_6
DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.(2003).
Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.129.1.74.
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North
Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010). Crim-
inal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to improving
interrogative practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 215–249.
Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new assessment
method for deception detection: Introducing a Psychologically Based Credibility Assessment
Tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 33–41.
Farber, I. E., Harlow, H., & West, L. (1957). Brainwashing, conditioning, and DDD (Debility,
Dependency, and Dread). Sociometry, 20, 271–285.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative
interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL, England: Charles C Thomas, Publisher.
Frank, M. G. (2005). Research methods in detecting deception research. In J. A. Harrigan, R.
Rosenthal, K. R. Scherer, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods
in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 341–368). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gabbert, F., Memon,A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each
other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 533–543.
Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments:
Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254–275.
doi:10.1080/00207590344000411.
Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments
and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 5–19. doi:10.1037/a0012953.
Goldberger, L. (1982). Sensory deprivation and overload. In L. Goldberger & S. Bretznitz (Eds.),
Handbook on stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 410–418). New York: Free Press.
Gottschalk, L. A. (1961). The use of drugs in interrogation. In O. Biderman & H. Zimmer (Eds.),
The manipulation of human behavior (pp. 96–141). New York: Wiley.
Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On
the psychology of instrumental mind reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 189–200.
Granhag, P. A., Cancino Montecinos, S., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (in press). Eliciting intelligence from
informants: The first scientific test of the Scharff-technique. Legal & Criminological Psychology.
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R., & Hartwig, M. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception
by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix. Legal &
Criminological Psychology.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook.
Chichester: Wiley.
Hartwig, M. (2011). Methods in deception research. In R. Barry & P. Steven (Eds.), Research
methods in forensic psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
226 M. Hartwig et al.
Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (in press). Strategic use of evidence. In T. R. Levine & J. G. Golson
(Eds), Encyclopedia of lying and deception. London: Sage Publications.
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of
human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2004). Police officers’ lie detection
accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429–456.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence
during police interviews: When training to detect deception work. Law & Human Behavior, 30,
603–619.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Wolf, A., Vrij, A., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E. (2011).
Detecting deception in suspects: Verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychology,
Crime, & Law, 17, 643–656.
Hersh, S. M. (2004). Chain of command. New Yorker, 80 (12), 38–43.
Hinkle, J. E. (1961). The physiological state of the interrogation subject as it affects brain function.
In O. Biderman & H. Zimmer (Eds.), The manipulation of human behavior (pp. 19–50). New
York: Wiley.
Home Office (2003). Police and criminal evidence act 1984. Codes of practice A-E revised edition.
HMSO: London, UK.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the
literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67. doi:10.1111/j.1529–
1006.2004.00016.x.
Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). ‘I’d know a false confession if I saw one’:
A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law & Human Behavior, 29,
211–227. doi:10.1007/s10979–005-2416–9.
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach,A., & La Fon,
D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and
beliefs. Law & Human Behavior, 31, 381–400.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010).
Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law & Human Behavior, 34,
3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979–009-9188–6.
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013).A taxonomy of interrogation
methods. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 19(2), 165–178. doi:10.1037/a0030310
Kleinman, S. M. (2006). KUBARK counterintelligence interrogation review: Observations of
an interrogator. In R. A. Fein, P. Lehner, & B. Vossekuil’s (Eds.), Educing information: In-
terrogation art and science (pp. 95–139). Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence
College.
Kraut, R.E., & Poe, D. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgements
of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 784–98.
Kubzansky, P. E. (1961). The effects of reduced environmental stimulation on human behavior: A
review. In O. Biderman & H. Zimmer (Eds.), The manipulation of human behavior (pp. 51–95).
New York: Wiley.
Lai, M., & Mulayim, S. (in press). Interpreter linguistic intervention in the strategies employed by
police investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research.
Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach,Y., & Esplin, P. W.(2008). Tell me whathappened: Structured
Investigative Interviews of Child Victims and Witnesses. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Lancaster, G. L. J., Vrij,A., Hope, L., & Waller, B. (2013). Sorting the liars from the truth tellers:
The benefits of asking unanticipated questions on lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
27, 107–114. doi:10.1002/acp.2879.
Leach, A., Lindsay, R. L., Koehler, R., Beaudry, J. L., Bala, N. C., Lee, K., & Talwar, V.
(2009). The reliability of lie detection performance. Law & Human Behavior, 33, 96–109.
doi:10.1007/s10979–008-9137–9.
11 Human Intelligence Interviewing and Interrogation 227
Leo, R. A. (2001). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and solutions. In S. D. Westervelt
& J. A. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Leo, R. A., & Davis, D. (2010). From false confession to wrongful conviction: Seven psychological
processes. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 9–56.
Leo, R. A., & Drizin, S. A. (2010). The three errors: Pathways to false confession and wrongful
conviction. In G. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions:
Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 9–30). Washington, DC:American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12085–001.
Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). Increasing deception detection accuracy with
strategic questioning. Human Communication Research, 36, 216–231. doi:10.1111/j.1468–
2958.2010.01374.x.
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the
malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12, 361–366. doi:10.1101/lm.94705.
Loftus, E. F. (2011) Intelligence gathering post 9/11. American Psychologist. 66, 532–541
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’
lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.
Margulies, J. (2006, October 2). The more subtle kind of torment. The Washington Post.
McCoy,A. W. (2005). Cruel science: CIA torture and U.S. foreign policy. The New England Journal
of Public Policy, 209–262.
McCoy, A. W. (2006). A question of torture: CIA interrogation from the cold war to the war on
terror. NewYork: Owl Books.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and
deception. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). “You’re guilty, so just confess!”: Cognitive and behavioral
confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In D. Lassiter’s (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions,
and entrapment (pp. 85–106). Kluwer Academic: Plenum Press.
Meissner, C. A., Russano, M. B., & Narchet, F. M. (2010). The importance of a laboratory science
for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence. In G. D. Lassiter & C. Meissner’s
(Eds.), Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy
Recommendations (pp. 111–126). Washington, DC: APA.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2012). Interview and interrogation
methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13,
1–53. doi:10.4073/csr.2012.13.
Memon, A., Meissner, C.A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review
and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 16(4),
340–372. doi:10.1037/a0020518.
Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of investigator
bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law & Human Behavior, 35, 452–465.
Otterman, M. (2007). American torture: From the cold war to Abu Ghraib and beyond. Michigan:
Pluto Press.
Payne, D. G., Toglia, M. P., & Anastasi, J. S. (1994). Recognition performance level and the
magnitude of the misinformation effect in eyewitness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
1, 376–382.
Pribbenow, N. (n.d.) The man in the snow white cell. Center for the Study of Intelligence.
www.cia.gov.
Scharff, H. J. (1950). Without torture. Argosy, 39, 87–91.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other
dispatches from the wrongly convicted. NewYork: Doubleday.
Scheuer, M. (2007). Imperial hubris: Why the West is losing the war on terror. Dulles: Potomac
Books, Inc.
228 M. Hartwig et al.
Shoemaker, D. P. (2008). Unveiling Charlie: U.S. Interrogator’s creative success against insurgents.
In National Defense Intelligence College (Ed.), Interrogation: World war II, Vietnam and Iraq
(pp. 77–146). Washington DC: NDIC Press.
Skerker, M. (2012). An ethics of interrogation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Knieps, M., & Vrij, A. (in press). True and false intentions: Asking
about the past to detect lies about the future. Psychology, Crime & Law.
St. Yves, M. (2006). Psychology of rapport: Five basic rules. In T. Williamson et al (Eds)
Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, and Regulation (pp. 87–106). Willan Publishing.
Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception.
In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates.
Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285–293.
The Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37, 60–74.
Thomas, J. (1977, September 13). CIA says it found more secret papers on mind control. The
New York Times. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C1EFA385A167493C1A
91782D85F438785F9&scp = 10&sq= cia%20says% 20it %20found%20more % 20secret%20
papers%20on%20mind%20control&st=cse. Accessed 27 March 2013.
Toliver, R. (1997). The interrogator. Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing.
Vallan, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport-
building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime interview. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 960–970.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001a). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a
convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187–203.
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001b). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life
high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 7, 119–132.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the
questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 1, 110–117.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive
load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 141–142. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.003.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2008). A cognitive load approach to lie detection.
Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 5, 39–43. doi:10.1002/jip.82.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009).
Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law & Human Behavior,
33, 159–166. doi:10.1007/s10979–008-9143-y.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2012a). Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to
deceit: Inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 579–594.
doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.515987.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. (2012b). Is anyone there? Drawings as a
tool to detect deceit in occupation interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 377–388.
doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.498422.
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its
building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 73–84.
Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Jundi, S., & Granhag, P. A. (in press). The effect of question
expectedness and experience on lying about intentions. Acta Psychologica.
Weiner, T. (2007). Legacy of ashes: The history of the CIA. NewYork: Doubleday.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Thoughts on psychologists, ethics, and the use of torture in interrogations:
Don’t ignore varying roles and complexities. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 7,
65–73. doi:10.1111/j.1530–2415.2007.00122.x.