Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Nov 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 11
The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG):
Inception, Evolution, and Impact
Susan E. Brandon, Joeanna C. Arthur, David G. Ray, Christian A. Meissner, Steven M.
Kleinman, Melissa B. Russano, & Simon Wells¹
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
(Edmund Burke)
A Research Program
Interrogation practices in the U.S. have long relied on customary knowledge—
experiential-based knowledge uninformed by behavioral science (Hartwig, Meissner, & Semel,
2014). This reality was highlighted in a multi-year review of interrogation training and practice
by the U.S. Intelligence Science Board (ISB) that described contemporary interrogation methods
as lacking an evidence base (Fein, 2006) and called for the development of a research program to
study ethical, science-based interrogation practices.
The ISB study advocated for what became the research program of the High-Value
Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), an interagency body founded by Executive Order 13491 in
2009 “to get the best intelligence possible based on scientifically proven methods and consistent
with the Army Field Manual”² (White House press briefing, August 24, 2009). A core
responsibility of the HIG is “to study the comparative effectiveness of interrogation approaches
and techniques, with the goal of identifying the existing techniques that are most effective and
developing new lawful techniques to improve intelligence interrogations (U.S. Department of
Justice, Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies, 2009).
Since it began operations in January 2010, the HIG research program has served as the
center for advancing the science and practice of interview and interrogation within the United
States government (for a review, see Meissner, Surmon-Böhr, Oleszkiewicz, & Alison, 2017).
The program has taken a translational approach, supporting experimental research in the
laboratory (e.g., Davis, Soref, Villalobos, & Mikulincer, 2016; Evans, Meissner, et al., 2013;
Leins, Fisher, Pludwinsky, Robertson, & Mueller, 2014) and field observations and surveys of
interrogation professionals regarding current practices (e.g., Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, &
Christiansen, 2013; Kelly, Miller, & Redlich, 2015; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner,
2014). A priority of the HIG research program has been to test the efficacy of science-based
interview methods under real-world conditions
1
(Brandon & Fallon, 2018). Such efficacy studies
require collaborative partnerships that include practitioners who conduct interviews, researchers
with expertise in the science of interviewing, and resources via government sponsorship. One
such partnership—involving the HIG, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI),
Roger Williams University (RWU) and Iowa State University (ISU)—is described here.
The HIG research program—which supports exclusively unclassified social and
behavioral science research and adheres to international laws and U.S. federal code (45 CFR 46)
pertaining to the protection of human subjects—has produced nearly 200 publications in peer-
reviewed scientific journals on topics such as the role of rapport and information-gathering
approaches (e.g., Alison et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2013), priming (e.g., Davis et al., 2016;
Dawson, Hartwig, Brimbal, & Denisenkov, 2017; Dawson & Hartwig, 2017), interpreter-
facilitated interviewing (e.g., Dhami, Goodman-Delahunty, Desai, 2017; Ewens, Vrij, Leal,
Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2016; Houston, Russano, & Ricks, 2017), evaluation of the 2006 Army
1
We use the term ‘interviews’ to include investigative and intelligence-gathering interrogations,
suspect, victim and witness interviews, and debriefings of various human intelligence sources.
Field Manual interrogation approaches (e.g., Duke et al., 2018; Evans et al., 2014), cognitive
approaches to credibility assessment (e.g., Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2017), the cognitive interview
(e.g., Leins et al., 2014), evidence presentation (e.g., Luke et al., 2013), the Scharff Technique
(e.g., Granhag, Oleszkiewicz, Strömwall, & Kleinman, 2015), error management in interviews
(e.g., Oostinga, Giebels, & Taylor, 2018), ethics (e.g., Hartwig, Luke, & Skerker, 2016),
language and cultural/ethnicity effects (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2014; Hwang, Matusmoto, &
Sandoval, 2016; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018), and sensemaking (Richardson, Taylor, Snook,
Conchie, & Bennell, 2014). The HIG also has sponsored several studies on training the science-
based methods to law enforcement and intelligence practitioners (e.g., Luke et al., 2016;
Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, 2017; Vrij, Leal, Mann, Vernham, & Brankaert, 2015).
From Research to Training
The HIG training program was preceded by a two-year effort by HIG research program
personnel to convey relevant behavioral science to HIG interrogators and analysts. At the
invitation of the HIG, renowned psychologists traveled to Washington, DC, to present brief
lectures on topics such as stereotypes, the impact of isolation, and the science of teams. One- and
two-day seminars were provided on the cognitive interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992),
Strategic Use of Evidence (Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, 2006), principles of
persuasion (Cialdini, 2001), and the Scharff Technique (Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Montecinos,
2014). In addition, the research team arranged for one-hour weekly meetings with the
interrogators and analysts to review relevant psychological findings (e.g., social influence;
principles of memory). While more than 100 hours of such seminars had been offered by
December 2011, the research team found that this effort fell short of the intended objective as
mission constraints limited practitioner attendance. In addition, while many practitioners found
the training of real interest, they did not yet grasp the connection to their work.
A meeting was convened in mid-2012 to discuss how to proceed. Individuals with
experience in interrogation training for U.S. military personnel and others with expertise in
training U.K. police officers on the PEACE method (CPTU, 1992a, 1992b) provided advice.
Two overarching themes emerged: 1) the training had to be relevant to the needs of the
practitioners and 2) research scientists with no operational experience lacked the credibility
necessary to maintain practitioners’ engagement. Fortunately, several practitioners with
sufficient knowledge of the literature were available to serve as primary instructors of science-
based methods. And rather than a scientist-practitioner model (e.g., Belar, 2000; Shapiro, 2002),
the HIG adopted a joint (scientist+practitioner) model in which instruction was offered by
practitioners who understood the science together with scientists who understood the challenges
of the practice.
2
An initial training course was built on a framework previously developed to train hostage
negotiators (Wells, Taylor & Giebals, 2013; Wells, 2014a, 2014b). The first phase of the
framework (shown in Figure 1) includes such actions as deliberate planning, consideration of the
negotiator’s ‘brand’ (i.e., how s/he is perceived by the hostage taker), thoughtful scripting of the
first words the negotiator will say to the subject and anticipation of what s/he might say in return,
and how the interaction might be subtly influenced by verbal (Davis, Soref, Villalobos, &
Mikulincer, 2016; Dawson, Hartwig, & Brimbal, 2015) or contextual (Dawson, Hartwig,
Brimbal, & Denisenkov, 2017) priming. The negotiation itself was partitioned into Initial
2
Over time, the HIG in-house research personnel became more familiar with field interrogations
and were better able to bridge the gap between scientists and practitioner. In addition, the
training instructors became more expert with the underlying research and they were able to offer
some of the instruction on their own.
Communications, building on impression management (Leary, & Kowalski, 1990) and ‘thin
slicing’ (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992), Opening, which was about initial dialogue and displaying
confidence and competence (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008), and Targeted Communication
involving using persuasion tactics (Cialdini, 2001), building rapport (Rogers, 1951) and
deploying components of Motivational Interviewing (MI; Miller & Rollnick, 1991, 2002).
Ending or Closing a negotiation required reaffirming rapport, summarizing what had been
accomplished and continuing with targeted messaging to further the negotiator’s position.
Figure 1. The framework used to construct a training program for personnel at the HIG in 2012
based on Wells (2014b).
CONSTRUCTING
COMMUNICATIO
NS
STEREOTYPES/CONTENT
SENSEMAKING, FEEDBACK, REALIGNMENT, REASSESSMENT
Initial
Communications
Confidence &
Competence
Opening
Targeted
Communication
s
First Lines
Communication Skills
Motivational
Interviewing
Analytic
Input
Branding
Predictable
Dialogue &
First Lines
Priming
Reaffirm
Rapport
First Impressions
Thin
Slicing
MOTIVATIONS/NEEDS
Negotiation
CLOSING
Confidence &
Competence
First Lines
Summary
Targeted
Messages
Analytic
Input
Branding
Predictable
Dialogue &
First Lines
Priming
First Impressions
Thin
Slicing
Confidence &
Competence
First Lines
Communication Skills
Persuasion
Rapport
Skills
Motivational
Interviewing
Reaffirm
Rapport
Summary
Targeted
Messages
This framework was broadened to include both HIG program research findings and
several decades of behavioral science specifically relevant to an interrogation, including
memory-related issues (memory retrieval effects, including misinformation effects [e.g., Loftus
& Zanni, 1975] and false memories [Loftus, 1979]), methods of eliciting a narrative (Fisher &
Geiselman, 1992), and cognition-based approaches to assessing the validity of a narrative (Vrij,
Fisher, & Blank 2017; for a more detailed description of this HIG framework, see Brandon,
Wells, & Seale, 2017).
The first course offered by the HIG in November 2012 was three and one-half weeks
long. It included simulated interviews at the end of each week where students practiced the
methods they had learned. Experts in adult learning assisted in creating support materials and
providing feedback to the instructors on teaching skills. The students included HIG personnel
who would benefit from understanding science-based methods.
The course subsequently was shortened to one week and offered several times a year to
HIG staff as well as to those with whom the HIG might partner in the field (e.g., DoD
interrogators, FBI agents, and members of local law enforcement agencies serving on federal
counterterrorism task forces). The in-house training was soon augmented by courses taught at
locations around the country. As of October 2017, the HIG had trained individuals from more
than 50 U.S. government agencies, including more than 800 interrogation professionals, analysts,
and interpreters in 2017 alone (Remarks of FBI Director Christopher Wray, 2017). The HIG
offered this course at no cost to participants, and demand for the training grew beyond what
could be supported.
Concurrent with the one-week course offering, the HIG research team continued to invite
researchers to brief the HIG on their research findings. Using a “Research to Practice” (R2P)
model, the HIG research and training teams worked with the scientists to ensure their
presentations were accessible to HIG practitioners. These R2Ps provided a venue for more in-
depth instruction on some of the topics introduced in the one-week course, such as Strategic Use
of Evidence (Hartwig et al., 2015), the Scharff Technique (Granhag et al., 2015), the Cognitive
Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992), Cognition-Based Credibility Assessment (Vrij et al.,
2017), and Cross-Cultural Negotiation (Gelfand & Dyer, 2000). Over time, aspects of these R2Ps
were incorporated into the HIG’s one-week course.
Having researchers supplement the instructor staff not only enhanced the value of the
training, it also offered researchers an opportunity for exposure to the practitioners. The
operations of the HIG are classified, and almost all the participants in the HIG core course and
the R2Ps worked in classified settings. Given that HIG scientists generally did not have a
security clearance, the wall between science and practice was substantial and had an unfortunate
effect: practitioners were unable to describe their operational challenges in detail nor were they
able to share how the methods drawn from research were being employed in the field.
3
However,
in the R2P setting, the practitioners were able to share their challenges without providing
classified details and the researchers were able to participate in the unclassified simulated
interrogation scenarios where their methods were employed. In the end, researchers also came
away from an R2P with a better understanding of the operational context, which helped generate
ideas for further research.
3
Arranging security clearances for researchers would have been problematic as several HIG-
sponsored researchers were not U.S. citizens. Moreover, holding a security clearance presents
additional administrative requirements for researchers seeking to publish their data in
unclassified, peer-reviewed journals.
By 2015, the HIG one-week course had been redesigned to include more of the HIG-
sponsored research findings, but this led to a difficulty in balancing the materials and skills to be
presented with what could be reasonably assimilated in a single week (the period of time
available given operational requirements). The final framework for the HIG course is shown in
Figure 2 (redrawn from Brandon et al., 2017). As can be seen, this framework also began with
Preparation & Analysis and then proceeded to instruction on active listening (Royce, 2005;
Wells et al., 2013) and how to identify and mitigate resistance. The interview methods were
rapport-based (e.g., Alison, et al., 2013), and situated in best practices for information elicitation
(e.g., Fisher & Geiselman, 1992), using open-ended questioning tactics and credibility
assessment (e.g., Vrij, 2000). The framework also contained modules that introduced topics for
which more advanced (R2P) training was available, including the aforementioned Strategic Use
of Evidence and Cognitive Interview.
The participants strongly advocated for a longer course while adult learning advisors
concurred that too many topics were covered. At the same time, the framework represented many
specialized research domains with minimal cross-domain collaboration, and this complexity
made it difficult for practitioners (and researchers) to grasp how the processes interacted.
Figure 2. The framework used in training HIG personnel (redrawn from Brandon, Wells &
Seale, 2017).
From Research to Practice
The National Security Council, Department of Justice, and Congress provide oversight
for the HIG (High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, 2015), and it is reasonable for
representatives of these bodies to inquire about the utility of the HIG methods in the field. Until
2016, the only evidence was anecdotal from trained practitioners, which was archived and, in
some instances, reported in the press (e.g., Kolker, 2016). The HIG research team made a
concerted effort to help the oversight agencies understand the inherent challenges in answering
their question empirically, the problems associated with notoriously unreliable self-reporting
(e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), the obstacles arising from reporting about HIG operations (which
Preparation
& Analysis
The
Interview
Case Files
Analysis
Listening
Observing, Feedback, Reassessment
Context
Management
RAPPORT
Summary
Credibility
Assessment
Cognitive
Interview
Reaffirm
Rapport
SUE
Data
Assessment
Active Listening
Identify
Resistance
Counter
Resistance
Cognitive
Interview
Credibility
Assessment
TED
Closing
are classified), and the prohibitions against research involving detainees.
Still, the HIG research program had set a goal to conduct efficacy studies of the field
applications of HIG research and the methods taught in the one-week course. Until 2015,
however, this was not possible. First, although initially offered in an unclassified setting, the one-
week course came to require a SECRET level security clearance, not because the content of the
course was classified but because participants felt they were unable to share their operational
experiences in an unclassified setting. In addition, many course participants came from military
or intelligence communities that did not provide those outside their own agencies with access to
interviews conducted by their personnel. Third, DoD policy (DoD Instruction 3216.02,
Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD supported Research)
prohibits any kind of research on detainees, as defined in DoD Directive 2310.01E (Reference
(p)). Finally, HIG research personnel lacked the resources required to conduct an efficacy study
on its own. Under these conditions, it was clear that partnerships were needed. One such
opportunity presented itself when a federal investigative agency charged with mitigating sexual
assaults within the U.S. military sought to enhance its interviewing model to better serve that
mission.
Sexual Assaults in the Military
The DoD conducted its first in-depth survey on sexual harassment in 1988 (Task Force
Report, 2004), followed by similar studies conducted by an array of Government agencies. In
2004, in response to reports of an increasing number of sexual assaults, then-Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed a review of the DoD process for the treatment and care of
victims of sexual assault in the military services (DoD Memorandum, 2004). The Sexual Assault
Response and Prevention Office (SARPO) was established (DoD Instruction, 2013) to ensure
that each Service complied with DoD-wide policies, including standards and training for
healthcare personnel, options for reporting sexual assault, and eligibility standards for healthcare
providers to perform Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations (DoD Instruction).
According to a 2016 report, 6,083 complaints had been filed in 2015. Of those, 1,500
involved a victim who reported an assault, asked for health care and victim support services, but
refused to participate in any criminal investigation (Tilghman, 2016). Of the 4,584 cases where
victims were willing to participate in a prosecution, 770 were dismissed by commanders who
determined insufficient evidence existed to pursue the case. Of the 543 cases that eventually
went to court-martial, 130 resulted in not-guilty verdicts. Of those that were convicted at court-
martial, 161 resulted in charges unrelated to assault, while only 254 cases (4% of complaints
filed) resulted in a service member being convicted of a sexual assault-related offense
(Tilghman, 2016).
Air Force Office of Special Investigations
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) provides criminal investigation and
counterintelligence services to commanders throughout the Air Force. To preserve its
investigative independence, the agency reports to the Inspector General of the Air Force. AFOSI
operates worldwide from over 250 field units, with 2,000 military and civilian credentialed
special agents, 1000 professional and military staff who provide operational support, and 400 Air
Force reservists (each category including officers and enlisted personnel). All new special agent
recruits go through an 11-week, entry-level training course at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia, followed by an 8-week advanced course that is
AFOSI-specific.
All agents begin their careers as criminal investigators before specializing in other mission
areas (e.g., counterintelligence). They gain experience interviewing victims, witnesses, sources,
and subjects (suspects) for a broad range of criminal investigations, including sex offenses
(approximately 49% of AFOSI criminal cases in 2017), drug violations (35%), death
investigations (7%), and crimes against persons, property or society (9%). Each type of
investigation requires relationship-building, adaptive communication, and effective interviewing
skills.
AFOSI has long utilized specially-trained psychologists as consultants. The Behavioral
Sciences Directorate consists of a multidisciplinary team of psychologists and behavioral science
experts who provide direct consultation to criminal investigations, counterintelligence
operations, counterterrorism, special agent-training, assessment and selection, operational
performance, and personnel resilience. In recent years, their role in agent-training has grown
significantly to include topics in nearly every aspect of investigations and operations, most
notably in the areas of sex crimes investigations, eyewitness memory, victimology, investigative
decision-making, influence, and advanced interviewing techniques. AFOSI psychologists have
maintained a strong standing within the agency as subject matter experts, in part due to their
reputation for applying the latest scientific research and evidence-based methods when
supporting complex investigative questions.
As DoD was addressing the need to improve its sexual assault prevention and response
processes, AFOSI recognized it needed to improve its method for interviewing victims, using a
rapport-based approach that would increase the quantity and quality of information obtained. The
agency also recognized it needed to better educate its investigators on sexual assault matters, to
include gaining a greater understanding of victim experiences, memory, cognitive biases,
stereotypes, and trauma. AFOSI looked to its psychologists to find the best interview method and
to help develop a new advanced Sex Crimes Investigations Training Program (SCITP). After
exhaustive research and consultation with experts, the cognitive interview (Fisher & Geiselman,
1992) was selected as the agency’s method for interviewing victims of sexual assault, and this
was incorporated into the two-week course from its inception in 2012.
AFOSI investigators consistently reported that the cognitive interview improved the
effectiveness of their sexual assault investigations, a view supported by compelling case
examples and anecdotes that illustrated successful investigative outcomes. No structured data
were collected, however, to empirically assess improved effectiveness. Nonetheless, the reported
successes led some AFOSI agents to begin using the technique with other victims and witnesses.
One of the most significant effects of the method’s reported success with victim interviews was a
greater openness among senior agency leadership and field agents alike to explore new
techniques. AFOSI’s public commitment in 2012 to support evidence-based methods, reinforced
by the success of the cognitive interview with victims and witnesses, opened the door to the next
logical step forward. Specifically, AFOSI psychologists began to challenge the effectiveness of
traditional confrontational law enforcement methods for interviewing suspects as compared to
rapport-based, non-confrontational methods such as the cognitive interview. This evidence-based
focus led AFOSI to approach the HIG and propose a training-research partnership.
HIG/AFOSI Partnership
The HIG convened a two-day meeting with AFOSI and several HIG-sponsored researchers
and experienced practitioners in the summer of 2014 to articulate the requirements of AFOSI
agents and discuss the protocols and logistics of data collection. The plan that emerged after
subsequent review at both the HIG and at AFOSI called for four one-week courses to be offered
over a period of several months to 120 AFOSI agents, with each attendee providing one pre- and
one post-training video recording of a suspect interview they had conducted. These records
would be assessed for whether the agent used the science-based or traditional methods and for
the impact of those methods of information collection.
A primary concern of both parties was data protection. The plan that was adopted—which
would ensure the efficacy study research team would not be privy to any personally identifiable
information (PII)—entailed a process whereby AFOSI would have the video recordings of
agents’ interviews transcribed, with all PII and sensitive information removed. These transcripts
then served as the data for the research team. Following proper procedure, human subjects
research protocols for the project were submitted to and approved by both university Institutional
Review Boards (IRBs) and the FBI’s IRB.
At the request of AFOSI, the one-week HIG course was modified somewhat to allow for
greater emphasis on the cognitive interview (the framework used in the course is shown in
Figure 3). Given that AFOSI agents most often interview Air Force personnel, less emphasis was
placed on persuasion tactics as the command structure leads the subject to be cooperative, even if
not altogether truthful. A modified version of rapport-based questioning tactics (Alison et al.,
2013) and sensemaking (Taylor, 2002) were emphasized as methods to develop cooperation and
deal with resistance. In addition to the cognitive interview, methods of credibility assessment
were also included such as eliciting Verifiable Facts (e.g., Nahari & Vrij, 2014), asking
Unanticipated Questions (e.g., Vrij, Leal, Granhag, Mann, Fisher, Hillman, & Sperry, 2009),
imposing Cognitive Load (Vrij, Mann, & Fisher, 2012), using a Model Statement as a
demonstration of level of detail (Leal, Vrij, Warmelink, Vernham & Fisher, 2015), and eliciting
within-statement and evidence-statement inconsistencies and discrepancies with the SUE
technique (Hartwig et al. 2005).
Figure 3. The framework for the HIG course offered to AFOSI 2014 – 2015.
HIG research personnel also participated in the courses, providing instruction, coaching
practical exercises, and mentoring. Additional AFOSI psychologists (some of whom were
teaching the cognitive interview in the AFOSI advanced Sex Crimes Investigation Training
Program), were also present. The training itself included two or three practical exercises each
day, as well as a full-day interview simulation on the final day.
The instructors found the AFOSI agents receptive despite the fact that the material being
presented was often contrary to their previous training, which was a Reid-type model of
accusatory and confrontational interviewing (see Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015). There
Preparation
and Planning
The
Interview
Case Files
Analysis
Listening
Observing, Feedback, Reassessment
Priming
Relationship
Building
Free Narrative
Cognitive
Interview
Elaborated
Cognitive
Interview
Predictable
Dialogue
Context
Reinstatement
Instructions
Cognitive Load
Verifiable Facts
Model Statement
Summary
Multiple Retrieval Cues
Case Files
Analysis
Anticipating
Stereotypes
Setting
Objective(s)
Prepare
Environment
Develop
Discrepancies
Persuasion
Motivational
Interviewing:
Listening
Sense-Making
Good Questioning
Case Files
Analysis
Anticipating
Stereotypes
Setting
Objective(s)
Prepare
Environment
Persuasion
Motivational
Interviewing:
Listening
Sense-Making
Instructions
Context
Reinstatement
Multiple Retrieval Cues
Good Questioning
Free Narrative
Verifiable Facts
Cognitive Load
Model Statement
Unanticipated
Questions
were always a few attendees who were reluctant to engage, but the course schedule included
strategically planned exercises that were persuasive. One was an observation challenge that
involved an individual (one not associated with the course) who would briefly enter the
classroom and engage with the instructor. This interruption was surreptitiously video recorded
for later referral during a discussion on memory and the importance of eliciting a detailed
narrative. Most of the agents—who viewed themselves as ‘expert witnesses’—incorrectly
reported many of the salient details about this staged event. This experience frequently promoted
a more open-minded reception and encouraged a more collegial relationship between instructors
and the previously-resistant students.
Efficacy Analysis
A sample of 69 interrogations from 51 different investigators were eventually submitted for
analysis. Fifty of the interrogations were conducted prior to training, while 19 were conducted
post-training. Eighteen investigators were represented with a complete pre- and post-training set
of interviews. In all cases the transcripts were anonymized prior to providing them to the
research team for analysis. All coders received extensive training on the science-based
interviewing and interrogation methods presented during the course, as well as on traditional
accusatorial interrogation methods (Inbau, 2013). Coders were introduced to each element of the
training by reviewing materials that described the approaches and discussing key constructs with
the lead researchers. Sample interviews were then used to facilitate application of the material
and to align coders with respect to the items they would be evaluating. Appropriate steps were
taken to establish acceptable levels of interrater reliability.
Coders evaluated each transcript for the use of Reid-like accusatorial approaches, active
listening skills, investigator talking time, cognitive interview techniques, and rapport-based
techniques. Transcripts were also coded for perceived MI rapport (i.e., empathy, autonomy,
evocation, adaptation, acceptance), the presence of suspect counter-interrogation strategies (e.g.,
monosyllabic responses, silence, rehearsed responses), and relevant outcome measures that
included suspect cooperativeness, the amount of information disclosure (level of detail,
forthcomingness, completeness), and whether the subject provided incriminating statements
(including full confessions and partial admissions). Analysis of the results controlled for both
course iteration and variance attributable to interrogators over time.
Compared to pre-training, investigators increased their use of active listening skills, d =
1.15 [0.59, 1.71], and cognitive interviewing techniques, d = 1.62 [1.03, 2.22]. This is consistent
with finding a significant increase in perceived MI rapport, d = 0.90 [0.35, 1.45], and a
significant decrease in investigator talking time, d = 0.49 [0.04, 0.94], from pre- to post-training.
However, there were no training effects on the use of rapport-based tactics, evidence
presentation strategies, or accusatorial techniques (Russano et al., 2017).
With respect to the effects of training on key outcome variables, no differences in suspect
counter-interrogation strategies were observed. Conversely, there was a significant increase in
observed rapport with the subject, d = 0.90 [0.35, 1.45], a marginally significant increase in
suspect cooperativeness, d = 0.48 [-0.05, 1.02], p = .07, and a significant increase in information
disclosure, d = 0.92 [0.37, 1.47], from pre- to post-training. Although not reaching conventional
significance levels, the likelihood of a suspect providing a full confession increased from 30% to
47% post-training.
To understand the relationships between interviewing methods, perceived MI rapport,
and cooperation and information gain, a mediational path model was proposed that controlled for
the training effects noted above. Overall, the model provided a good fit to the data and accounted
for 41% of the variance in cooperation-resistance, and 48% of the variance in information gain.
As shown in Figure 4, active listening skills, cognitive interviewing techniques, and rapport-
based tactics both directly increased perceived MI rapport and indirectly increased information
elicitation via cooperation. Perceived MI rapport directly increased suspect cooperation, and
cooperation directly predicted increased information gain. The positive effects and expected
relationships between interview techniques, perceived rapport, and ultimately cooperation and
information disclosure confirmed the scientific efficacy of the tactics in an operational context.
Figure 4. A mediational path analysis of the HIG/AFOSI training data. Active listening skills,
cognitive interviewing techniques, and rapport-based tactics both directly increased perceived
MI rapport and indirectly increased information elicitation via cooperation.
In contrast to these positive effects of the science-based model, the use of accusatorial
techniques increased suspects’ use of counter-interrogation strategies, which reduced cooperation
and, indirectly, information gain. While the training was not designed to encourage the disuse of
accusatorial tactics, the modeling data suggest accusatorial tactics run counter to the goals of a
successful interrogation. These results are consistent with data obtained from interrogations in
notably different contexts (e.g., homicide interrogations [Kelly, Miller, & Redlich, 2015] and
criminal interviews of terrorist suspects [Alison et al., 2013, Alison et al., 2014]), where
Cooperation
Observed
Rapport
Rapport
Tactics
Information
Training
Cognitive
Interview
Active
Listening
Skills
interview approaches broadly described as rapport-based and information-gathering were shown
to increase cooperation and, in turn, the amount of information yielded by the subjects. The
pattern also is consistent with experimental assessments comparing information-gathering and
accusatorial tactics (Evans et al., 2013; Meissner et al., 2014; Meissner, Russano, & Atkinson,
2017).
Impacts
This effort provided a unique opportunity to demonstrate that the HIG framework was
making a positive difference: training resulted in an increased use of science-based interview
methods, and the use of science-based interview methods resulted in increased information yield.
The HIG had been mandated to compare the effectiveness of interrogation approaches and
develop “new lawful techniques to improve intelligence interrogations” (U.S. Department of
Justice, Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies, 2009), and the partnership with
AFOSI was viewed as a step towards fulfilling that requirement. In addition, despite
administrative challenges, the effectiveness of the HIG/AFOSI partnership enabled the HIG
research program to prioritize additional similar efforts, some of which began in 2017 with the
Los Angeles Police Department (which had been supporting HIG research since 2013; see Kelly
et al., 2015), the Tempe AZ Police Department, the Department of Homeland Security
Immigration & Customs Enforcement, and the New York City Police Department.
By the end of 2015, AFOSI began modifying some of the content of existing advanced
courses for agents, incorporating components of the HIG/AFOSI course. The Advanced General
Crimes Investigations Course (AGCIC), for example, added the cognitive interview and blocks
on rapport-based tactics, eyewitness memory, and dispelling misconceptions about credibility
assessment (Davis, 2018). AGCIC was the first AFOSI-taught course to teach a rapport-based
(versus theme-based) method for interviewing suspects. In January 2017, all of AFOSI Training
Academy instructors at FLETC were trained in the HIG framework. The AFOSI Academy
immediately began development of a new two-week Cognitive Interviews and Interrogations
Course—first presented in December 2017—which expanded on the HIG/AFOSI course to
include more extensive practical exercises that involved realistic scenarios with actual
eyewitnesses (Davis, 2018). Concurrently, the Academy began incorporating some of the
material into the curriculum of AFOSI’s basic course and added the cognitive interview as the
method for interviewing victims and witnesses. In May 2018, AFOSI conducted a curriculum
review of the basic course, and made the decision to replace the FLETC 5-Step method with the
model introduced by the HIG/AFOSI partnership. This will require significant changes to
training content, but AFOSI expects to begin training the model to new agents by late 2018
under the auspices of the Behavioral Sciences Division.
Lessons Learned
Data acquisition. One of the practical challenges of this project was the procurement of
suspect interrogations recordings. Not all AFOSI investigators regularly conducted
interrogations, some interrogations did not fit the research criteria, and some investigators did
not immediately archive their video records. Also, several of the recordings presented
transcription difficulties because the interview was conducted in a foreign language or were of
poor audio quality. As a result, the research team had fewer transcripts than planned, which
limited limiting what could be inferred from the data.
Consistency across courses. Given that the one-week course was offered over a series of
months (September and November of 2014, and February and March of 2015), the instructors
felt obliged to revise the course based upon experiences with prior iterations and as they grew
more familiar with the AFOSI mission. A discussion of customary interrogation tactics, such as
those taught at the Reid school (Inbau, 2013), was added after the first iteration. There were also
changes in the composition of the support staff—to include AFOSI psychologists and HIG-
sponsored researchers—across the courses. Many of these individuals acted as coaches during
the practical exercises, so these changes likely influenced the instruction across iterations. While
such variance was less than optimal, the research team was able to control for the various course
iterations in their analysis of the data, and it was the collective judgment of the HIG/AFOSI team
that providing the best possible instruction was more important than a strict adherence to a
research protocol.
Training limitations. Not all AFOSI agents attended the course. In many instances, a
single agent would attend the training from a field office with multiple agents assigned. This
meant the trained agent would return to an office where traditional interview methods remained
the standard and the agent could not deploy the team-based HIG model. Given this challenge—
and the inherent restraints of one-time training (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch,
2012)—it would have been more effective to train both field agents and their supervisors, and to
also provide follow-on mentoring to sustain buy-in from senior management.
It’s not an intelligence interview. The HIG’s primary collection requirements focus on
intelligence rather than criminal justice. Some within the Intelligence Community have
questioned the usefulness of studying criminal interrogations to better understand intelligence
interrogations. The differences between these contexts has been described elsewhere (Evans,
Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010), and while there are significant differences,
both maintain the goal of eliciting cooperation and information. The primary goal of the
HIG/AFOSI training was to enhance information yield, not elicit confessions. The argument was
made to trainees that information gain should be the primary goal of an interrogation, and even
where a confession is offered, additional information to support the admission will further
advance the investigation (e.g., Davis & Leo, 2006).
Scientist+Practitioner. Changing the content and culture of criminal and intelligence
interrogation/interview training is a slow process given the diversity and complexity of
practitioners, who range from well-trained intelligence officers to uniformed patrol officers. One
aspect of the training model that proved consistently effective was an instructor cadre that
offered the synergy of experienced practitioners with a strong knowledge of the science
alongside scientists with experience working with intelligence and law enforcement
professionals. Moreover, speaking with a single, evidence-based ‘voice’ added a strong measure
of credibility that ultimately earned the respect of the trainees. In short, the multidisciplinary,
scientist+practitioner model worked well to bridge the divide between the researcher and
practitioner communities.
References
AFOSI Fact Sheet (2018). Retrieved from http://www.osi.af.mil/About/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/349945/air-force-office-of-special-investigations/
Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail
and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport- Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to
generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 411–
431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034564
Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). The efficacy
of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field
sample of terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 421–430. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/law0000021
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of
interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice.
(2006). Evidence based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285.
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271
Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (2006). Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Headquarters,
Department of the Army: Washington DC. retrieved from
https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf
BAA (2010). Intelligence Interviewing Interrogation Research Broad Agency Announcement
201520. Retrieved from http://intelligencecommunitynews.com/fbi-posts-baa-for-hig-
interview-and-interrogation-research/
BAA (2012). The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group Intelligence Interviewing and
Interrogation Research Broad Agency Announcement BAA-202200. Retrieved from
ttps://fas.org/irp/news/2012/04/hig-baa.pdf.
BAA (2015). Intelligence Interviewing Interrogation Research Broad Agency Announcement
201520. Retrieved from http://intelligencecommunitynews.com/fbi-posts-baa-for-hig-
interview-and-interrogation-research/.
BAA (2018). Intelligence Interviewing Interrogation Research Broad Agency Announcement
201520. Retrieved from
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2e8b062722be6e7ff8c3d866af
6a75c8&tab=core&_cview=0
Benia, L. R., Hauck-Filho, N., Dillenburg, M., & Stein, L. M. (2015). The NICHD investigative
interview protocol: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 259-279.
Belar, C. D. (2000). Scientist-practitioner≠ science+ practice: Boulder is bolder. American
Psychologist, 55(2), 249-250.
Brandon, S. E., & Fallon, M. (submitted). The HIG Project: The Road to Scientific Research on
Interrogation. In S. J. Barela, M. Fallon, G. Gaggioli and J.D. Ohlin (Eds.), Interrogation
and torture: Research on efficacy and its integration with morality and legality. Bethesda
MD: Oxford University Press.
Brandon, S. E., Wells, S., & Seale, C. (2017). Science-based interrogations: Eliciting
information. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2).
https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1496
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (3rd Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
CPTU (Central Planning and Training Unit (1992a). A Guide to interviewing. Harrogate: Home
Office, UK.
CPTU (Central Planning and Training Unit (1992b). The Interviewer’s rule book. Harrogate:
Home Office.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions
of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
Davis, B. J. (2018). No detail too small. AFOSI evolves interviewing practices to effectively
gain better information. Airman (April 9). Retrieved from
http://airman.dodlive.mil/2018/04/09/no-detail-too-small/
Davis, D., & Leo, R. (2006). Strategies for preventing false confessions and their
consequences. M. Kebbell & G. Davies (Eds.), Practical Psychology for Forensic
Investigations and Prosecutions (pp. 121-149). Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Davis, D., Soref, A., Villalobos, J. G., & Mikulincer, M. (2016). Priming states of mind can
affect disclosure of threatening self-information: Effects of self-affirmation, mortality
salience, and attachment orientations. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 351–361.
http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/lhb0000184
Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Brimbal, L. (2015). Interviewing to elicit information: Using
priming to promote disclosure. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 443–450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000136
Dawson, E., & Hartwig, M. (2017). Rethinking the Interview Room: Promoting Disclosure and
Rapport through Priming. Polygraph, 46(2), 132-145.
Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., & Denisenkov, P. (2017). A room with a view: Setting
influences information disclosure in investigative interviews. Law and Human Behavior.
41(4), 333-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000244
Dhami, M. K., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Desai, S. (2017). Development of an information
sheet providing rapport advice for interpreters in police interviews. Police Practice and
Research, 18(3), 291-305.
DoD Instruction (2013). Sexual Assault Prevent and Response (SABR) Program Procedures
(March 28, 213). Department of Defense, Washington DC.
DoD Memorandum (2004). Memorandum for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force
Health Protection and Readiness), Feb. 10, 2004. Under Secretary of Dense, Pentagon,
Washington DC.
DoD Report to the President (2014). Department of Defense report to the President on sexual
assault prevention and response. Washington DC. Retrieved from
http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_POTUS/FY14_DoD_Report_to_POTUS_S
APRO_Report.pdf.
Duke, M. C., Wood, J. M., Magee, J., & Escobar, H. (2018). The effectiveness of army field
manual interrogation approaches for educing information and building rapport. Law and
Human Behavior, 42, 442-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000299
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., Houston, K. A., Russano, M. B., & Horgan, A. J.
(2013). Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing
accusatorial and information-gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm.
Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 83-88.
Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A., &
Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An empirical evaluation of intelligence-gathering interrogation
techniques from the United States Army field manual. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,
867–875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3065
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010).
Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to
improving interrogative practice. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1-2), 215-249.
Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). The effect of interpreters
on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 21(2), 286-304.
Fein, R. (2006). Introduction. In Educing information: Interrogation: Science and Art.
Intelligence Science Board Phase 1 Report (pp. 1–6). Washington DC: National Intelligence
College Press.
Fein, R. A., Lehner, P., & Vossekuil, B. (2006). Educing information: Interrogation – science
and art. Washington DC: National Intelligence College Press.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative
interviewing: The Cognitive interview. Springfield IL: C.C. Thomas.
Fisher, R.P., & Geiselman, R.E. (2010). The cognitive interview method of conducting police
interviews: eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33, 321–28.
Gelfand, M., & Dyer, N. (2000). A cultural perspective on negotiation: Progress, pitfalls, and
prospects. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 62-99.
Granhag, P. A., Oleszkiewicz, S., Strömwall, L. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2015). Eliciting
intelligence with the Scharff technique: Interviewing more and less cooperative and capable
sources. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 100–110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000030
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via
strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 469-484.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of
evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and
Human Behavior, 30, 603-619.
Hartwig, M., Luke, T. J., & Skerker, M. (2017). Ethical perspectives on interrogation: An
analysis of contemporary techniques. In J. Jacobs & J. Jackson’s (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of criminal justice ethics (p. 326-347). New York: Routledge.
Hartwig, M., Meissner, C. A., & Semel, M. D. (2014). Human intelligence interviewing and
interrogation: Assessing the challenges of developing an ethical, evidence-based approach.
In R. Bull’s (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 209-228). New York: Springer.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_11
High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (2015). Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/national-security-branch/high-value-
detainee-interrogation-group.
Houston, K. A., Russano, M. B., & Ricks, E. P. (2017). ‘Any friend of yours is a friend of mine’:
investigating the utilization of an interpreter in an investigative interview. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 23(5), 413-426.
Hwang, H. C., & Matsumoto, D. (2014). Sender ethnicity differences in lie detection accuracy
and confidence. GSTF Journal of Law and Social Sciences, 3, 15–19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7603/s40741-014-0001-6
Hwang, H. C., Matsumoto, D., & Sandoval, V. (2016). Linguistic cues of deception across
multiple language groups in a mock crime context. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 13, 56–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jip.1442
Inbau, F. E. (2013). Essentials of the Reid technique. Burlington MA: Jones & Bartlett
Publishers.
Kelly, C. E., Dawson, E., & Hartwig, M. (2017). Inducing Information Disclosure in Interviews
through Priming: A Field Experiment. American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2015). The dynamic nature of interrogation. Law
and Human Behavior, 40, 295-309.
Kleinman, S. (2006). KUBARK Counterintelligence interrogation review: Observations of an
interrogator. Lessons learned and avenues for further research. In N. D. I. College (Ed.),
Educing Information (pp. 95–140). Washington, DC: NDIC Press.
Kolker, R. (2016). A severed head, two cops, and the radical future of interrogation. Wired
Magazine, 05.24.18. Accessed at https://www.wired.com/2016/05/how-to-interrogate-
suspects/
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. P. (2015). You cannot hide your
telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance
telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(1), 129-146.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-
component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47.
Leins, D., Fisher, R. P., Pludwinsky, L., Robertson, B., & Mueller, D. H. (2014). Interview
protocols to facilitate human intelligence sources’ recollections of meetings. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 28, 926–935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3041
Loftus, E. F. (1979). The malleability of human memory. American Scientist, 67, 312–-320.
Loftus, E. R., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a
question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86-88.
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Jordan, S., Joseph, E., Osborne, J., & Granhag,
P. A. (2013). Interviewing to elicit cues to deception: Improving strategic use of evidence
with general-to-specific framing of evidence. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology,
28, 54–62. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph, E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., Jordan, S., Donovan, P.,
& Granhag, P. A. (2016). Training in the strategic use of evidence technique: Improving
deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 31, 270–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9187-0
Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the effectiveness of
suspect interrogations. Annual Review of Law & Social Sciences, 11, 211-233.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657
Meissner, C. A., Oleszkiewicz, S., Surmon-Böhr, F., & Alison, L. J. (2017). Developing an
evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s High-
Value Detainee Interrogation Group Research Program. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 23, 438-437.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., &
Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their
effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analysis review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, doi:10.1007/ s11292-014-9207.6
Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2015, October). A training validation and field
assessment of science-based methods of interrogation. Paper presented at the 5th Annual
High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group Research Symposium, Washington, D.C.
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.
Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change
addictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd
Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Can I borrow your alibi? The applicability of the verifiability
approach to the case of an alibi witness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 3, 89-94.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on
mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259.
Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017). Eliciting information from human
sources: Training handlers in the Scharff technique. Legal and Criminological Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12108
Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Cancino Montecinos, S. (2014). The Scharff-technique:
Eliciting intelligence from human sources. Law and Human Behavior, 38(5), 478-489.
Ormerod, T. C., & Dando, C. J. (2015). Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a
psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144, 76–84. doi.org/10.1037/xge0000030
Oostinga, M., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2018). 'An error is feedback’: the experience of
communication error management in crisis negotiations. Police Practice and
Research, 19(1), 17-30. DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2017.1326007
Ray, D. (2015). United States Air Force Report to Congressional Committees: Report on the Use
of the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI) Technique with the Department of the
Air Force. Washington DC.
Remarks of FBI Director Christopher Wray (2017). HIG: Using science and research to combat
national security threats. Seventh annual HIG Research Symposium. United States Institute
of Peace, Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hig-using-
science-and-research-to-combat-national-security-threats.
Richardson, B. H., Taylor, P. J., Snook, B., Conchie, S. M., & Bennell, C. (2014). Language
style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 357–366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ lhb0000077
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Royce, T. (2005). The negotiator and the bomber: Analyzing the critical role of active listening
in crisis negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 21, 5-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1571-
9979.2005.00045.x
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Structured
interviews of experienced intelligence and military interrogators. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 28, 847-859. doi: 10.1002/acp.3069
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D., & Dianiska, R. E. (2017, March).
Training science-based methods of interrogation with Air Force Office of Special
Investigations. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Conference,
Seattle, WA.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, Scott I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of
training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612436661
Shapiro s, D. (2002). Renewing the scientist-practitioner model. PSYCHOLOGIST-
LEICESTER, 15(5), 232-235.
Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault (2004). Accessed at
http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/task-force-report-for-care-of-victims-of-sa-
2004.pdf
Taylor, P. (2002). A cylindrical model of communication behavior in crisis negotiation. Human
Communication Research, 28, 7-48.
Tilghman, A. (2016). Military sex assault: Just 4 percent of complains result in convictions.
Military Times, May 5, 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/05/05/military-sex-assault-just-4-percent-of-
complaints-result-in-convictions/
U.S. Department of Justice, Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies. (2009). Special
task force on interrogations and transfer policies issues its recommendations to the
president. Retrieved from https:// www.justice.gov/opa/pr/special-task-force-interrogations-
and-transfer- policies-issues-its-recommendations-president
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for
professional practice. Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley & Sons LTD.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009).
Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human
Behavior, 33, 159-166.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2012). Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit:
Inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18, 579-594.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., & Brankaert, F. (2015). Translating theory into
practice: Evaluating a cognitive lie detection training workshop. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(2), 110-120.
Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., Fisher, R. P., Kassin, S. M., Morgan III, C. A., & Kleinman, S. M.
(2017). Psychological perspectives on interrogation. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 12(6), 927-955.
Wells, S. (2014a). What communication skills are effective in dealing with antagonistic
situations: A tale of two halves? Unpublished thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
Wells, S., (2014b) Negotiating in a Terrorist Environment. In J. Pearce (Ed.), Terrorism Case
Studies (pp. 144-167). Wiley Oxford.
Wells, S., Taylor P., & Giebels, E. (2013). Crisis Negotiation: From Suicide to Terrorism
Intervention. In M. Olekalns, &W. Adair (Eds.), Handbook of Negotiation Research (pp.
473-498). Melbourne AU: Elgar, Edwards Publishing.
White House Press Briefing (2009). Press Briefing by Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton. Oaks
Bluffs, MA. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=86562
