The Truth Detector: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide for Getting People to Reveal the Truth (The Like Switch Series, Band 2) - Softcover

Über die Autorinnen und Autoren

John R. “Jack” Schafer, PhD, is a psychologist, professor, intelligence consultant, and former FBI Special Agent. Dr. Schafer spent fifteen years conducting counter-intelligence and counterterrorism investigations, and seven years as a behavioral analyst for the FBI’s National Security Division’s Behavioral Analysis Program. He developed spy recruitment techniques, interviewed terrorists, and trained agents in the art of interrogation and persuasion. Dr. Schafer contributes online pieces for Psychology Today Magazine, has authored/coauthored six books, and has published numerous articles in professional and popular journals. He is a professor with the School of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice at Western Illinois University.

Marvin Karlins received his PhD in psychology from Princeton University and is currently Professor of Management at the University of South Florida’s College of Business Administration. Dr. Karlins consults internationally on issues of interpersonal effectiveness and has also authored twenty-four books, including two national bestsellers, What Every Body Is Saying and It’s a Jungle in There. He resides in Riverview, Florida, with his wife, Edyth, and daughter, Amber.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Chapter 1: So Much for Shredders

CHAPTER 1 So Much for Shredders

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

GALILEO GALILEI

The desire to know if someone is lying or telling the truth is as old as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. And why not? How we act, how successful we are—even our survival—can be profoundly impacted by our ability to determine if information is true or false.

During my two decades as a special agent for the FBI, my job was to assess whether suspects, witnesses, and spies were withholding critical information and/or telling lies that could have far-reaching implications for the safety of specific individuals and, in some cases, the security of the entire country.

The question became: What was the best way to get truthful information from persons of interest? The traditional approach involved attempting to determine if the person was lying in the first place. This involved using mechanical devices (polygraph machines), physical observation (watching for nonverbal cues of deception), and various forms of interrogation designed to get the targeted individual to admit his or her dishonesty. But there was a problem with this approach: Even if it was successful in determining a person’s veracity, it came at a high cost. When people become aware that their honesty is being challenged, their “shields” go up, and whenever that happens, they are unlikely to voluntarily reveal the information they know. In fact, the opposite occurs: these individuals “clam up,” “lawyer up,” or “dummy up,” making any attempt to get information out of them a daunting if not impossible task. Thus, what happened when the traditional approach was used was that investigators could sometimes tell if certain information was true but lost the chance to discover other information that might have been even more valuable.

This made me and a group of my colleagues wonder if there was a better way to get people to reveal true information before they went into lying mode. I suspected that if individuals were not aware that I was trying to get critical information from them, they would be more likely to reveal it. Only if they became cognizant of my intentions would they become defensive, raise their shields, and begin withholding information and telling lies. Our strategy, then, was to get to the truth before the lies—in other words, extract the relevant information from a person of interest without them becoming aware of our intentions. If this could be achieved, the credibility of the information would almost always be solid and we could obtain it without the person shifting into information-withholding, lie-generating mode.

ELICITATION: LEARN THE TRUTH BEFORE THE LIE

Noting the flaws in the traditional interrogation techniques, I worked with my colleagues to come up with less confrontational techniques based on psychology and natural human behaviors as opposed to the more confrontational, old-school law enforcement interviewing techniques currently being used. The result was the noninvasive approach of elicitation—so named because it was designed to elicit the truth rather than detect lies. Elicitation techniques are relatively easy to master, because it is based on normal behaviors people rely on during conversations. Over my career I developed several elicitation techniques designed to extract information. These involve a conversational style whereby you use words in a way that encourages people to reveal the truth without them becoming aware of what you are attempting to accomplish. I will be teaching you these techniques in the coming chapters, but first I think it may help you understand elicitation more clearly if I present you with some historical perspective on how the technique was developed.

CREATING THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT FOR ELICITATION

Possibly the most famous pioneer in using elicitation-style strategy was Hanns-Joachim Scharff (1907–1992). He worked for the German Luftwaffe at the intelligence and evaluation center in Oberursel, Germany, and became one of the most successful interrogators during World War II.

Scharff’s interrogation techniques deviated from those used by the feared German Gestapo. The Gestapo used emotional pain, physical deprivation, and authority in attempting to gain intelligence. Conversely, Scharff was noted for his friendly, conversational interrogation approach. He created a nonthreatening, noninvasive, comfortable environment wherein he rarely asked specific questions. In almost all cases Scharff would take his targets for a walk around the airfield with no guards nearby and engage them in what they thought was a casual conversation. His technique became known as the “change-of-scene” approach: giving his prisoner the impression that they were safe speaking to him. Since they then believed that this was not an interrogation, they felt more comfortable talking and telling the truth. Scharff wanted them to regard the interrogation room as the only place that an interrogation took place. He also created the illusion that he knew more information than he did. He would present information and then simply wait for the prisoner to either confirm or deny his statement.

After the war ended and the prisoners were repatriated, one of them commented, “You would impulsively pop off and correct him [Scharff]—probably this was one of his tactics.I Prisoners were more willing to confirm information they believed was already known for several reasons. First, they wanted to give the impression of minimal cooperation to avoid harsher interrogation techniques. Second, prisoners rationalized that no harm could be done if they merely corroborated information the enemy already knew as opposed to providing previously unknown information.

Scharff often told long, detailed stories, giving the prisoners the impression that he knew all, when in fact he knew very little. In the process of confirming information, prisoners often provided new details. To confuse the prisoners even further, Scharff’s conversational technique camouflaged the objectives of his interrogation. Scharff did not press prisoners for information but rather created a conversational environment wherein they were inclined to speak freely. When prisoners provided new information, Scharff would act as if he already knew what they were talking about and that the information was of little importance. As Scharff’s interrogations continued, it became clear over time that the information prisoners provided in response to his friendly approach was more likely to be truthful. They were not trained to resist Scharff’s congenial interrogation techniques and revealed critical intelligence information without realizing they were supplying details they would not have revealed under harsher interrogation techniques.

On one occasion Scharff was tasked with finding out why American fighter aircraft machine guns fired tracer bullets of a certain color. During a conversation with an American pilot held in a prisoner-of-war camp, Scharff casually brought up the subject. He made a presumptive statement (a form of elicitation; See Chapter 4), giving the pilot the illusion that he already knew the reason for the different-colored tracers. Unwittingly, the pilot revealed the true purpose of the bullets, which was simple: The different color was used to let pilots know when their ammunition was running low. The Germans were much relieved to obtain this...