Eliciting intelligence from sources: The first scientific test of the Scharff technique

Abstract

Purpose The gathering of human intelligence (HUMINT) is of utmost importance, yet the scientific literature is silent with respect to the effectiveness of different information elicitation techniques. Our aim was to remedy this by conducting the first scientific test of the so‐called Scharff technique (named after the successful German WWII interrogator). Method We developed a new experimental paradigm, mirroring some main features of a typical HUMINT situation. The participants (N = 93) were given information on a planned terrorist attack, and were instructed to strike a balance between not revealing too much or too little information in an upcoming interview. One third was interviewed with the Scharff technique (conceptualized to include four different tactics), one‐third was asked open questions only, and the final third was asked specific questions only. The effectiveness of the three techniques was assessed by a novel set of objective and subjective measures. Results Our main findings show that (1) the three techniques did not differ with respect to the objective amount of new information gathered; (2) the participants in the Scharff condition perceived (as predicted) that it was more difficult to read the interviewer's information objectives; and (3) the participants in the Scharff‐ and the Open‐question condition (incorrectly) perceived to have revealed significantly less information than the participants in the Specific question condition. Conclusions We presented a new experimental paradigm, and new dependent measures, for studying the effectiveness of different information elicitation techniques. We consider the outcome for the Scharff technique as rather promising, but future refinements are needed.

Eliciting Intelligence Using the Scharff‐Technique: Closing in on the Confirmation/Disconfirmation‐Tactic

“…In the first empirical study on the technique, Granhag, Cancino Montecinos, and Oleszkiewicz () introduced an experimental paradigm, which reflects important features of a typical human intelligence interaction, and a new set of measures to analyse the efficacy of intelligence gathering techniques. Granhag et al .…”

“…Granhag et al . () compared the Scharff‐technique, the open question technique (asking open‐ended questions only) and the specific question technique (asking closed‐ended questions only), and found that the three techniques resulted in a similar amount of new information. However, by using the Scharff‐technique, the interviewer was able to mask his information objectives in a better manner compared with the open question technique.…”

Eliciting information from human sources: Training handlers in the Scharff technique

“…Gathering information from human sources is a fundamental and unceasing endeavour in the prevention of crime. However, researchers have only recently begun to develop and evaluate methods for gathering human intelligence (Evans et al ., ; Granhag, Cancinos Montecinos, & Oleszkiewicz, ; Granhag, Vrij, & Meissner, ; Justice, Bhatt, Brandon, & Kleinman, ). Broadly speaking, the aim of this work is to be able to suggest effective and ethically defensible strategies for collecting information from human sources.…”

“…Granhag, Cancinos Montecinos, et al . () introduced an experimental scenario mirroring key aspects of human intelligence gathering. The scenario focused on semicooperative sources who possessed incomplete information about an impending terrorist attack.…”

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

“…Research has shown that the most powerful factor in subjects' admissions to crimes is their perception of the strength of evidence against them (Gudjonsson, ; Gudjonsson & Petursson, ; Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, ). It is advantageous, therefore, for an interviewer to make a subject think he has substantial evidence or information relevant to the event in question (Granhag, Monecinos, & Oleszkiewicz, ; Scharff, ). We do not recommend lying to the subject about evidence, as such tactics have been shown to be factors in false confessions (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, ; Kassin & Kiechel, ; Moston et al, ).…”