Most North American interrogation techniques are rooted in adversarial or accusatorial underpinnings.¹ They are often domineering, use emotional leverage, minimize personal involvement, and attempt to pierce through resistance by challenging the subject with a twisted form of logic-based evidence,² whether true or contrived. This article will present a different approach for investigators to consider that is based on empathy and trust.

Flawed Tactic

There are several primary problems with an adversarial interrogation.

Resistance and Vulnerability

Common sense dictates that accusing a guilty person of a crime will probably make them become guarded or ask for a lawyer. Even rapport-based strategies supplementing an accusatorial approach are likely to fail against a wall of defensiveness and survival mechanisms. On the other hand, an innocent person may feel that salvation rests with giving in to such a tactic, even if just for temporary reprieve from the harshness intrinsic to custodial interrogations.³

False Confessions

Research has strongly associated adversarial interrogations with false confessions. One study found that 69% of subjects falsely confessed when confronted with psychologically manipulative and deceptive tactics.⁴ Although false confession rates are difficult to objectively verify, research on DNA exonerations determined that upward of 30% of those cases involved false confessions.⁵

There are two types of false confessions. Coerced-compliant false confessions involve innocent people who transition from denial to confession because they believe doing so will help them avoid a more stringent punishment or escape the overwhelming oppression of the interrogation. Alternately, coerced-internalized false confessions stem from innocent people who internalize interrogators’ misleading arguments, such as minimizing the subject’s involvement, rationalizing their behavior, or inferring their guilt using false or circumstantial evidence. This confusion can lead to the misinterpretation of real memories or even the creation of false ones to support this inference.⁶

Incorporation

Antagonistic interrogations manipulate the subject and rely heavily on instinct or imperfect notions of detecting deception. Much like conversations in real life, if an interviewer uses exploitive tactics only superficially grounded in rapport, the interaction comes across as disingenuous. Once the interviewee deduces this, any previously obtained trust is lost, and the defensive wall is resurrected once again.

New Approach

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG),⁷ an entity comprising the FBI, CIA, and U.S. Department of Defense, funds research each year to study the science of interviewing and interrogation. This data has identified key concepts that now form the foundation for all HIG interviews — namely, that the primary way to increase intelligence yield is to treat the interviewee with empathy, respect, and genuine curiosity.

Underlying this approach is a theoretical concept rooted in motivational interviewing (MI), changing the dynamic of the interrogation and allowing for a conversational mindset instead of one based on tricks or tactics.

MI originated from drug addiction therapy practices, during which the therapist attempts to elicit positive behavioral changes in the client. Like clinical interviews, law enforcement and intelligence officers should expose contradictions in subjects’ belief systems that form internal pressures. These are referred to as cognitive dissonance points, which can then be further explored and resolved, eventually leading to practical intelligence- or investigative-focused dialogue.

Goal-oriented discussions, established in a nonaccusatory, empathetic, and open-minded ethos, pave the way for increased intelligence yield and decreased use of counterinterrogation techniques. One study found that interviewers who built and maintained rapport were five times more likely to obtain either a comprehensive account or a confession from a subject.⁸

In a practical sense, there are five fundamentals of MI, referred to with HIG’s mnemonic, 3A2E.

1. Acceptance
2. Autonomy
3. Adaptation
4. Empathy
5. Evocation

These principles provide the pillars for empathetic conversations and can be applied on a virtually universal basis.⁹

Acceptance

Interviewers should display unconditional respect toward the interviewee. Acceptance forms the basis for rapport, without judgment or bias, between the participants.

While acceptance relies on the relationship and discourse between the interviewer and interviewee, it should not be confused with complicity or agreement with the subject’s behavior. One should have a positive regard for the interviewee’s position without condoning it as fact.

Autonomy

During interrogations, interviewers should emphasize to subjects that the decision to talk or cooperate is their personal choice and that they will not face coercion, force, or manipulation if they continue.

If the interviewee’s basic freedom is restricted or lost, a cognitive dissonance will often form, resulting in various semblances of self-defense mechanisms and resistance.¹⁰ As expected, self-determination, even with a decision as simple as whether to talk, can be powerful in establishing rapport and trust.

Adaptation

Law enforcement interviews often follow a rigid question and answer format. Unfortunately, this transactional template does not allow for a varied approach toward answers.

The human brain contains millions of neural pathways coalescing through diverse pathways and domains.¹¹ An interviewer can often find better results with a more holistic method of obtaining comprehensive answers by responding to the interviewee’s ideas and trains of thought, adapting to the flow of the conversation and carefully guiding it toward the desired outcome.¹²

Empathy

In many definitions, empathy and rapport are synonymous. However, depending on one’s stance, empathy can be considered deeper than basic rapport. If the interviewer is genuinely attempting to discern the subject’s point of view, the latter will accept the attempt as a foundation for understanding and respect, readily establishing a shared positive regard.

As with acceptance, empathy should not be confused with sympathy. While it is vitally important to conceptualize the interviewee’s motives, one should not condone the person’s beliefs and actions. This kind of thinking can sometimes lead to biases that may negatively influence the direction and outcome of the interview.

Evocation

The final cornerstone of MI involves drawing out the interviewee’s motives or beliefs without manifesting one’s internal biases. Evocation is one of the more nuanced principles of MI. An interviewer can evoke an automatic response based on the subject’s internalized, culturally grounded norms and expectations.¹³ For example, a reciprocated handshake is often an automatic reaction in North American cultural norms, contrasted to a bow in some Asian cultures.

Conversely, an interviewer could attempt more deliberate evocations.

• Double-sided reflection: Occurs when the interrogator creates a contrast between the subject’s statements or against known evidence.
• Reframing: Involves rephrasing an interviewee’s statement to attempt to understand their perspective while also potentially evoking expansion on the current topic or subtly guiding the conversation in a different direction.
• Amplification: Pushes the content slightly beyond what the subject has said to provoke further discussion or clarification.¹⁴

Conclusion

The difference between mainstream law enforcement interviews and those founded on motivational interviewing is clear. While transactional or adversarial interrogations still have their place, the best method for intelligence and information gathering is to treat people with dignity, respect, and empathy. Mutual respect is a universal concept, and when someone’s freedom, or even their life, is on the line, that respect can mean everything.