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

== Nonverbal Communication ==
Human beings communicate a great deal by non-verbal means. Skilled interrogators, for example, listen closely to voices and learn a great deal from them. An interrogation is not merely a verbal performance; it is a vocal performance, and the voice projects tension, fear, a dislike of certain topics, and other useful pieces of information. It is also helpful to watch the subject’s mouth, which is as a rule much more revealing than his eyes. Gestures and postures tell a story. If a subject normally gesticulates broadly at times and is at other times physically relaxed but at some point sits stiffly motionless, his posture is likely to be the physical image of his mental tension. The interrogator should make a mental note of the topic that caused such a reaction.69

The role of nonverbal cues in the communication process is almost universally recognized. Some researchers (Mehrabian, 1971) have suggested that as much as 90% of communication is transmitted via nonverbal channels (i.e., gestures, vocal modalities, etc.). At the same time, the underlying meaning of specific physical gestures and vocal qualities seems subject to passionate debate. Crossing his arms means he is closed and defiant! Her posture of leaning forward indicates she is listening and engaged in the idea being presented to her. While the social science literature is filled with numerous — and often conflicting — studies on nonverbal communication, professionals who work in the interpersonal context (e.g., counselors, salespersons, interrogators, etc.) often rely heavily upon their understanding of nonverbal behavior to complete their work.

At a fundamental level, the process of “reading” body language is not unlike that used in a polygraph examination. The critical first step is to establish a baseline for the person being examined. Just as people show individual variation in blood pressure and heart rate, people similarly exhibit dramatically different gestures and voice inflections to supplement their verbal communications. Familial, regional, and cultural background can have a significant influence on an individual’s repertoire of nonverbal behaviors. At the same time, some researchers, most notably Desmond Morris, suggest there are a number of gestures that consistently communicate the same message across cultural and linguistic boundaries.70

Parallel Worlds: Inside and Outside the Interrogation Room
The history of interrogation is full of confessions and other self- incriminations that were in essence the result of a substitution of the interrogation world for the world outside. In other words,

69 KUBARK, 54–55.
70 See, for example, Desmond Morris, Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior (1979) or
Bodytalk: The Meaning of Human Gestures (1995).

118

as the sights and sounds of an outside world fade away, its significance for the interrogatee tends to do likewise. That world is replaced by the interrogation room, its two occupants, and the dynamic relationship between them. As [the] interrogation goes on, the subject tends increasingly to divulge or withhold in accordance with the values of the interrogation world rather than those of the outside world.71

Inside the interrogation room, the principals (interrogator and source) maneuver through two primary, interdependent spheres: the physical setting and the psychological set. While the source can only realistically influence the latter, the skillful interrogator can actively manipulate both of these elements in a manner designed to achieve the overarching goal of obtaining source compliance. In the effort to induce the source to respond meaningfully to pertinent questions, the underlying strategy set forth in the [[KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation|KUBARK manual]] is systematically to separate the source from anchors of the “outside world” and reset the operative value system to those of the “interrogation world.”

Perhaps the most important understanding for the interrogator to draw from this concept is that forecasting events within the interrogation world is problematic if the prediction is based on trends in the outside world. One excellent example of this conundrum is provided by Orrin DeForest’s experience during the Vietnam War. Common sense would deem it unlikely that a prisoner would willingly complete a written psychological examination (especially one that would subsequently be used in formulating an effective means of exploiting that prisoner). Yet that is precisely what repeatedly occurred.

This opens up tremendous possibilities for creativity on the part of the interrogator. Employing Cialdini’s principle of social proof, for example, the interrogator could convince the source that every one of his co-detainees has cooperated fully with the interrogator (who, operating under the rules of the interrogation world, can assume the persona of the helpful interviewer). Even though experience in the outside world tells the source that his colleagues were disciplined soldiers committed to the cause, as the outside world “fades away” so does his confidence in the assumptions made there.

The most important point to be made in this observation is that the truth of the interrogation room can range widely from that of the outside world. Those involved in the quest for new and better strategies for educing information must remain ever cognizant of this unique phenomenon.