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

=== The Need to Communicate ===
...continued questioning about lofty topics that the source knows nothing about may pave the way for the extraction of information at lower levels...complaints that he knows nothing of such matters are met by flat insistence that he does know, he would have to know, that even the most stupid men in his position know...after the process has continued long enough, the source was asked a question to which he did know the answer. Numbers of [former] American [POWs] have mentioned “the tremendous feeling of relief you get when [the interrogator] finally asks you something you can answer...I know it seems strange now, but I was positively grateful to them when they switched to a topic I knew something about.”

In yet another example of the many conundrums of the interrogation room, common sense would suggest that sources would find an advantage in being asked questions concerning topics about which they knew little or nothing. Such circumstances do not place them in a position where they felt pressure to deceive (“falsify”) or purposely withhold (“conceal”) information. As reported by U.S. POWs who were subjected to this manner of questioning during the Korean War, however, it often proved true that the inability to answer questions created tremendous pressure and, as the quotation above illustrates, the opportunity finally to address questions within the scope of their experience and knowledgeability proved a welcome relief. The need to communicate is surprisingly powerful, and more powerful still under traumatic circumstances.

Cialdini provides another perspective that may be a relevant factor at play in this approach. In his rejection-then-retreat scenario, when one asks for something difficult (a request that might often be denied) and then asks for something less demanding, the compliance rate for the lesser demand is higher when the demand is preceded by the more difficult demand than when the questions are asked in isolation.86 In the context of interrogation, a source may be reluctant to answer sweeping questions about organizational plans and intentions, but, in contrast, may be less guarded about lower-level details. Although declining to answer questions about strategic-level topics, the source may feel less pressure to keep from answering questions about tactical-level topics.

Taking into account Cialdini’s consistency principle (i.e., people tend to act in a manner consistent with formal, public statements made or positions taken previously),87 this strategy would probably work more effectively when the interrogator asks the strategic-level question, but, sensing hesitation on the part of the source, withdraws it before the source has the chance to resist. If allowed to formally assume a resistance posture, the pressure to remain consistent with that decision may have a greater influence than the relief gained from being able to respond to a question with which the source is more comfortable.
What internal dialogue takes place within a source in response to various approaches? Can Cialdini’s principles of persuasion explain, at least in part, why a given approach elicits compliance from a source? Do certain trends in behavior in the interrogation room prove valid in a sufficient number of cases that they can be routinely employed with a high degree of probability of ultimately proving effective? The review of available literature strongly suggests that these critical questions, and others, have not been satisfactorily addressed with regard to the traditional approaches and other tactics, techniques, and procedures still being employed. The move to the next generation of strategies for educing information depends on research that can uncover the answer to these questions. Once this has been accomplished, ineffective methods can be eliminated from the training curricula and replaced by innovative strategies complete with a valid description of the underlying factors that are essential to success.

85 KUBARK, 72. KUBARK, 75.

86 Cialdini, 36–51.
87 Cialdini, 57–113.

<div id="Alice in Wonderland"></div>