Search

Studies on the collection of information (intelligence) show the effectiveness of the Scharff technique and the principle of reciprocity. These two aspects have never been considered at the same time. In the present experiment, we compared the effect of two different forms of reciprocity (intrinsic vs. instrumental) and their combination on the elicitation of information in Scharff interviews. Participants were asked to imagine that an interview took place and were exposed to four reciprocity conditions (no reciprocity, intrinsic reciprocity, instrumental reciprocity, intrinsic and instrumental reciprocity). The results showed that instrumental reciprocity resulted in more information than intrinsic reciprocity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Hanns Scharff, an interrogator during the Second World War, was known for his remarkable effectiveness at collecting intelligence from prisoners of war using a friendly, conversational approach in which he led the prisoners to unknowingly reveal the information he wanted. In the last decade, psychologists have produced a body of experimental studies testing the effectiveness of Scharff's interrogation technique. Here, I provide a meta‐analytic review of that experimental research. The existing data supports the conclusions that the present conceptualization of Scharff's technique is effective at eliciting more new information, leading people to perceive the interviewer as more knowledgeable, and inducing people to underestimate how much information they have revealed. However, numerous unanswered questions and challenges for this program of research remain. For example, future research may benefit from examining unaddressed elements of the methods Scharff used in the field. Research would also benefit from the development of measures that more clearly correspond to practical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]