The effectiveness of army field manual interrogation approaches for educing information and building rapport.

Abstract

In 2016, the U.S. Congress mandated that federal intelligence interrogators adhere to the methods of the U.S. Army Field Manual FM 2-22.3 (AFM) and that the manual be revised based upon empirically based evaluations of the interrogation methods' effectiveness with interviewees motivated to withhold information. In the present study, 120 participants took part in a testing situation in which half were induced to cheat. All participants were then accused of cheating and interrogated with either (a) a combination of AFM interrogation approaches that focused on the potential benefits of cooperation with the interviewer (cooperation-focused condition), or (b) a combination of AFM approaches that focused on the potential risks of withholding information (withholding-focused condition). Participants who cheated on the test were significantly more likely to admit their wrongdoing and to provide additional relevant information when interrogated with the withholding-focused approaches than when questioned with the cooperation-focused approaches. The "we know all" AFM approach was especially effective for eliciting truthful admission-related details. Participants reported high rapport with the interrogator in both the cooperation-focused and withholding-focused conditions. These findings indicate that the we-know-all approach can be effective for maintaining rapport and eliciting accurate information in brief interrogations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews

“…In addition to social influence principles and tactics, the topic of rapport has gained traction in research on forensic interviewing and for good reason: Rapport has been shown to be a central concept to all kinds of interactions pertaining to relationship building and formation, information elicitation, and therapeutic alliances for years (Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013; Christiansen, Alison, & Alison, 2018; Cialdini, 2009; Duke, Wood, Magee, & Escobar, 2018; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Oxburgh & Ost, 2011; Vallano & Compo, 2015). As a different component of social influence, studies have increasingly shown that rapport is important for successful interviews and investigations in forensic contexts as well (Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Alison et al, 2014; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018, 2019; Walsh & Bull, 2010).…”

Gabbert et al., Rapport Systematic Review, ACP, pre-print

“…Behaviors were categorised as showing a personal interest if the interviewer was able to demonstrate that they were interested in the interviewee as an individual, by encouraging or engaging in topics of discussion that do not necessarily fall within the remit of the interview. to the true purpose of the interview to facilitate rapport-building (e.g., Duke et al, 2018b).…”

A meta-analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim Scharff

“…For instance, the Scharffian knowledge illusion seems highly similar to the "we know all" approach advocated by the Army Field Manual (United States Army, 2006, 8-53 to 8-57) both in appearance and in labeling. Inconsistent with Scharff's technique, however, the Army Field Manual's "we know all" approach is compatible with approaches that involve accusatory pressure (see, e.g., Duke et al, 2018), and unlike Scharff's use of claims and avoidance of direct inquiry, the approach can entail "interjecting pertinent questions" when the source begins to provide new information. In contrast, the hypothesized underpinnings of the Scharffian illusion of knowing it all are similar to and consistent with the theoretical conceptualization behind the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique of interviewing and its extensions, which aim to influence interviewees' behavior in part by controlling their perception of how much the interviewer knows (see, e.g., Luke & Granhag, 2020).…”