Search

Research on investigative interviewing has only recently started to compare the efficacy of different techniques for gathering intelligence from human sources. So far the research has focused exclusively on sources interviewed once, thus overlooking that most sources are interviewed multiple times. The present study attempts to remedy this gap in the literature. Students (N = 66) took on the role of semi-cooperative sources, holding incomplete information about an upcoming terrorist attack. The sources were informed that they would be interviewed at least once, and that additional interviews might follow. Half of the sources were interviewed on three occasions with the Scharff technique (consisting of five tactics), and the other half was interviewed on three occasions using the so-called direct approach (i.e. open-ended and specific questions). Collapsing the outcome over the three interviews, the Scharff technique resulted in significantly more new information compared to the direct approach. Furthermore, sources interviewed by the direct approach overestimated how much new information they had revealed, whereas the sources interviewed by the Scharff technique underestimated their contribution (although not significantly so). The current study advances previous research by further contextualizing the tests of the efficacy of human intelligence gathering techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The present study examines non-coercive interview techniques aimed for eliciting intelligence from human sources. Two versions of the Scharff technique were compared against the direct approach (a combination of open-ended and specific questions). The Scharff conditions were conceptualised into four tactics and differed with respect to when the confirmation tactic was implemented: before or after an initial open-ended question. Participants (n= 93) took the role of a source in a phone interview and were instructed to strike a balance between not revealing too little or too much information. In general, the Scharff technique outperformed the direct approach on all important measures. The sources in the Scharff conditions revealed more new information, and found it more difficult to understand the interviewer's information objectives. Importantly, the sources interviewed by the Scharff technique underestimated how much new information they revealed, whereas the sources interviewed by the direct approach overestimated the amount of new information revealed. Although no clear order effects of the Scharff tactics were found, we introduce an alternative method for implementing the confirmation tactic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]