Article 2: Approaching Truth: Behavioral Science Lessons on Educing Information from Human sources 

Randy Borum, Psy.D.

University of South Florida

November 2005

Theses: “Essentially none of the interrogation techniques used by U.S. personnel over the past half-century has been subjected to scientific or systematic inquiry or evaluation, and the accuracy of educed information can be compromised by the way it is obtained” (Educing, p. 17).  Few empirical studies “directly address the effectiveness of interrogation…in generating accurate and useful information from…uncooperative persons” (Educing, p.18).  “Educing information from a human source requires some understanding of how people in general acquire, process, store, and retrieve information.  Without this knowledge, it is possible to misinterpret or even contaminate stored information so that not even the source can any longer discern the ‘real truth’” (Educing 31). 

• “The potential mechanisms and effects of using coercive techniques or torture for gaining accurate, useful information from uncooperative sources are much more complex than is commonly assumed.  There is little or no research to indicate whether such techniques succeed in the manner and context in which they are applied” (Educing p. 19, 35)
• “The accuracy of educed information can be compromised by the manner in which it is obtained. The effects of many common stress and duress techniques are known to impair various aspects of a person’s cognitive functioning, including those functions necessary to retrieve and produce accurate, useful information” (Educing, p.31-32, 35).
• “Psychological Theory and some…related research suggest that coercion or pressure can actually increase a source’s resistance and determination not to comply.  [T]here is no available scientific or systematic research to suggest that coercion [or pain (Educing, p. 33)] can, will, or has provided accurate useful information” (Educing, p.25-28, 35).
• Previous research on persuasion, influence, compliance, and resistance have focused mostly on Western cultures and their populous (Educing, p.35).  Social science findings suggest that “patterns, meanings and modes of” (Educing, p. 35) interaction could be different in non-Western cultures.  Therefore, no clear scientific basis exists to believe that “results and insights [or tactics] will apply equally or evenly across cultures” (Educing, p. 36).  Results may vary depending on the place or culture of origin of the subject. 
• It has not been scientifically determined whether translators affect results or accuracy of information given by subjects.  “[E]ffects and/or implementation of interpersonal strategies may be different when using a translator as a conduit for communication [or educing information]” (Educing, p.36).
• There are six factors that are most consistent in affecting influence among persons, particularly during interrogation situations, are reciprocity between both parties, scarcity or limited other options for subject, liking or fondness for interrogator, a sense of authority, commitment/consistency of interrogator to subject, and social validation of subject through interview (Educing p.22-24).

• A British study of 100 detectives found that almost half, about 42%, believed that an interviewer’s failure to establish rapport with a suspect contributed to a suspect’s denial.  Thus, good rapport must be established with interviewer/interrogator for suspect to typically confess (Educing, p.22).
• Through social scientists examinations, they have found that “likeability” is a main factor affecting the successful and accurate eduction of information (Educing, p.23).
• “Social science research suggests that people are more likely to be influenced by the arguments of a person whom they perceive as an authority or an expert” (Educing, p. 23).
• Research suggests that “fear may motivate an enemy source to ‘talk,’ but not necessarily to provide accurate intelligence” (Educing, p.25).
• Research from North America and China show that coercive influence strategies can cause a target to feel disrespected, whereas rational persuasion, or “avoidance of pressure,” can increase the likelihood that a target will interact and commit to the discussion (Educing, p.25).
• Research over the last forty years shows that the use of “mild distraction” during interrogation/interviews “can occupy the target’s attention…diminishing his/her resources available to counter-argue or critically analyze” (Educing, p.29).

 Suggestion by author for eduction of information:  “Constructing a conceptual model of ‘U.S.’ information eduction could provide a platform to label and identify actors, elements, actions, dynamics, and effects to describe and conceptualize the process” (Educing, p.36); therefore, improving accuracy and efficacy of information/confessions given by subjects.

Hamburg, Dr. Margaret A., et al.  Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase 1 Report.  Washington D.C.: National Defense Intelligence College, 2006.