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

Abstract

The current study examined interview techniques aimed at eliciting intelligence from human sources. We compared two versions of the Scharff‐technique to the Direct Approach (a combination of open and direct questions). The Scharff conditions, conceptualised into four tactics, differed only with respect to the ‘confirmation/disconfirmation‐tactic’. The participants (N = 90) received background information and took the role as a source in a phone interview. They were instructed to strike a balance between not revealing too little and too much information. As predicted, the Scharff‐technique resulted in more new information than the Direct Approach. Importantly, the sources interviewed by the Scharff‐technique perceived that they had revealed less new information than they objectively did, whereas the sources interviewed by the Direct Approach perceived that they had revealed more new information than they objectively did. Furthermore, the interviewer's information objectives were better masked with the confirmation‐tactic than with the disconfirmation‐tactic. The results highlight the Scharff‐technique as a promising human intelligence gathering technique. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

“…As the trained handlers asked very few questions, we were rather surprised that their sources did not end up finding it comparatively more difficult to read their handlers’ information objectives (as consistently shown in previous research, e.g., May et al ., ; Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, ). One explanation for this may be that both trained and untrained handlers were quite skilled at hiding their information objectives, as this is an essential part of their basic training to become a handler.…”

An Empirical Evaluation of Intelligence‐gathering Interrogation Techniques from the United States Army Field Manual

“…Each has some information—the interrogator seeks to gain new information, whereas the source must balance the amount of information provided (to gain a benefit from the interrogator) and yet not give away too much information (as they do not want to be identified as the source of the information leak). Granhag and colleagues found that while the interrogation approach of interest (a cluster of techniques based on those used by Hans Scharff, a successful German WWII interrogator) did not lead to more information gain compared with open‐ended and close‐ended question conditions, the Scharff approach operated as a more subtle elicitation method that disguised the information that interrogators were seeking and led sources to underestimate the amount of new information they had provided (see also May, Granhag, & Oleszkiewicz, ; Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Montecinos, ).…”

Eliciting Information and Detecting Lies in Intelligence Interviewing: An Overview Of Recent Research

“…The studies show promising results in favour of the Scharff technique. First, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique reveal more new information compared with the sources interviewed with the Direct Approach (e.g., Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, in press; May, Granhag, & Oleszkiewicz, , when combining the two versions of the Scharff technique). Second, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique were less accurate in establishing which information the interviewer was after (e.g., Granhag et al, ; May et al, ).…”

“…First, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique reveal more new information compared with the sources interviewed with the Direct Approach (e.g., Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Kleinman, in press; May, Granhag, & Oleszkiewicz, , when combining the two versions of the Scharff technique). Second, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique were less accurate in establishing which information the interviewer was after (e.g., Granhag et al, ; May et al, ). Third, the studies show that a large majority of the sources interviewed by the Scharff technique believed they had revealed less new information than was actually the case, whereas the majority of the sources interviewed with the Direct Approach believed they had revealed more new information than was actually the case (Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Cancino Montecinos, in press; Oleszkiewicz et al, in press; May et al, ).…”

“…Second, the sources interviewed with the Scharff technique were less accurate in establishing which information the interviewer was after (e.g., Granhag et al, ; May et al, ). Third, the studies show that a large majority of the sources interviewed by the Scharff technique believed they had revealed less new information than was actually the case, whereas the majority of the sources interviewed with the Direct Approach believed they had revealed more new information than was actually the case (Oleszkiewicz, Granhag, & Cancino Montecinos, in press; Oleszkiewicz et al, in press; May et al, ). In other words, the Scharff technique leads the source to underestimate how much new information she or he revealed during the interview, whereas the Direct Approach leads the source to overestimate how much new information she or he revealed.…”