Editing KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator (section)

== Saving Face: Helping the Source to Concede==
Another key to the successful interrogation of the resisting source is the provision of an acceptable rationalization for yielding. As regression proceeds, almost all resisters feel the growing internal stress that results from wanting simultaneously to conceal and divulge...To escape the mounting tension, the source may grasp at any face-saving reason for compliance— any explanation which will placate both his own conscience and the possible wrath of former superiors and associates if he is returned to [his place of origin]. It is the business of the interrogator to provide the right rationalization at the right time. Here too the importance of understanding the interrogatee is evident; the right rationalization must be an excuse or reason that is tailored to the source’s personality.54

52 Essentially, the Law of Requisite Variety states that the greater the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the variety of perturbations (i.e., challenges to its control) for which it is able to compensate. (Source: Principia Cybernetic Web, URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/REQVAR.html )
53 Richardson, The Magic of Rapport, 15-17.
54 KUBARK, 41.

This point highlights a central, two-dimensional element of the interrogation process. At a fundamental level, the challenge for the interrogator is to make it as difficult (and unattractive) as possible for the source to resist and/or make it as easy (and attractive) as possible for the source to cooperate. Choice of the component upon which to focus is driven by both individual and contextual factors. With regard to the former, the interrogator must judiciously select the strategy that presents the greatest promise of success given a specific source — a decision based on extended observation and assessment. At the same time, the choice of strategy should enable the interrogator to most effectively leverage his or her personal strengths, professional experience, skills in the range of interrogation tradecraft, and language ability. Concurrently, a number of circumstantial variables must be assiduously considered, to include the time available for the interrogation (or series of interrogations), the nature of the existing information requirements, the physical setting, and the operational/intelligence information available about the source, his organization, and activities. The calculus involved represents a subset of the KUBARK concept noted above.
From a social science perspective, this dynamic suggests the possibility of several behavioral theories at work, including approach/avoidance (Lewin, 1935)55 and bind-strain (Milgram, 1974).56 Exploration of these two theories (and perhaps others) might explain, at least in part, the compliance-resistance dilemma facing the source, and uncover methods for shaping the source’s behavior.

The Alternative Question57 methodology frequently employed in law enforcement interrogations specifically seeks to present the source with what the [[KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation|KUBARK manual]] describes as an “acceptable rationalization for yielding.” Offering an attractive option other than outright confession to a heinous crime, the alternative question allows the source to “save face” by agreeing with the interrogator’s characterization of the criminal behavior as inherently positive in intent or objective.58
While often effective in eliciting a confession, the alternative question method may be problematic when it comes to collecting intelligence information. In presenting a source with two possible “alternatives” (e.g., “Did you plan to use C4 or Semtex as the explosive in that device?”), the interrogator runs the risk of

55 As first described by Dr. Kurt Lewin, approach-avoidance conflict results from the stress of simultaneous attraction to and repulsion by the same goal.

56 In Dr. Stanley Milgram’s Model of Obedience, individuals may bind to an authority figure through reinforcing acts of obedience (and thereby externalize responsibility for specific acts), yet also encounter role strain when that obedient behavior becomes uncomfortable (e.g., when the acts violate the individual’s personal moral values or when bringing harm to another contradicts the individual’s self-image).

57 An alternative question is a question that presents two or more possible answers and presupposes that only one is true.
58 An example of an alternative question might be, “Did you start the fire at your company because you wanted to hurt people or as a way of calling attention to the fact that your contributions to the company have been consistently ignored for many years and you felt you had no other options available to you?” Regardless of how an individual responds, there is an admission of guilt.
   110

undermining the objectivity and accuracy of the information obtained. In contrast, an open-ended question (e.g., “What type of explosive did you plan to use in that device?”) requires the source to answer on the basis of his personal experience/ knowledge, without the benefit of clues or restrictions contained in the question.