|
How to Extract a Confession...Ethically
Scientists are using social psychology to enhance interrogation methods without force
Credit:
May 2015 Issue
Policy
Last December a Senate Intelligence Committee report revealed how two psychologists were involved in shaping the CIA's “enhanced interrogation” methods, using psychologist Martin Seligman's theory of learned helplessness to justify controversial practices such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation—something Seligman himself has repudiated.* The problem is that in addition to being morally reprehensible, interrogation methods based on force and intimidation don't work.
“Coercive, confrontational methods actually lead to the detainee shutting down,” says psychologist Christian Meissner of Iowa State University, who studies interrogation techniques. “More effective tactics rely on cooperation, which can be facilitated using principles of social influence that we know work very well.”
According to the American Psychological Association, if a psychologist meets certain conditions, chief among them “do no harm,” it is permissible for him or her to aid in interrogations. So is there an ethical way to extract a confession from someone?
To find out, in 2009 President Barack Obama convened the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), made up of cognitive and social psychologists and other experts. This winter the HIG, led by Meissner, released its findings in a special issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology. Ethical interrogations are not only possible; their effectiveness is also robustly supported by research.
At the right are some of the HIG's most interesting findings. Though developed for law enforcement, there is no reason to think these strategies will not also work on the mendacious teens, spouses and co-workers in your life if you need to get to the bottom of something.
1. Build rapport. Think of it as just “good cop.” Researchers have found that coming across as empathetic causes interrogation targets to open up more than when the interrogator is cold and accusatory. Many of the other techniques described in the journal depend on having a cooperative target, making this step all the more important. “The first thing you have to do is develop cooperation, rapport,” Meissner says. “Once you have a cooperative person, the question is, How do I get all the info from them that I can?”
2. Fill in the blank. To get that info, instead of asking direct questions, tell your target a story about what he or she did, leading the person to believe you already know what happened. As you provide the narrative, the guilty party will then supply details and corrections. This is called the Scharff technique, named for its developer, Hanns Scharff, a German interrogator during World War II. The technique was shown to elicit more information than direct questioning in a 2014 study. People interrogated using this method also tend to underestimate how much they are sharing.
3. Surprise them. People who are interrogated often know they are under suspicion, so they practice their answers ahead of time. In addition, liars are under high cognitive strain as they try to keep their story straight and at the same time act calm and collected. If you ask them something unexpected, they often stumble when put on the spot—enabling you to catch them in a lie.
4. Ask for the story backward. In contrast to what most people believe, truth tellers are more likely to add details and revise their stories over time, whereas liars tend to keep their stories the same. “Inconsistency is really just a fundamental aspect of the way memory works,” Meissner says. A technique that interrogators use to capitalize on that quirk is called reverse telling—asking people to recall events backward rather than forward in time. This strategy has a double effect: For truth tellers, it makes recall easier—in another HIG study, reverse telling produced twice as many details as did recounting chronologically. For liars, the task becomes harder when put in reverse; they become more likely to simplify the story or contradict themselves.
5. Withhold evidence until the crucial moment. In a study last March, when people were confronted with potential evidence of their wrongdoing early in the interview, they either clammed up and adopted an extremely hostile posture or immediately spilled their guts, depending on the individual. Rather than risking the former, the researchers advised truth seekers to take a middle path, alluding to evidence without making any direct accusations—at least not right away.
*Erratum (4/15/15): This sentence was edited after publication to correct Martin Seligman's name.
RONI JACOBSON is a science journalist based in New York City who writes about psychology and mental health.
윤리적으로 자백을 받아내는 법
2015년 5월 8일 | By: veritaholic | 과학 | http://newspeppermint.com/?p=32114" data-mce-href="https://newspeppermint.com/2015/05/07/m-interrogation/#disqus_thread" data-mce-style="color: #74c9bb;">1개의 댓글
지난해 겨울, 미국 상원 정보위원회는 두 명의 심리학자가 CIA를 도왔다는 사실을 밝혔습니다. 이들은 물고문이나 수면 방해와 같이 논란이 될 수 있는 행위를 마틴 셀리그만의 학습된 무기력(learned helplessness) 이론으로 보완하는 “강화 심문(enhanced interrogation)” 기술을 만드는 데 도움을 주었습니다. *셀리그만 본인은 이 기사가 나간 후 자신의 이론과 고문의 관계를 부인했습니다. 문제는 폭력과 위협에 의한 심문은 도덕적으로도 옳지 않을 뿐 아니라 그 자체로 먹히지 않는다는 점입니다.
“적대적이고 강압적인 심문은 상대의 입을 다물게 만들 뿐입니다.” 심문에 대해 연구하는 아이오와 주립대학의 심리학자 크리스찬 마이스너의 말입니다. “우리가 잘 아는 사회적 영향(social influence)의 원칙들을 사용하는, 협력에 기반한 전략들이 훨씬 더 효과적입니다.”
미국심리학회(APA)는 심리학자들이 “직접적으로 해를 끼치지 않는다”와 같은 몇 가지 조건을 만족할 경우, 심문을 돕는 것을 허용하고 있습니다. 그렇다면, 누군가에게서 윤리적으로 자백을 받아내는 방법이 존재할까요?
이를 위해 오바마 대통령은 2009년 인지 및 사회 심리학자들과 전문가들로 구성된 “주요 용의자 심문 위원회(HIG)”를 발족시켰습니다. 이들은 자신들의 연구결과를 지난 겨울 “응용인지심리학(Applied Cognitive Psychology)”에 발표했습니다. 이들은 윤리적 심문이 가능할 뿐 아니라, 이를 지지하는 많은 연구들이 있다고 밝혔습니다.
아래는 그 결과들입니다. 비록 이 방법들은 범죄자를 대상으로 개발된 것이지만, 방황하는 10대나 의심스런 배우자, 정보를 숨긴듯한 직장 동료들에게도 통하지 않을 이유는 없겠지요.
(사이언티픽 아메리칸)
|