Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Oct 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
______________________________________________________________________________
1
23
From research to practice: The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group
Susan E. Brandon* and Christian A. Meissner**
23.1. Interrogation in the United States: A legacy of coercion and torture
Through the 1930s, interrogation practices in the United States involved overt elements of
physical and psychological coercion (known as the ‘third degree’). Such tactics included
physical assault, incommunicado detention, and other ‘deniable’ coercive methods that would
leave little evidence of abuse (beatings with a rubber hose, standing for hours, etc.).
1
Questions
regarding the efficacy and unethical nature of such approaches were highlighted in Volume 11 of
the Wickersham Commission’s 1931 publication, Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement.
2
With the brutality of such methods exposed to the American public, the use of third-degree
tactics declined over the next two decades.
In its place, law enforcement was offered training on accusatorial interrogation tactics.
3
These
approaches relied upon psychological pressure, manipulation, and deception to secure
confessions or admissions.
4
,
5
Such methods included prolonged isolation of the subject in a
small, windowless room; confrontation of the subject with false evidence and accusations of
guilt; maximization of the subject’s perception of the consequences associated with the illegal
act; and minimization of the subject’s perceptions of their culpability using themes that
implicated leniency to absolve the subject of responsibility in exchange for a confession.
Cases involving false confessions elicited via the use of these accusatorial tactics began to
emerge throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
6
,
7
During this same period, social science research
* Susan E. Brandon, PhD provides interview and interrogation training to local and state law enforcement in NY and NJ.
** Christian A. Meissner, PhD is Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
1
Leo, R. A. (2009). False Confessions. Police Interrogation and American Justice, 195-236.
2
Wickersham Commission Report (1931). National Commission on Law Observance and Law Enforcement (1931). Report on
lawlessness in law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3
cf. Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. E. (1963). Criminal interrogation and confession. Baltimore, MD; Williams & Wilkins; Kidd, W. R.
(1940). Police interrogation. New York, NY: R. V. Basuino.
4
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 and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3-38.
5
Kelly, C. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Interrogation and investigative interviewing in the United States: Research and
practice. In D. Walsh et al. (Eds), Contemporary developments and practices in investigative interviewing and
interrogation, Volume II (pp. 11-25). Oxfordshire: Routledge.
6
See Drizin, S., & Leo, R. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82,
891-1007; Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday.
7
To date, more 25% of 325 wrongful conviction cases documented by the Innocence Project have been shown to involve false
confessions or admissions. See https://innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction./
______________________________________________________________________________
2
demonstrated that accusatorial tactics play a causal role in producing such coerced confessions
8
,
and that some subjects (as a function of their age, cognitive ability, or psychological state) may
be especially vulnerable to an increased suggestibility that is associated with false confessions.
9
Similar cases of wrongful conviction in the United Kingdom (e.g., Birmingham Six, Guilford
Four
10
) led to a series of reforms in the interrogation of criminal suspects, and ultimately to
adoption of the United Kingdom PEACE model of interviewing in 1992.
11
,
12
An information-
gathering approach, exemplified by the PEACE model, has been shown to improve the
diagnostic value of confessions when compared with accusatorial approaches.
13
Nevertheless,
law enforcement practitioners within the United States largely eschewed similar changes to
interrogation practices through the early 2000s, often rejecting the notion that such accusatorial
tactics were problematic or produced wrongful convictions.
14
Interrogation practice within the U.S. military and intelligence communities has been similarly
accusatory and guided by customary practices.
15
,
16
In general, there has been considerable
overlap in interrogation practices and beliefs across the law enforcement, military, and
intelligence communities
17
,
18
,
19
, with an escalation of abusive tactics in the Bush
Administration’s ‘enhanced interrogation program’
20
, where even worse coercion – physical as
well as psychological – was used by interrogators at Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) black
8
Ibid3; Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the effectiveness of suspect interrogations. Annual
Review of Law & Social Sciences, 11, 31.1–13.23.
9
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(2), 33-67; Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., & Patihis, L. (2022). What science tells us about false and
repressed memories. Memory, 30(1), 16-21.
10
The Guildford Four were four Irish citizens who had been arrested and charged with murder and other offenses arising out of
the bombing of two Irish pubs in 1974. They were released 15 years later after concerns were uncovered about the methods used
by the police to obtain their confessions. The Birmingham Six were six men arrested after two bombs went off in the center of
Birmingham in 1974, killing 21 people and injuring 182. Following beatings, threats, and sleep and food deprivation to elicit
confessions, they were imprisoned until being released in 1991. Gudjonsson, G. H., & MacKeith, J. A. C. (2002). The ‘Guildford
four’and the ‘Birmingham six’. The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook, 445-457. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons
11
See chapter 13 of this volume for more details.
12
Bull, R., & Rachlew, A. (2020). Investigative interviewing: From England to Norway and beyond. In S. J. Barela, M. Fallon, &
G. Gaggioli (Eds.). Interrogation and torture (1st ed., pp. 171–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13
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-analytic review. Journal
of Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486.
14
Ibid4
15
Brandon, S. E. (2011). Impacts of Psychological Science on National Security Agencies Post-9/11. American Psychologist, 66,
495-506.
16
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 (Eds.) Investigative interviewing (pp. 209-228).
Springer, New York, NY.
17
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.
18
Redlich, A. D., Kelly, C. E., & Miller, J. C. (2014). The who, what, and why of human intelligence gathering: Self‐reported
measures of interrogation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 817-828.
19
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Structured interviews of experienced HUMINT
interrogators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 847-859.
20
Scott-Clark, C., & Levy, A. (2022). The Forever Prisoner: The Full and Searing Account of the CIA’s Most Controversial
Covert Program. New York NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
______________________________________________________________________________
3
sites, prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
21
This occurred despite historical accounts describing the use and ineffectiveness of torture in
previous engagements
22
,
23
and the then-available social science that showed such techniques
were likely to produce confabulations and coerced information that simply confirmed what was
believed, not what was true.
24
,
25
23.2. Out of the ashes: A science-based approach to interrogation is born
In September of 2004, the U.S. Intelligence Science Board convened a group of scholars and
practitioners to evaluate the historical and empirical legacy of U.S. interrogation practices.
26
Led
by Robert Fein, the group published the Educing Information report in 2006
27
, offering a
substantive critique of interrogation training and practice. Based upon its review, the report
concluded that:
“Training manuals, materials, and anecdotes contain information about common and
recommended practices and the behavioral assumptions on which they are based, but
virtually none of those documents cites or relies upon any original research. It even
appears that some of the conventional wisdom that has guided training and policy for half
a century is at odds with existing scientific knowledge” (p. 18).
Further, the report recommended that:
“Experience and lessons learned offer a necessary, but insufficient, basis for determining
the effectiveness of [interrogation] practices. A program of scientific research on
[interrogation] practices is both necessary and highly feasible. … Such a research
program should combine experimental research with a substantial effort to perform
independent and objective analyses of specific interrogation results” (p. 310).
Reflecting aspects of the Educing Information report, Barack Obama signed Executive Order
(EO) 13491, ‘Ensuring Lawful Interrogations’ on the seventh day of his first Presidential term.
28
The Order set up a “Special Interagency Task Force…on Interrogation and Transfer Policies
(Special Task Force) to review interrogation and transfer policies,” to be staffed by the Attorney
General (Chair), the Directors of National Intelligence and the CIA, the Secretaries of Defense,
State, and Homeland Security, and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The mission of the
21
U.S. Senate & United States Senate Armed Services Committee (2008, November). Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in
US Custody. In Report of the Committee on Armed Services United States Senate, 110th Congress, 2nd Session (Vol. 20).
22
McCoy, A. W. (2006). A question of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. New York NY:
Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company.
23
Otterman, M. (2007). American torture: From the cold war to Abu Ghraib and beyond. Melbourne Victoria: Melbourne Univ.
Publishing.
24
Loftus, E. F. (2011). Intelligence gathering post-9/11. American Psychologist, 66, 532–541.
25
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.
26
The Intelligence Science Board was chartered in August 2002 to advise the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(DNI) and senior Intelligence Community leaders on emerging scientific and technical issues of special importance to the
Intelligence Community. It was disbanded by the DNI in 2010 (https://irp.fas.org/dni/isb/index.html).
27
Fein, R. A., Lehner, P., & Vossekuil, B. (2006). Educing information-interrogation: Science and art, foundations for the
future. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC Center for Strategic Intelligence Research.
28
Exec. Order No. 13491, 74 Fed. Reg. 16 (January 27, 2009).
______________________________________________________________________________
4
Special Task Force on Interrogation was “to study and evaluate whether the interrogation
practices and techniques in Army Field Manual (AFM) 2–22.3
29
, when employed by departments
or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence
necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different
guidance for other departments or agencies…”
EO 13491 also limited interrogation tactics used “in any armed conflict” to those described by
the 2006 AFM: “..individuals detained in any armed conflict…shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely…[and] shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach…that
is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual (AFM) 2-22.3” with an exception for “the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies,” who were allowed
“…to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit
voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises”.
30
This EO was
intended, in part, to prohibit the use of abusive interrogation techniques by any United States
personnel in the CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD).
The Task Force report issued its report within the year. Its conclusions regarding whether the
interrogation techniques listed in the AFM 2-22.3 provide appropriate means is an exemplar of
bureaucratic non-committal. It stated that, “No federal agency … believed that it was necessary
or appropriate to national security to use any interrogation practice or technique not listed in the
AFM or currently used by law enforcement” (p. 2). This was followed by:
“Although there may be some lawful and effective interrogation practices and techniques
that are not listed in the Army Field Manual or currently used by law enforcement
agencies, the Task Force did not consider whether it was appropriate or legal for any
agency of the federal government to use any specific technique not contained in the Army
Field Manual… experienced intelligence and law enforcement interrogators do not rely
solely on particular interrogation techniques but instead develop lawful interrogation
strategies based on extensive knowledge of the detainee and his organization, guile and
deception, the use of incentives, and other factors…Additional research is needed on the
science of interrogation and the potential to develop new and more effective interrogation
practices…”.
31
The Task Force went further than to comment on the ‘appropriateness’ of the AFM interrogation
techniques. It recommended: (i) creation of a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG)
that would collect intelligence to protect national security; (ii) in such a manner that, where
possible, the information so collected could be used in a criminal prosecution. In addition, (iii)
the HIG should develop, identify, and disseminate “a set of best practices for interrogation”
while also (iv) “study the effectiveness and propriety of existing practices, techniques and
29
Army Field Manual 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, was published in 2006 by the Department of the Army.
It replaced Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogations, published in 1987 and reissued in 1992.
30
The requirement that intelligence and military interrogation methods be limited to those of AFM 22-3 was made law with the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2016, passed November 25, 2015. Public Law 114-92 § 1045; 42 US Code
§20000dd-2.
31
Report of the Special Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies (Washington DC). https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-
library/2009_report_special_task_force_interrogation_and_transfer_policies/download (pp.2-3).
______________________________________________________________________________
5
strategies” as well as “try to develop new ones that meet the requirements of domestic law and
the United States obligations under international law”
32
.
The HIG was chartered in April of 2010.
33
It was to be administered by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and staffed with personnel detailed from law enforcement (including special
agents from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security), the CIA, and DoD. Legal advice
was provided by an attorney permanently detailed from the Department of Justice. Policy
guidance and oversight was coordinated by the National Security Council.
34
There were two
primary tasks: (i) to deploy “mobile teams of experienced interrogators, analysts, subject matter
experts, and linguists to conduct interrogations of high-value terrorists if the United States
obtains the ability to interrogate them” (the HIG had neither capture nor detention authorization
or capability), and (ii) to “develop a set of best practices and disseminate those for training
purposes among agencies that conduct interrogations” and establish a “scientific research
program … 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.”
35
23.3. The HIG research program
36
The HIG research program released its first request for research proposals (Broad Agency
Announcement) in early 2010 with the intent to fund such within the same fiscal year.
37
The FBI
procurement process, an infrastructure more tuned to technical acquisitions than the funding of
basic or applied behavioral science, was modified by HIG personnel to ensure that (i) proposers
did not have to be U.S. citizens, (ii) the research would be unclassified, and (iii) the products of
the research could be published in publicly available scientific journals.
38
In addition, all HIG-
supported contracts that included participation by human subjects had to be reviewed and
approved by the contractor’s own human subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) as well as by
the FBI’s IRB. These steps were deemed necessary to attract proposals from world renowned
scientists with deep, previously established knowledge of topics relevant to interrogations. Susan
Brandon, who had managed research contracts focused on interrogation methods at DoD since
32
Ibid (p.3)
33
DoD Directive (2010). DoD Support to the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). DoD Directive 3115.13
(December 9, 2010, incorporating Change 3, August 26, 2020). https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/d3115_13.pdf
34
DOJ (2009). Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies Issues Its Recommendations to the President.
Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, August 24, 2009.
35
Ibid
36
HIG operations, budget and policy are classified. Details regarding those are therefore outside the scope of this chapter, which
is limited to description of the HIG research and interrogation training programs, the activities and products of which were
unclassified.
37
A 2010 query by the HIG to other U.S. government agencies (both research-oriented agencies such as the National Science
Foundation and intelligence agencies such as the CIA) found that no other agency at the time reported conducting or supporting
research on interrogations. Whether this was in fact true or whether the topic ‘interrogations’ had become so toxic that it was
systematically avoided and/or whether related research was labeled differently (e.g., as ‘research on debriefing methods’) was
difficult to know.
38
There was some concern that making the research unclassified and publicly available would ‘provide aid to the enemy,’ who
could better resist in an interrogation. The counterargument was made that this would require their (i) access to scientific
journals, (ii) expertise to understand the technical reports, (iii) substantive training on the methods, and (iv) resistance to the
fundamental processes of human memory, motivation, persuasion, and social dynamics inherent to the science-based methods. In
addition, the AFM 2-22.3 was publicly available by law (and remains so).
______________________________________________________________________________
6
2007, was detailed to serve as the HIG research program manager in March of 2010
39
and
Christian Meissner was awarded the first HIG contract in September of 2010. The HIG has
regularly issued BAAs since 2010 and maintained an active portfolio of sponsored research,
though budget constraints have sometimes limited what new work could be supported.
Both EO 13491 and the Task Force report mandated research on “the comparative effectiveness
of interrogation approaches and techniques, with the goal of identifying the existing techniques
that are most effective.” What might such a “comparative effectiveness” look like, and what is
necessary to identify the “most effective” existing techniques? The gold standard in the U.S. for
the evaluation of evidence is randomized, double-blind placebo control studies. Such studies, for
example, are required for approval of a new drug by the Federal Drug Administration and
experimental protocols have become important for evaluating policies and practices by the
Department of Education and the National Institute of Justice. While it might be possible to
randomly assign an interrogatee to an interrogator, with some interrogators using Method X and
others using Method Y, a double-blind control (where the administrator of the treatment, here,
the interrogator, is blind as to what methods are being used) is impossible. Clinical psychologists
confronted a similar problem (i.e., the clinician had to know what therapeutic method they were
using) and decided that an acceptable standard is good experimental designs and comparison of
the intervention with another treatment.
40
Non-experimental methodologies, which provide less
definitive outcomes, could include surveys, in which interrogators are asked what success they
have had with Method X or Method Y, and observational studies, in which assessments are made
of Method X versus Method Y by independent observers. Surveys suffer from the limitations of
humans to accurately report their own behavior
41
, and observational studies suffer from the
confounds of situational variables (e.g., the characteristics of the interrogatee and interrogator,
the timing and context of the interrogation) with interrogation method.
42
In conceptualizing its research program, the HIG categorized interrogation approaches and
techniques used in the U.S. within two broad categories: those of military and intelligence
agencies (whose personnel are limited to those of the 2006 AFM) and those of federal, state, and
local law enforcement. The HIG mandate was to evaluate the AFM – and, as noted, there had
never been any empirical studies of the effectiveness of AFM interrogation approaches and
techniques. There was (and is), however, a rich scientific literature on interrogation techniques
used by law enforcement. As a result, the immediate concern of the research program was the
relevance of this literature to the HIG as an intelligence-collection entity. And important to that
early effort were surveys and observations within military and intelligence contexts that
39
Susan Brandon served in that role until December 2017. She was joined by Sujeeta Bhatt, Ph.D., from June 2010 to December
2014. The number of research personnel within the HIG varied between one and three between 2010 and 2019.
40
Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures (1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically
validated treatments: Report and recommendations. The Clinical Psychologist, 48, 3-23.
41
Loftus, E. F., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. The American
Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
42
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal
inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
______________________________________________________________________________
7
indicated considerable similarity of interrogation approaches and techniques within the two
domains – despite their different histories and policies.
23.5. Law enforcement interrogations
Interrogation approaches and techniques used by federal, state, local or tribal law enforcement
agencies are rooted in customary practices developed in the field by investigative professionals
and trained to future generations of investigators either formally or informally.
43
State and local
criminal investigators usually receive on-the-job training and/or some formal training (e.g.,
provided by state-level Peace Officer Standard Training). Many have been trained by private
firms such as John Reid E. & Associates or Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates. There are also
many books – written by former law enforcement or intelligence personnel – relating their
experiences and perceptions of the effectiveness of certain interrogation practices and cues to
deception. Federal investigators are typically trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in Glynco, Georgia, or by their own agencies such as the FBI.
What is known about interrogations conducted by U.S. law enforcement agencies comes almost
exclusively from the research community. These data include not only descriptions of these
traditional methods but analyses of their effectiveness. As alluded to previously, accusatorial
interrogation practices have pervaded U.S. interrogation practices since the 1960s. Such tactics
have been widely adopted at the federal, state, and local levels, and are commonly endorsed in
surveys of interrogation professionals.
44
Research has shown that while accusatorial tactics can
increase the likelihood of confessions, such practices also increase the likelihood that innocent
individuals will falsely confess.
45
In this context, the HIG research program sought to identify effective interrogation practices that
might replace the prevailing accusatorial model.
46
The program accomplished this by evaluating
current practice via observations of interrogations conducted by law enforcement
43
Meissner, C. A., Kleinman, S. M., Mindthoff, A., Phillips, E. P., & Rothweiler, J. N. (in press). Investigative interviewing: A
review of the literature and a model of science-based practice. To appear in D. Dematteo & K. Scheer (Eds.), Oxford Handbook
of Psychology and Law.
44
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A. M., & Fon, D. L. (2007). Police
interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 381-400.
45
Ibid4,13
46
Meissner, C. A., Surmon-Böhr, F., Oleszkiewicz, S., & Alison, L. J. (2017). Developing an evidence-based perspective on
interrogation: A review of the US government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 23(4), 438-457.
______________________________________________________________________________
8
personnel
47
,
48
,
49
,
50
,
51
,
52
, as well as surveys and semi-structured interviews of interrogation
professionals.
53
,
54
,
55
,
56
,
57
,
58
The program also supported both laboratory
47
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; 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.
48
Kelly, C. E., & Valencia, E. J. (2021). You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly. International Journal of Police
Science & Management, 23(1), 42-54.
49
Kelly, C. E., Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (2015). Examining the meso-level domains of the interrogation
taxonomy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 179-191.
50
Kelly, C. E., Russano, M. B., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2019). On the road (to admission): Engaging suspects with
minimization. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(3), 166-180.
51
Kelly, C. E., Dawson, E., & Hartwig, M. (2021). Context manipulation in police interviews: a field experiment. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 17(1), 67-86.
52
Meehan, N., Kelly, C. E., & McClary, M. (2019). The snitching hour: Investigations and interviewing in a county jail. Security
Journal, 32(3), 198-217.
53
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (2019). High-stakes interviews and rapport development: Practitioners’ perceptions
of interpreter impact. Policing and Society, 29(1), 100–117.
54
Goodman‐Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing high value detainees: Securing cooperation and
disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 883-897.
55
Ibid5
56
Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kelly, C. E. (2018). Accusatorial and information-gathering interview and interrogation
methods: a multi-country comparison. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(9), 935-956.
57
Narchet, F. M., Russano, M. B., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). A (nearly) 360 perspective of the interrogation
process: Communicating with high-value targets. In G. M. Oxburgh (Ed.), Communication in investigative and legal contexts:
Integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics, and law enforcement (pp. 159-178). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
58
Ibid18,19
______________________________________________________________________________
9
experiments
59
,
60
,
61
,
62
,
63
,
64
,
65
,
66
,
67
,
68
,
69
,
70
and field studies
71
,
72
,
73
, as well as systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of the research literature.
74
,
75
,
76
,
77
,
78
Training studies also have assessed the
effectiveness of various interrogation strategies and tactics when compared with customary
practices, including developing rapport
79
,
80
, eliciting information from memory using the
59
Brimbal, L., Dianiska, R. E., Swanner, J. K., & Meissner, C. A. (2019a). Enhancing cooperation and disclosure by
manipulating affiliation and developing rapport in investigative interviews. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 107-115.
60
Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Brimbal, L. (2015). Interviewing to elicit information: Using priming to promote disclosure. Law
and Human Behavior, 39(5), 443-450.
61
Dianiska, R. E., Swanner, J. K., Brimbal, L., & Meissner, C. A. (2019). Conceptual priming and context reinstatement: A test
of direct and indirect interview techniques. Law and Human Behavior, 43(2), 131-143.
62
Dianiska, R. E., Swanner, J. K., Brimbal, L., & Meissner, C. A. (2021). Using disclosure, common ground, and verification to
build rapport and elicit information. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(3), 341–353.
63
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.
64
Granhag, P. A., Montecinos, S. C., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2015a). Eliciting intelligence from sources: The first scientific test of
the Scharff technique. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(1), 96-113.
65
Granhag, P. A., Mac Giolla, E., Sooniste, T., Strömwall, L., & Liu-Jonsson, M. (2016). Discriminating between statements of
true and false intent: The impact of repeated interviews and strategic questioning. Journal of Applied Security Research, 11(1), 1-
17.
66
Hwang, H. C., & Matsumoto, D. (2020). The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 17(3), 280-295.
67
Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). How awareness of possible evidence induces forthcoming
counter‐interrogation strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 876-882.
68
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2018). Social influence in investigative interviews: The effects of reciprocity. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 163-170; Matsumoto D, Hwang H. C. (2021). An initial investigation into the nature and function
of rapport in investigative interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(4), 988-998.
69
Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014a). On eliciting intelligence from human sources: Contextualizing
the Scharff‐technique. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 898-907; Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M.
(2017a). Gathering human intelligence via repeated interviewing: Further empirical tests of the Scharff technique. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 23(7), 666-681.
70
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Jundi, S., Hillman, J., & Hope, L. (2014). Detection of concealment in an information‐gathering
interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 860-866; Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., Dalton, G., Serok-Jeppa, O.,
... & Fisher, R. P. (2020). ‘Please tell me all you remember’: a comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative
performance and its implications for lie detection. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-14.
71
Ibid51
72
Leins, D. A., Zimmerman, L. A., & Polander, E. N. (2017). Observers’ real-time sensitivity to deception in naturalistic
interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(4), 319-330.
73
Vredeveldt, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2015). Effects of eye-closure on confidence-accuracy relations in eyewitness
testimony. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 51-58
74
Luke, T. J. (2021). A meta‐analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim
Scharff. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 360-373.
75
Mac Giolla, E., & Luke, T. J. (2021). Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human
observers? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 385-392.
76
Oleszkiewicz, S., & Watson, S. J. (2021). A meta‐analytic review of the timing for disclosing evidence when interviewing
suspects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 342-359.
77
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.
78
Meissner, C. A. (2021). “What works?” Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the investigative interviewing research
literature. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 322-328.
79
Brimbal, L., Meissner, C. A., Kleinman, S. M., Phillips, E. L., Atkinson, D. J., Dianiska, R. E., ... & Jones, M. S. (2021).
Evaluating the benefits of a rapport-based approach to investigative interviews: A training study with law enforcement
investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 55-67.
80
Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Shortland, N., & Surmon-Bohr, F. (2020). ORBIT: The science of rapport-based interviewing for law
enforcement, security, and military. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
______________________________________________________________________________
10
Cognitive Interview,
81
,
82
leveraging information or evidence to motivate engagement,
83
,
84
,
85
and
assessing deception using cognitive cues and strategic questioning approaches.
86
,
87
The primary
findings are likely best summarized by considering these key interview processes: developing
rapport and cooperation, eliciting information from memory, presenting evidence or information,
and detecting deception.
88
23.5.1. Developing rapport and cooperation.
Research funded by the HIG has evaluated the efficacy and effectiveness of rapport-based tactics
for developing cooperation and eliciting information, including scales and indicators from which
to assess the development of rapport
89
,
90
and examining rapport when multiple interviewers are
present
91
and in interpreter-mediated interviews.
92
,
93
,
94
Studies have highlighted the important
role of certain influence strategies such as liking and reciprocity
95
,
96
, and the value of self-
disclosure and developing common ground for building relationships with the interview
subject.
97
,
98
Studies have also highlighted the value of developing trust and distinguishing it from
rapport-based strategies
99
. HIG research has uncovered the mechanisms by which rapport tactics
facilitate information elicitation; namely, rapport approaches lead an interview subject to a
81
Molinaro, P. F., Fisher, R. P., Mosser, A. E., & Satin, G. E. (2019). Train‐the‐trainer: Methodology to learn the cognitive
interview. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16(1), 32-43.
82
Rivard, J. R., Fisher, R. P., Robertson, B., & Hirn Mueller, D. (2014). Testing the cognitive interview with professional
interviewers: Enhancing recall of specific details of recurring events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 917-925.
83
Granhag, P. A., Oleszkiewicz, S., Sakrisvold, M. L., & Kleinman, S. M. (2020). The Scharff technique: training military
intelligence officers to elicit information from small cells of sources. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(5), 438-460.
84
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph, E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., ... & 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(4), 270-278.
85
Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017b). Eliciting information from human sources: Training handlers in
the Scharff technique. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(2), 400-419.
86
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.
87
Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2017). Training police investigators to interview to detect false
intentions. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(2), 152-162.
88
Ibid46
89
Duke, M. C., Wood, J. M., Bollin, B., Scullin, M., & LaBianca, J. (2018). Development of the Rapport Scales for Investigative
Interviews and Interrogations (RS3i), Interviewee Version. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 64.
90
Driskell, James, "Investigative Interviewing: A Team-level Approach" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2745.
91
Driskell, T., Blickensderfer, E. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Is three a crowd? Examining rapport in investigative interviews. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17(1), 1.
92
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.
93
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.
94
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; Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E.,
Shaboltas, A., ... & Houston, K. (2016). Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit from native speakers,
non‐native speakers and those talking through an interpreter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 854-862.
95
Ibid66,68
96
Matsumoto D, Hwang H. C. (2021). An initial investigation into the nature and function of rapport in investigative interviews.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(4), 988-998.
97
Ibid59
98
Ibid62
99
Brimbal, L., Kleinman, S. M., Oleszkiewicz, S., & Meissner, C. A. (2019b). Developing rapport and trust in the interrogative
context: An empirically supported and ethical alternative to customary interrogation practices. In S. J. Barela, M. J. Fallon, G.
Gaggioli, & J. D. Ohlin (Eds.), Interrogation and Torture: Integrating Efficacy with Law and Morality (pp. 141-196). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
______________________________________________________________________________
11
fundamental decision to cooperate with (or resist) the interviewer, and it is this decision to
cooperate that mediates the exchange of information.
100
,
101
HIG-sponsored studies have also evaluated the value of Motivational Interviewing skills
102
for
application in interview and interrogation contexts.
103
Research on high-value interrogation
subjects, many of whom included terrorist suspects, has shown that when interviewers used
rapport-based Motivational Interviewing skills (including autonomy, adaptation, empathy,
evocation, and acceptance), they achieved greater cooperation and engagement from subjects,
including key investigative information.
104
,
105
Further, such rapport-based skills were also shown
to reduce the likelihood of resistance and the use of counter-interrogation tactics by interview
subjects.
106
Application of this rapport-based framework to victim interviews showed similar
benefits to increasing information disclosures.
107
23.5.2. Eliciting information from memory.
Systematic research in the cognitive domain has documented the fragility of memory and the
profound influence that interviewers can have on a subject’s memory for an event.
108
,
109
,
110
As a
result, best practices for interviewing adults and children have been assessed over the years.
111
Likely the most significant advance to improving the recall of interview subjects has been the
Cognitive Interview (CI), first developed by Fisher and Geiselman.
112
More than 30 years of
research on the CI has demonstrated its profound benefits to increasing recall of event
memory.
113
HIG research has demonstrated that the CI can be easily integrated into an information gathering
interview context and used effectively with less cooperative subjects, leading to greater
information gain when compared with accusatorial interrogation approaches.
114
Further, the CI
100
Ibid59,79
101
Ibid62
102
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. New York NY: Guilford press.
103
Ibid80
104
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.
105
Surmon-Böhr, F., Alison, L., Christiansen, P., & Alison, E. (2020). The right to silence and the permission to talk:
Motivational interviewing and high-value detainees. American Psychologist, 75(7), 1011-1021.
106
Ibid47
107
Kim, S., Alison, L., & Christiansen, P. (2020). Observing rapport-based interpersonal techniques to gather information from
victims. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 166-175.
108
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
109
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of
memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361-366.
110
Newman, E. J., & Garry, M. (2013). False memory. In T. J. Perfect & D. S. Lindsay (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied
memory (pp. 110-126). Los Angeles: Sage.
111
Powell, M. B., Fisher, R. P., & Wright, R. (2005). Investigative interviewing. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams, Psychology and
law: An empirical perspective (pp. 11-42). New York NY: Guilford Publications.
112
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive
interview. Springfield IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
113
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.
114
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 and
Cognition, 2(1), 33-41.
______________________________________________________________________________
12
was extended to include mnemonics that facilitate the retrieval of discrete events (to include
people, conversations, actions, and setting details).
115
The introduction of a Model Statement was
shown to significantly increase the amount of detail provided by interview subjects
116
,
117
and the
utility of eye-closure and context reinstatement instructions was shown to enhance
recollection.
118
,
119
In an evaluation study, the CI was shown to elicit 80% more event details
when compared with a standard interview protocol trained at the U.S. Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center.
120
23.5.3. Presenting evidence or information.
One of the most challenging phases of an interrogation relates to an investigator’s use of
evidence or information to confront a subject and challenge any inconsistencies in their account.
Accusatorial tactics generally involve an emotional confrontation of a suspect’s claims of
innocence and the presentation of evidence intended to overwhelm a suspect’s perceptions of an
interviewer’s knowledge.
121
,
122
Such tactics also frequently involve the use of evidence bluffs or
the presentation of false evidence, which have been shown to elicit false confessions by the
innocent.
123
HIG supported research has demonstrated that accusatorial presentations of evidence
actually increase suspect resistance and reduce the likelihood of confession.
124
,
125
In contrast, a strategic presentation of evidence that considers both the timing and order of
evidence disclosure has been shown to reveal aspects of a suspect’s account that may appear
inconsistent with the available evidence and, in some cases, to facilitate cooperation and
disclosure of new case-relevant information.
126
,
127
HIG research examined the strategies that
suspects engage when they become aware of an interviewer’s knowledge of evidence
128
and
115
Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., Pludwinski, L., Rivard, J., & Robertson, B. (2014). Interview protocols to facilitate human
intelligence sources' recollections of meetings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 926-935.
116
Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E., Shaboltas, A., ... & Houston, K. (2016). Using the model statement to elicit
information and cues to deceit from native speakers, non‐native speakers and those talking through an interpreter. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 854-862.
117
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., & Jupe, L. (2018). Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and
liars: The benefit of examining core and peripheral details. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(4), 610-
617.
118
Ibid61
119
Ibid73
120
Ibid82
121
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.
122
Ibid8
123
Ibid4
124
Ibid48,49
125
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2016). The dynamic nature of interrogation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3),
295-309.
126
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the
science. Credibility Assessment, 1-36.
127
Ibid76
128
Ibid67
______________________________________________________________________________
13
showed that framing of the evidence from general to specific and using a late disclosure with
incremental presentation of evidence was most effective.
129
,
130
23.5.4. Detecting deception.
HIG funding has also helped to facilitate an important paradigm shift in research on deception
detection. Accusatorial practices have traditionally included an anxiety-based model of deception
in which nonverbal cues to nervousness, anxiety, and feelings of guilt were believed to be
indicative of deceptive responses; however, research has generally found little support for such
cues to deception.
131
An alternative “cognitive” approach to deception has emerged over the past
decade in which liars have been found to experience greater cognitive load (or effort) when
attempting to create and maintain a lie while simultaneously suppressing the truth.
132
,
133
Research on cognitive credibility assessment has identified three important interviewing
approaches that can facilitate the discrimination of lies and truths: (i) using interview techniques
that impose cognitive load, particularly on lie-tellers, including reverse-order recall
134
; (ii)
encouraging interviewees to say more by providing a model statement
135
, introducing a
supportive second interviewer
136
,
137
, or enhancing memory recall via eye closure instructions
138
;
or (iii) asking unanticipated questions that take advantage of lie-tellers strategies.
139
,
140
HIG
supported research has shown that these approaches are effective in enhancing the cognitive or
story-based cues (e.g., amount of detail provided, complications in the story, verifiable details,
etc.) that differentiate lies and truths
141
and that individuals trained in such cues and interview
tactics can better distinguish lies and truths.
142
129
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2013). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of
evidence: The first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 341-355.
130
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Jordan, S., Joseph, E., ... & 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(1), 54-62.
131
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to
deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118.
132
Vrij, A. (2014). Interviewing to detect deception. European Psychologist, 19(3), 184-194; Vrij, A. (2019). Deception and truth
detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160-167.
133
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). Eliciting information and detecting lies in intelligence interviewing: An overview of recent
research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 936-944.
134
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 and
Cognition, 2(1), 33-41.
135
Ibid116,117
136
Mann, S., Vrij, A., Shaw, D. J., Leal, S., Ewens, S., Hillman, J., ... & Fisher, R. P. (2013). Two heads are better than one?
How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 324-340.
137
Shaw, D. J., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Hillman, J., Granhag, P. A., & Fisher, R. P. (2013). Expect the unexpected?
Variations in question type elicit cues to deception in joint interviewer contexts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 336-343.
138
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Jundi, S., Hillman, J., & Hope, L. (2014). Detection of concealment in an information‐gathering
interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 860-866.
139
Ibid137
140
Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2015). Statements about true and false intentions: Using the
Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 371-378; Sooniste, T., Granhag, P.
A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2016). Discriminating between true and false intent among small cells of suspects. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 21(2), 344-357.
141
Ibid77
142
Mac Giolla, E., & Luke, T. J. (2021). Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human
observers? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 385-392.
______________________________________________________________________________
14
23.6. Military and intelligence interrogations
AFM 2-22.3 (2006), largely similar to its predecessors (AFM 34-52, 1987, 1992), describes 19
authorized interrogation approaches (with some restrictions, such as those for Separation).
143
These approaches can be roughly clustered into a Direct approach (the interrogator asks direct
questions), an Incentive based approach (the interrogator “trades something that the source wants
for information”), three positively valanced and four negatively valanced Emotional approaches,
and ten other approaches (such as Rapid Fire, where the interrogator asks “a series of questions
in such a manner that the source does not have time to answer a question completely before the
next one is asked” [p. 8-7] and Silent, when the interrogator “says nothing to the source, but
looks him squarely in the eye, preferably with a slight smile on his face… [to] force him to break
eye contact first. The source. . . may ask questions, but the [interrogator] should not answer until
he is ready to break the silence” [p. 8-16]).
A 2010 HIG in-house review of the 19 approaches, as described in AFM Chapter 8, “Approach
Techniques and Termination Strategies,” examined the extent to which each of the 19 techniques
was supported by extant science, unsupported by such science, or for which no known science
was available – while recognizing that any approach might be effective at some point in time,
depending on contextual (including personal) factors impinging on the success of an
interrogation.
144
The review found three approaches consistent with the available evidence-base,
one moderately consistent, three moderately inconsistent, and ten contraindicated. It was noted
that much of the science that contradicted so many of the approaches had been publicly available
for decades. These findings raised the question of how much of the research program should be
dedicated to evaluation of the AFM methods, especially since so many of the methods were
inconsistent with relevant science.
23.6.1. Experiments.
Given the overall inconsistency of the AFM with extant psychological science, only two
experimental studies were sponsored that focused directly on the AFM approaches and
techniques. Each examined different clusters of approaches. The first found some support for
approaches based on positive emotions versus those based on negative emotions (i.e., more
support for Fear-Down, Pride and Ego-Up than for Fear-Up, Futility, and Pride and Ego-
143
AFM 2-22.3 is largely similar to AFM 34-52 (1987, 1992); these were superseded by FM 30-15 (1969, revised and reissued in
1978 and 1982). Anecdotes of archival records are that the approaches described are the product of after-action reports and
formal reviews from both World War II and the Korean War. None of the interrogation approaches or techniques described in
these AFMs had been systematically evaluated prior to the HIG.
144
Brandon, S. E., Bhatt, S., Justice, B. P., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010). Army Field Manual 2-22.3 interrogation methods: A
science-based review. Unpublished manuscript; Brandon, S. E., Kleinman, S. M., & Arthur, J. C. (2019). A scientific perspective
on Army Field Manual 2-22.3. In M. A. Stall & S. C. Harvey (Eds.), Operational Psychology: A New Field to Support National
Security and Public Safety (pp. 287-326). ABC-CLIO.
______________________________________________________________________________
15
Down)
145
while the second found strong support for We Know All
146
. Such findings were broadly
consistent with what was already known about the impact of rapport-building
147
and with
previous data demonstrating the influence of a subject’s perception of relevant evidence.
148
,
149
Anecdotes of notable interrogation successes reported by Hans Scharff, a World War II German
Luftwaffe interrogator, prompted HIG-sponsored experimental studies relevant to the AFM’s We
Know All approach. This research facilitated an understanding of how managing information and
a subject’s perception of the interviewer’s knowledge can facilitate information disclosure.
150
Scholars identified five interrelated tactics that Scharff used to facilitate his elicitation efforts: (i)
a friendly approach in which rapport and trust is built with the interview subject; (ii) managing
the conversation using narrative questioning that does not press the subject for information that
the interviewer is seeking; (iii) demonstrating extensive knowledge regarding certain topics so as
to create an “illusion of knowing all”; (iv) using claims to lure an interviewee into confirming or
disconfirming target information; and (v) not acknowledging an interviewee’s disclosure of new
information in order to mask questioning objectives and interests. HIG supported research has
demonstrated the rather impressive benefits of this approach for eliciting more new information
and, in doing so, for the subject to underestimate the amount of new information that they had
revealed and to remain unaware of the interviewer’s information objectives.
151
,
152
,
153
Studies also
have shown that the Scharff technique can be successfully training to source handlers.
154
23.6.2. Surveys.
Several HIG contracts produced surveys of interrogators for their perceptions of ‘best
practices’.
155
,
156
,
157
One of these focused on interrogators with military experience
158
, where there
145
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(6), 867-875.
146
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(5), 442-457.
147
Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology, and
Law, 9, 69–78.
148
Moston, S., & Engelberg, T. (2011). The effects of evidence on the outcome of interviews with criminal suspects. Police
Practice & Research, 12, 518-526.
149
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Petursson, H. (1991). Custodial interrogation: Why do suspects confess and how does it relate to their
crime, attitude and personality?. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(3), 295-306.
150
Ibid67.
151
Ibid64; Granhag, P. A., Rangmar, J., & Strömwall, L. A. (2015). Small cells of suspects: Eliciting cues to deception by
strategic interviewing. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 12(2), 127-141.
152
Ibid69; 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.
153
For a meta-analysis of this research, see Ibid74.
154
Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017b). Eliciting information from human sources: Training handlers in
the Scharff technique. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(2), 400-419. To date, seminars on Scharff’s technique have been
provided to more than fifteen organizations; including the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Intelligence
Division of the New York Police Department, MI5 and UK Defence Intelligence (personal communication, December 17, 2021).
155
Goodman-Delahunty, J., O'Brien, K., & Gumbert-Jourjon, T. (2013). Police professionalism in interviews with high value
detainees: Cross-cultural endorsement of procedural justice. Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies, 13, 65-
82.
156
Ibid18
157
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (2016). Social persuasion to develop rapport in high-stakes interviews: Qualitative
analyses of Asian-Pacific practices. Policing and society, 26(3), 270-290.
158
Ibid19
______________________________________________________________________________
16
was consensus among the 42 survey participants of the importance of interpersonal skills and
rapport building. The most commonly reported interrogation tactics were rapport and
relationship building (87.8%) and emotional provocation
159
(87.8%). Notably, “few discernible
response patterns emerged between military and law enforcement participants.”
160
23.6.3. Observations.
An opportunity to systematically observe interrogations conducted by the U.S. military was
made possible via a partnership with DoD psychologists who supported theater-level
interrogation operations.
161
In 2009, several Behavioral Science Consultants (BSCs) (in this
instance, Ph.D. clinical psychologists), located initially at Camp Cropper, Iraq, approached
interrogation instructors at the Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence (HT-
JCOE) in Ft. Huachuca, AZ, seeking guidance and support to conduct systematic observations of
interrogations to which BSCs already were privy.
162
HT-JCOE instructors then reached out to the
HIG to help construct an appropriate protocol for such observations.
This collaboration resulted in three studies, two conducted at Camp Cropper, Iraq (2009 – 2010)
and a third conducted at a detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan (2010). Interrogators who
participated in all three studies completed an informed consent process and the observation
methodology was approved by an Institutional Review Board and by Command Staff at each
facility. The data were anonymized and there was no “intervention” or “interaction” that would
have forced categorization of the studies as “research” (CFR 45 §46.102(e)[1]). Observers coded
each interrogation session via a one-way mirror or video feed at the facility, absent any
interaction with the interrogator or detainee. More than 1000 observations were analyzed by the
HIG for the frequency with which various AFM approaches were used and their association with
key interrogation outcomes, including the development of rapport, achieving cooperation by the
interrogation subject, and the elicitation of intelligence information. There were two particularly
salient outcomes of these studies. First, many of the 19 AFM approaches and techniques were
never used; although there was some variance across studies, interrogators most often used
Direct, Incentive, Emotional-Love and Emotional Fear-Down (in descending order of
frequency). The second was that positively valanced approaches (Emotional-Love, Emotional
Fear-Down, and Emotional-Pride & Ego-Up) were consistently associated with the development
159
This was a term used to describe techniques specifically designed to target the source’s raw emotions (including anger,
anxiety, fear, guilt, hope, love, pride, and sadness), any real or perceived evidence against the source, appealing to the source’s
self-interest, conscience, or religion, or capitalizing on the stress of being captured and exaggerating or alleviating the source’s
fear. See 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.
160
Ibid19 p. 849
161
DoD 2006 Instructions described the role of such psychologists: “BSCs [Behavioral Science Consultants] are authorized to
make psychological assessments of the character, personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of
detainees, including interrogation subjects, and, based on such assessments, advise authorized personnel performing lawful
interrogations” (DoD Instruction 2310.08E, 2006). This Instruction was rescinded in 2019, effective 2021, following extensive
public and classified reviews. The 2021 Instruction prohibits psychologists from “consult[ing] in relation to, supervis[ing],
conduct[ing] or direct[ing] interrogations” (DoD Instruction 2310.08e, 2019, p. 4). The previous Instruction, issued in 2006, also
prohibited psychologists from conducting or directing interrogations.
162
HT-JCOE was the only DoD facility to provide interrogation instruction for all DoD-certified interrogators as of 2006
(https://irp.fas.org/agency/army/mipb/2010_04.pdf). The Joint Training Center continues to offer HUMINT (Human Intelligence)
training. One goal of the observational studies described here was to provide feedback to the HTJCOE instructors on the
effectiveness of their interrogator training.
______________________________________________________________________________
17
of rapport between the detainee and the interrogator, and therein positively predicted both
increased cooperation and the elicitation of intelligence. In contrast, negatively valanced
approaches (Emotional Fear-Up, Emotional-Pride & Ego-Down, Emotional-Futility, and We
Know All) were likely to limit rapport and cooperation.
163
,
164
Other direct observational data were available but could not be accessed. As of 2012, DoD had
required audio-video recordings of strategic intelligence interrogations conducted at theater-level
detention facilities “or at any other location to the extent required by law or DoD policy.”
165
These recordings were encrypted and stored in secure locations within the U.S. Given the large
number of interrogations conducted in such facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that it would
have been possible to analyze these recordings while still adhering to human subjects
regulations, these recordings could have provided unique opportunities to assess the AFM
approaches and techniques. However, a more than five-year attempt by the HIG to access these
recordings proved unsuccessful.
It might be asked why HIG research personnel did not systematically observe HIG interrogations
to assess effectiveness. The reasons are multiple and they illustrate, perhaps, the difficulty of
knowing what intelligence interrogation methods are actually used in the field (as opposed to
what methods are shown by science to be most effective, or what interrogation manuals describe
and/or prescribe, or what methods are trained, or what interrogators say they do). For example:
• Security issues prohibited HIG interrogations from being audio or video recorded, even
after DoD required video recordings of all strategic interrogations of persons in their
custody as of 2012
166
, and DOJ policy mandated that the FBI “will electronically record
custodial interviews” in 2014.
167
• There was an early attempt to ask HIG Mobile Interrogation Team (MIT) interrogators to
complete a questionnaire (created by HIG research personnel) following each
interrogation. Each participant signed a consent form upon deployment and the data
collection was approved by the FBI’s IRB. The questionnaire asked about methods used
and challenges faced. The effort was hampered both because DoD-certified interrogators
and FBI agents did not share a common language to describe what they did, and because
participation was rare, most likely given that it was voluntary. The effort was abandoned
after two years.
163
Trent, S., Burchfield, C., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2011). A field study of U.S. military interrogations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Unpublished manuscript.
164
HIG personnel visited the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan, in January 2012, to provide support for the continuation
of these observations. However, further collection of data was not supported by the local U.S. Commander and subsequently was
prohibited by DoD 3216.02, issued November 8, 2011, that stated that “Research involving a detainee or a prisoner of war as a
human subject is prohibited.” Arguments that the data were anonymized, and that data collection involved no interactions or
interventions with the subject so that human subjects regulations could be adhered to, were not effective.
165
DoD Directive 3115.09 (2012). DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning (October 22,
2012, incorporating Change 3, effective October 29, 2020). https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/d3115_09.pdf
166
Ibid
167
DOJ Press Release (2014). Attorney General Holder Announces Significant Policy Shift Concerning Electronic Recording of
Statements (May 22). http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-holder-announces-significant-policy-shift-concerning-
electronic-recording [http://perma.cc/9G5Z-B3BJ]
______________________________________________________________________________
18
• The argument could have been made, especially once the HIG initiated its own interview
and interrogation training, that systematic observations of HIG interrogations could fall
under the rubric of ‘program evaluation’ and therefore would not meet the definition of
research (research is defined as “a systematic investigation, including research
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute
to generalizable knowledge” [CFR 45 §46.102(l)]). The challenge was in designating
who might conduct such program evaluation: HIG research personnel did occasionally
deploy with the Mobile Interrogation Team (MIT), but observations made by such
individuals could not be characterized as ‘independent,’ and including ‘independent
observers’ on a MIT was never considered both because there were no HIG personnel
who could fill that role and because there was always a need, for logistic and security
reasons, to keep the MITs as small as possible.
• If such data had been collected, it could not have been shared with HIG-sponsored
researchers unless they agreed to the considerable restrictions inherent in security
clearances, including prohibitions against publication of the data. This virtually
eliminated sharing the data with the several HIG-sponsored researchers who were not
U.S. citizens, and risked creating a two-tiered community, with some ‘in the know’ and
some ‘in the dark.’ It was also contrary to the effort to keep the research program
unclassified.
• There were concerns that the HIG research program might be perceived as conducting
research on detainees that, despite being within the federal guidelines regarding human
subjects protections, might be misconstrued by members of the public as both illegal and
immoral. A report by Physicians for Human Rights, published in June 2010 (PHR, 2010),
asserted that the CIA had conducted research on detainees and explicitly referenced the
Nuremburg Code
168
:
“Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the
interrogations of detainees, collected and analyzed the results of those
interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to
subsequent interrogations. Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and
experimentation by health professionals on prisoners, which could violate
accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law.
These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against
humanity” (p. 3).
The HIG thus faced the quandary that research on ‘real life’ interrogations, especially those
conducted by its own Mobile Interrogation Teams, was difficult and, given the political milieu,
unwise.
23.7. Dissemination of research findings
168
Nuremberg Code (1949), reprinted in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control
Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2 Washington: GPO, 1949: 181-82. 15 vols. 1946-49.
______________________________________________________________________________
19
The dissemination of HIG-sponsored research was both inward (to HIG personnel) and outward
(to U.S. and international scholars, practitioners, and publics). Different mechanisms were
created for each. Of fundamental importance to the success of dissemination efforts was that the
research was unclassified and thus could be shared and distributed in unclassified channels and
venues.
23.7.1. Inward dissemination.
Perhaps because the HIG was chartered while consisting of less than ten personnel and remained
relatively small, everyone occupied the same office space (within a Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facility, or SCIF) and all personnel held similarly high security clearances. This
meant that the day-to-day functions of the HIG were available to everyone. Such face-to-face
contact was likely instrumental in helping to close the gap between research(ers) and
practi(tioners). Both began to see what the other did and the peculiar challenges each faced. And
although research personnel could not share HIG operational details with HIG contractors (who
were primarily academic scholars situated in universities in the U.S. and abroad), the challenges
that the MITs faced could be accurately characterized by the research personnel in the language
and findings of psychological science: for example, how to know if a statement is true; how to
persuade a reluctant detainee to talk; how to build and maintain sufficient rapport; how to work
with personnel from other government agencies; and so on.
In 2012, HIG research personnel were supported by the HIG Director to establish an in-house
interview and interrogation training program. The content of such a course was determined
primarily by the research personnel, but a highly experienced former U.K. Detective Chief
Inspector and Course Director of the U.K. National Hostage Crisis Negotiation Course, Simon
Wells, served as the (contract) instructor for an initial 4-week course. All HIG operational
personnel were required to take the course, which was offered several times a year. In 2014, a
full-time HIG instructor position was filled by FBI SA Colton Seale, who taught the HIG course
with Mr. Wells for several years and served as Program Manager for the training program until
2019.
23.7.2. Outward dissemination.
The HIG training program evolved into an outward dissemination mechanism, perhaps
inadvertently at first. With considerable resources spent towards developing and offering the in-
house HIG interview and interrogation training course (which had been shortened to a one week
“Core Course”), HIG personnel often could not attend because they were deployed. To ensure
greater attendance, the HIG first reached out to FBI training instructors and subsequently to
instructors at other federal agencies, which resulted in attendance by a wide range of additional
participants. By 2015, the program was training nearly 1,000 students each year. Initially,
demand for the course was primarily from within the FBI, but that quickly expanded to a broader
section of the U.S. Intelligence and Special Operations communities. Components of the FBI,
CIA, and DOD all had completion of the Core Course as a mandatory component of their
internal training. Demand also expanded outside the U.S., with requests coming from FBI Legal
Attaches and other overseas offices of the U.S. government. The HIG Core Course was delivered
______________________________________________________________________________
20
to close allies of the U.S. in the ‘war on terrorism,’ including (but not limited to) the ‘Five Eye’
partners
169
(personal communication, September 24, 2021). Within several years, HIG training
personnel received more requests for training than they could support. In 2017, FBI Director
Christopher Wray offered the following comments at a HIG Symposium:
“To date, the HIG has trained personnel from more than 50 government agencies. In this
most recent fiscal year, the HIG trained 800 students across multiple agencies, including
90 foreign partner participants—including folks from both Canada’s Security Intelligence
Service and Britain’s MI5. The HIG training and research units also work closely with
the staff of FLETC—the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia—and
Fort Huachuca—the military training facility in Arizona” (FBI Director Wray, 2017).
The first HIG Research Symposium (2011) provided a venue for HIG-sponsored researchers to
share the results of their one-year HIG contracts with one another and to help coordinate
overlapping efforts. Symposia subsequently were offered annually. By 2015, when the event was
held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC and one of the speakers was then
FBI Director James Comey, pre-registration for the event became necessary and attendance
averaged between 200 – 350 each year. There was considerable synergy between HIG training
courses and attendance at HIG symposia, as each attracted participation in the other.
HIG-sponsored researchers were encouraged to publish their work in peer-reviewed, open-source
scientific journals. As of 2021, the HIG reported more than 220 HIG-sponsored publications
(personal communication, November 24, 2021). HIG research personnel also created a
mechanism for the distribution of research findings within the intelligence community, referred
to as ‘RDRs’ (Research Dissemination Reports) to appeal to a community accustomed to reading
‘IIRs’ (Intelligence Information Reports). Each RDR, written by HIG research personnel,
described the findings from a HIG-contracted project or projects in nontechnical terms and noted
the extent to which the findings were immediately applicable (or not) to real world interrogation
contexts.
23.8. HIG best practices
While it remains critical that accusatorial interrogation techniques be held to account for
instances of false confessions and wrongful convictions, only pointing out what is done wrong is
not as persuasive as offering alternatives. HIG or HIG-based training did not begin by describing
to the participants all ‘the errors of their ways’ but rather relied upon the inherent appeal of the
science-based methods. The ‘HIG model,’ writ large, was offered as a credible alternative to
traditional tactics. This model was based on the sciences of decision-making, cognition, memory,
motivation (both implicit and explicit), persuasion (again, both implicit and explicit),
communication, resistance, cooperation and trust, strategic use of evidence or information, and
credibility assessment.
170
169
‘Five eye’ is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S.
170
For descriptions of the HIG model see: Wells, S., & Seale, C. (2018). Science‐based interviewing: Information
elicitation. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 133-148; Brandon, S. E., & Wells, S. (2019a).
Commonalities and complementarities among science-based interview methods: Towards a theory of interrogation. In Evidence-
______________________________________________________________________________
21
Three aspects of the HIG model were critical. One was that it was not offered as a checklist or
‘toolbox’
171
, but as a coherent plan (from planning for an interview to conducting an interview to
post-interview reflection). A second was that no distinction was made between an ‘interview’
and an ‘interrogation,’ in contrast to what was traditionally taught and assumed by American law
enforcement.
172
Third, both interviews and interrogations were presumed to be oriented towards
the collection of information (as opposed to elicitation of confessions or admissions).
Recognizing a common goal in both law enforcement and intelligence/HUMINT domains
173
had
the fortunate outcome of making the decades of research on law enforcement contexts (as
described above) relevant to the military/intelligence contexts.
The HIG Core Course provided not only strategies and tactics but also a description of the
science underlying these as they might be relevant to an individual interview. Descriptions of the
science were included in the training so that the practitioner could understand why a method
worked (or did not) and how to usefully adapt a method to a particular circumstance while not
violating underlying core psychological principles. The protest, sometimes made by the highly
experienced HIG interrogators that, “I know all this already”, was countered with the argument
that “all experts have coaches.”
174
Coaches were included in the training to provide individual
feedback on performance in multiple training scenarios and practical exercises. A significant
accomplishment of the HIG Core Course was to provide members of the Mobile Interrogation
Teams with a common language to describe what they did and what they observed, which proved
invaluable not only in real time as an interrogation proceeded by also for after-action reports.
23.9. HIG influence on U.S. training and practice
Perhaps the greatest impact of the HIG to date has been on interview and interrogation training
by federal law enforcement agencies and departments. Multiple federal agencies participated in
the HIG Core Course and subsequently changed their internal training to reflect the “HIG
model,” which can be described in broad strokes as planning, building and maintaining rapport,
eliciting a narrative, strategic questioning and presentation of evidence (if available), dealing
with possible resistance, and assessing credibility.
175
,
176
A notable example is the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), which partnered with the HIG to provide one-week
training to more than 100 of its Special Agents in 2014 – 2015. The perceived success of this
training led to a similar course being incorporated within the internal training offered by AFOSI
Based Investigative Interviewing (pp. 134-155). Oxfordshire: Routledge; Brandon, S. E., & Wells, S. (2019b). Science-based
interviewing. Online: BookShop; Wells, S., & Brandon, S. E. (2019c). Interviewing in criminal and intelligence-gathering
contexts: Applying science. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 18(1), 50-65.
171
Snook, B., Fahmy, W., Fallon, L., Lively, C. J., Luther, K., Meissner, C. A., ... & House, J. C. (2020). Challenges of a
“toolbox” approach to investigative interviewing: A critical analysis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) Phased
Interview Model. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(3), 261-273.
172
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogations and confessions (4th Ed.). Frederick
MD: Aspen Publishers Inc.; Ibid3.
173
Ibid17
174
Gawande, A. (2011). Top athletes and singers have coaches. Should you? The New Yorker, 44-53.
175
Ibid145
176
Brandon, S. E., Arthur, J. C., Ray, D. G., Meissner, C. A., Russano, M. B., Wells, S. & Kleinman, S. M. (2019). An
interdisciplinary partnership to assess the efficacy of science-based investigative interviewing. In M. A. Stall & S. C. Harvey
(Eds.), Operational Psychology: A New Field to Support National Security and Public Safety (pp. 263-286). ABC-CLIO.
______________________________________________________________________________
22
in 2016.
177
Another example involves the substantively modified training offered to FBI Agents
by the FBI Training Academy as of 2018. Similarly, the Advanced Interviewing Course offered
by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) currently reflects the HIG Core
Course.
178
There has been less impact at state, local, and tribal levels, though efforts are underway.
179
The
Intelligence Division of the New York Police Department has incorporated the Cognitive
Interview
180
into its interview and debriefing training (personal communication, September 24,
2021), and the Los Angeles Police Department, an early partner with the HIG research and
training programs
181
, has plans to base its interviewing course on the HIG model as offered via
the California POST (Peace Officer Standards & Training) program. The Wichita Police
Department, which participated in a training research study funded by the HIG, has now focused
its approach to training exclusively on science-based interviewing methods.
Private companies that offer interrogation training are now incorporating practices that HIG-
supported researchers have developed. For example, a well-known interrogation training
company, Wicklander-Zulawski
182
, now offers a somewhat modified curricula to reflect a less
confrontational approach.
183
New companies have also been developed via partnerships between
HIG researchers and practitioners from the field who have established science-based training
programs. The latter include former HIG interrogators (e.g., Special Agent [ret] John Gervino at
Truth Intelligence Consulting LLC) and former police detectives with extensive exposure to HIG
training (e.g., Detective [ret] Mark Severino; Detective [ret] Matt Jones at Evocavi LLC). The
impacts of such training are difficult to assess, of course, as changes in training curricula do not
guarantee changes in practice. Nevertheless, there is increasing demand for science-based
interview training among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in the U.S., as well
as by companies interested in training their corporate investigations teams on such methods.
Even more difficult to quantify are the impacts of HIG-funded publications in scientific journals.
Since 2010, the cumulative number of interrogation-related research studies has shown a marked
increase, in large measure due to HIG-sponsored research. Perhaps equally significant has been
the partnerships between HIG researchers and practitioners.
184
In contrast to the frequently
adversarial relationship between U.S. academics and the intelligence and law enforcement
communities, HIG researchers have presented jointly with HIG practitioners at both academic
177
Morris, H. L., & Ray, D. G. (2019). Investigative Psychology. Applying Psychological Science to Military Criminal
Investigations. In M. A. Stall & S. C. Harvey (Eds.), Operational Psychology: A New Field to Support National Security and
Public Safety (pp. 185-209). ABC-CLIO.
178
see https://www.fletc.gov/advanced-interviewing-law-enforcement-investigators
179
As noted, the HIG had no mandate to train any agencies outside its intelligence partners.
180
Ibid112
181
Kolker, R. (2016). A Severed Head, Two Cops, and the Radical Future of Interrogation. Wired Magazine
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/how-to-interrogate-suspects/
182
https://www.w-z.com
183
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/03/prweb14123356.htm
184
A precedent for such a partnership was a conference co-organized by Dan Lassiter and Chris Meissner in 2007 attended by
academics and law enforcement personnel, intended to provide “a unique forum in which social scientists, legal scholars, and
practitioners critical examine the current state of research on interrogations and confessions and assess whether policy
recommendations might be developed” (p. xv) in Lassiter, G., & Meissner, C. A. (2010). Police interrogations and false
confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
______________________________________________________________________________
23
and practitioner conferences (e.g., 2014 – 2016 meetings of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police), published journal articles and edited volumes together
185
,
186
,
187
,
188
, and
conducted joint training (as discussed above). Trainings conducted by researcher-practitioner
teams, the proliferation of research publications, and the HIG’s annual research symposia have
all facilitated active collaborations and open communication in these contexts.
23.10. Lessons learned
HIG successes have largely been due to efforts at pushing against a number of constraints
imposed by the U.S. intelligence community (and some fortuitous circumstances). From this
experience comes a number of lessons learned that can be shared.
• First, an unclassified research program allowed the HIG to access world-renowned
scholars and scientists who otherwise would not have contributed to the body of research.
It also allowed that research to be transitioned into training programs outside of the U.S.
intelligence community, which has increased its impact on how interviews and
interrogations are conducted within the U.S.
• HIG research personnel were co-located with HIG operational personnel and occasionally
deployed with interrogation teams. This allowed the former to serve as a ‘bridge’
between the science and intelligence operations, which affected the nature and course of
the research program. As a result of the relationships fostered, operational personnel also
became instrumental in the review and selection of research topics and contracts on a
yearly basis.
• HIG research personnel worked closely with HIG contract researchers, forming a
partnership and collegial relationship rather than a more distanced ‘supervision’ of ‘work
for hire’ as is often the case in government-contractor relations. HIG researchers
contributed significantly to the direction and growth of the research program, and HIG-
sponsored researchers modified their research methods and measurement processes to be
more useful in the field as a function of their interactions and conversations with
practitioners.
• As noted above, several aspects of the HIG training program were advantageous. First,
the curriculum was developed via a partnership between the scientists and HIG
operational personnel (both interrogators and analysts), and these same individuals
provided the instruction in training sessions. The practitioner had the ‘street credibility’
and the scientist had the expertise. Second, coaches served an important role in the HIG’s
scenario-based training to provide individualized feedback to trainees. And third, the HIG
MITs were trained together, meaning that the analysts, interpreters, and support staff
185
Barela,S.J., Fallon, M., & Gaggioli, G. (Eds.) Interrogation and torture (1st ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
186
Ibid72
187
Ibid52
188
Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Fallon, M., Mann, S., Luther, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2022). Mapping details to elicit information
and cues to deceit: the effects of map richness. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 14(1), 11-19.
______________________________________________________________________________
24
understood the strategies and tactics used during an interrogation and could provide
appropriate and often vital insights as it occurred.
• The HIG research program set up a mechanism to receive feedback from an ad hoc
committee of individuals who would represent key constituencies. These included
individuals with relevant research expertise or experience as intelligence, military, or law
enforcement interrogators; an ethicist with a deep expertise and understanding of military
culture; and representatives from the human rights community, some of whom had been
instrumental in the Obama Administration’s EO 13491. The impetus for this ‘research
committee’ was, in part, the 2010 Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) report described
above: the committee, whose proceedings were unclassified, was intended to serve as the
‘public face’ of the research program and as a way to gauge and reflect public
perceptions of the program (such as those reflected in the PHR report), which could
impact the willingness of researchers (as members of the public) to participate. One
example of the issues discussed was the use of nonconscious priming.
189
,
190
The
Committee had no policy or budgetary authority and its members served voluntarily.
23.11. Challenges remain: Moving forward
While the HIG has made an indelible impact on interrogation training and practice in the U.S.
and abroad, there remain significant issues that must be addressed. Importantly, a review and
revision of the interrogation approaches described in the 2006 AFM are necessary. The National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2016 (NDAA, 2015) required that the HIG submit to the
Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, and other
officials “a report on best practices for interrogation that do not involve the use of force” within
120 days of enactment.
191
The language of the NDAA stated that the HIG report “may include
recommendations for revisions to Army Field Manual (AFM) 2-22.3 based on the body of
research commissioned by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.” However, the HIG
(under the direction of the FBI) declined to offer such recommendations. Nevertheless, it is
critical that research inform future amendments to the AFM and the training of military
interrogators, debriefers, and intelligence officers.
192
Private industry within the U.S. typically employs and trains their own security teams to
investigate policy violations and illegal activities at their sites. The HIG is neither funded nor
chartered to provide interview and interrogation training to such entities, or (for that matter and
as noted) to U.S. federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and departments.
While HIG training has reached the latter entities in some ways, both private industry and
federal, state, and local government agencies often turn to commercial training companies to
189
Ibid51
190
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247(4940), 301-306.
191
Two reports were released as of 2016, one written by HIG operational personnel (https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-
report-august-2016.pdf/view) and one written by HIG research personnel (https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-report-
interrogation-a-review-of-the-science-september-2016.pdf/vi).
192
Brandon, S., & Fallon, M. (2021). The Méndez Principles: The need to update the Army Field Manual on interrogation for the
21st century. Just Security, 11 June 2021. https://www.justsecurity.org/76863/the-mendez-principles-the-need-to-update-the-
army-field-manual-on-interrogation-for-the-21st-century/; For The Méndez Principles in general, see chapter 7 in this book.
______________________________________________________________________________
25
support their interview and interrogation training efforts. An effective and sustainable transition
from government-supported science institutions to private industry is critical in this arena – and
has precedent: the U.S. government supports the basic science that industry sees no profit in until
such time that profit may incur, at which time private industry delivers a product.
193
Federal, state, and local law enforcement also receive their training via relevant police training
academies and professional associations. To further reforms within the U.S., it will be critical to
work with such academies and associations to facilitate change from the training of customary,
accusatorial tactics to that of a rapport-based, information gathering approach. Police officer
training varies widely in the U.S. and there are no federally mandated minimum training
requirements. A 2018 U.S. Department of Justice report counted 681 state and local law
enforcement training academies that provided basic training instruction to 59,511 recruits.
194
In
2021, California passed Senate Bill 494 that would have required that California law
enforcement officers be trained in “science-based interviewing.” This bill specifically mentioned
the HIG as a precedent for such training, and efforts are now underway to modify California’s
POST training curriculum based upon the available science and best practice recommendations.
Similar efforts in other states are necessary to make a substantive departure from accusatorial
interrogation methods that remain prevalent in the U.S.
Finally, military and law enforcement training should be multidisciplinary. The first HIG training
instructor was a former U.K. police officer. HIG interrogator trainees were recruited from
various federal agencies: FBI, DoD, and DHS. The ‘outsider status’ of the instructor was a
deliberate selection: it meant the trainees could not dismiss what he said based on their own
prejudices regarding their sister federal agencies. At the same time, when HIG instructors were
FBI agents instructing DoD personnel, or DoD personnel instructing FBI agents, there was a
tendency to dismiss what was said as ‘not relevant to what I do.’ SSA Seale had the expertise
and experience to overcome this challenge, but a diverse training team would have facilitated his
efforts and, perhaps more importantly, made overseas interrogations more efficient because these
often occur in the context of multiple agencies working together.
193
Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2020). NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 117(22), 12011-12016.
194
Buehler, E. D. (2018). State and local law enforcement training academies, 2018 – Statistical tables. U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.