Validity and effectiveness of interrogation techniques: A meta-analytic review.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Military Psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1080/08995605.2024.2324622
Stefan Tribbels, Moritz Michels
{"title":"Validity and effectiveness of interrogation techniques: A meta-analytic review.","authors":"Stefan Tribbels, Moritz Michels","doi":"10.1080/08995605.2024.2324622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The gathering of information through the use of interrogation techniques in the context of <i>human intelligence</i> (HUMINT) has a long and elusive history within applied settings of law enforcement and the military and civilian intelligence/counterterrorism community. However, psychological research has yet to catch up to systematically address pressing matters regarding the validity and effectiveness of common interrogation methods and a conceptual framework for relevant psychological factors. A promising, comprehensive contribution is the <i>Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods</i> (ToIM), which aims to integrate multiple approaches within the field of interrogation. In this paper, we utilized the ToIM model as a foundation for a meta-analytic review on the validity and effectiveness of interrogation techniques. We systematically integrated the existing evidence from 60 studies in order to determine which techniques from six domains of the ToIM produce valuable information. The results indicate that <i>Rapport and Relationship Building</i>, <i>Presentation of Evidence</i> and <i>Cognitive Facilitation</i> (an additional domain beyond the ToIM) are valid approaches to optimize both the amount of information gathered as well as its accuracy. The evidence is insufficient to conclude the effectiveness of techniques from the other four domains. Overall, the results are in line with the general notion in the field that a positive relationship with a suspect/source is the key to gather valuable information.</p>","PeriodicalId":18696,"journal":{"name":"Military Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2024.2324622","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The gathering of information through the use of interrogation techniques in the context of human intelligence (HUMINT) has a long and elusive history within applied settings of law enforcement and the military and civilian intelligence/counterterrorism community. However, psychological research has yet to catch up to systematically address pressing matters regarding the validity and effectiveness of common interrogation methods and a conceptual framework for relevant psychological factors. A promising, comprehensive contribution is the Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods (ToIM), which aims to integrate multiple approaches within the field of interrogation. In this paper, we utilized the ToIM model as a foundation for a meta-analytic review on the validity and effectiveness of interrogation techniques. We systematically integrated the existing evidence from 60 studies in order to determine which techniques from six domains of the ToIM produce valuable information. The results indicate that Rapport and Relationship Building, Presentation of Evidence and Cognitive Facilitation (an additional domain beyond the ToIM) are valid approaches to optimize both the amount of information gathered as well as its accuracy. The evidence is insufficient to conclude the effectiveness of techniques from the other four domains. Overall, the results are in line with the general notion in the field that a positive relationship with a suspect/source is the key to gather valuable information.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审讯技巧的有效性和有效性:元分析审查。
在人类情报(HUMINT)的背景下,通过使用审讯技巧收集信息,在执法和军事及民间情报/反恐界的应用环境中有着悠久而难以捉摸的历史。然而,心理学研究尚未跟上步伐,系统地解决有关常用审讯方法的有效性和有效性以及相关心理因素的概念框架等紧迫问题。审讯方法分类法(ToIM)是一个很有前途的综合贡献,它旨在整合审讯领域的多种方法。在本文中,我们以 ToIM 模型为基础,对审讯技巧的有效性和有效性进行了元分析综述。我们系统地整合了来自 60 项研究的现有证据,以确定 ToIM 六个领域中哪些技术能产生有价值的信息。结果表明,拉近关系和建立关系、出示证据和认知促进(ToIM 以外的另一个领域)是优化信息收集量及其准确性的有效方法。至于其他四个领域的技术是否有效,目前还没有足够的证据。总体而言,研究结果符合该领域的普遍观点,即与嫌疑人/信息来源建立积极的关系是收集有价值信息的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Military Psychology
Military Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Military Psychology is the quarterly journal of Division 19 (Society for Military Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. The journal seeks to facilitate the scientific development of military psychology by encouraging communication between researchers and practitioners. The domain of military psychology is the conduct of research or practice of psychological principles within a military environment. The journal publishes behavioral science research articles having military applications in the areas of clinical and health psychology, training and human factors, manpower and personnel, social and organizational systems, and testing and measurement.
期刊最新文献
A qualitative assessment of perceptions of gender-based stigma among US Marine Corps officers in training. Are veterans willing to assist with firearm safety for suicide prevention? Associations among psychological health problems, intimate-relationship problems, and suicidal ideation among United States Air Force active-duty personnel. Fluid teams. Low psychological resilience and physical fitness predict attrition from US Marine Corps Officer Candidate School training.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1