Three Things That Should Be Used to Guide Investigative Interviews by Military and Intelligence Agencies

Abstract

The psychological study of investigative interviewing is over 100 years old (Munsterberg, 1908), with a rich literature and body of knowledge (Drizin and Leo, 2004; Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, & Redlich, 2009). Although behavioral and social science has focused primarily on investigations by police, findings should also be considered by investigators who work for military or intelligence agencies. The state of the science leads to at least three recommendations. First, all investigative interviews should be video-recorded in their entirety, with an equal focus on interviewers and interviewees. Second, rather than seeing interrogation as a method to persuade or coerce an uncooperative subject into confessing, investigators should consider interviews of suspects, victims, witnesses, and sources as investigative interviews, with a common goal of finding the truth. Third, because investigators do not really know which interviewees are guilty (have guilty knowledge) and which are not (do not), no law-enforcement, military, or intelligence-agency interrogator should ever use a technique on a “presumed-guilty” suspect that would not be appropriate for use with an innocent person.