Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 19, No. 2, 165–178 1076-8971/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030310

A Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods

Christopher E. Kelly, Jeaneé C. Miller, Steven M. Kleinman

and Allison D. Redlich The Soufan Group, New York, New York
University at Albany, State University of New York

With a few notable exceptions, the research on interrogation, suspect interviewing, and intelligence
collection has been predominantly focused on either broad categories of their methods (e.g., information
gathering vs. accusatorial models) or very specific techniques (e.g., using open-ended questions,
appealing to the source’s conscience). The broad categories, however, are not meaningful enough to fully
describe the dynamic between interrogator and subject, whereas the specific techniques may be too
detailed to understand and research the process of interrogation. To remedy this and advance the
academic and operational fields, we identified 71 unique techniques and sorted them into six domains:
Rapport and Relationship Building, Context Manipulation, Emotion Provocation, Collaboration, Con-
frontation/Competition, and Presentation of Evidence. The resulting three-level structure consisting of
broad categories, the six domains, and specific techniques form a taxonomy of interrogation methods. In
addition, we propose a testable model of how the domains may interact in the process of interrogation.
The taxonomy and theoretical model offer heuristic devices for both researchers and practitioners
searching for a parsimonious and more meaningful way to describe, research, and understand the
interviewing and interrogation of those accused of wrong-doing or possessing guilty knowledge.

Keywords: interrogation, interviewing, intelligence collection, suspects

Interrogation methods, whether employed in a law-enforcement,
counterterrorism or military context, have garnered a great deal of
attention in the past decade from policymakers, practitioners,
scholars, and the general public. The relative prevalence of false
confessions and the controversial use of coercive practices have
highlighted attention on a single, overarching question: What
strategies and techniques are (and are not) objectively effective in
eliciting reliable information from suspected offenders, detainees,
or sources? In part, because of the attention and controversy, the
amount of academic scholarship on interviewing and interrogation
has increased exponentially in the past 25 years, creating a vast, if
disparate, literature on effective techniques.
Psychologists and other scholars interested in interrogation have
focused on answering the question above, and to a great degree
they have been successful at discovering effective—and ineffec-
tive—methods of interrogation. Their successes, however, have
led to an embarrassment of riches of sorts. Because of the enor-
mous amount of empirical evidence that has been generated in the
past several decades, the field has become inundated with confus-
ing terminology and the process of interrogation has been ne-
glected in favor of discrete actions on the part of operators in the
interrogation room. The purpose of the present undertaking, then,
This article was published Online First February 4, 2013.
Christopher E. Kelly, Jeaneé C. Miller, and Allison D. Redlich, School
of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York;
Steven M. Kleinman, The Soufan Group, New York, New York.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christo-
pher E. Kelly, 135 Western Avenue, Draper Hall 241-C, Albany, NY
12222. E-mail: ckelly@albany.edu
is not to answer the central question about effectiveness posed
above, but rather, to attempt to impose order on the vastness of
knowledge that has come before it and to reframe the issues such
that researchers and practitioners can make sensible use of this
crucial knowledge.
When describing interrogation and criminal interviewing meth-
ods, the techniques examined in the research to date typically fall
at a broad or at a specific level. On the one hand, the broad
categories often fall into generic either– or dichotomies: minimi-
zation versus maximization; accusatorial versus information gath-
ering; friendly versus harsh; rapport- versus control-based (e.g.,
Horgan, Russano, Meissner, & Evans, 2012; Inbau, Reid, Buckley,
& Jayne, 2013; Meissner, Redlich, Brandon, & Bhatt, 2012). On
the other hand, specific techniques, such as touching the suspect in
a friendly manner, appealing to religion, yelling, or using open-
ended questions, can be (and often are) sorted into one of the
either– or dichotomies, depending on the aim of the technique
(e.g., Kassin & McNall, 1991; Russano, Meissner, Narchet, &
Kassin, 2005). Whereas the research on specific techniques has
been instrumental in helping to identify precise tactics that are
better able to produce accurate and reliable confessions or generate
human intelligence, the broader categories have been useful to-
ward advancing our understanding of interrogation and interview-
ing in the most generic of terms.
What is lacking in the interrogation and interviewing literature,
however, is a fundamental taxonomic structure. Going from the
macrolevel of very broad categories to the microlevel of very
specific techniques potentially overlooks a level of organization
that could be useful to researchers studying interrogation and
operators applying methods in the field. Taxonomy, which is the
science of classification, organizes what is known about a phe-

165
166 KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN
nomenon in such a fashion that is accessible and sensible to
consumers of the information. It systematizes established obser-
vations that are heuristic in nature for the researcher and can assist
in the decision-making processes for the operator. In this paper,
our primary goal is to contribute to the science of interrogation by
establishing a mesolevel of interrogation, consisting of domains
between the broad dualistic categories and the numerous specific
interrogation techniques. The resulting three-level structure forms
a taxonomy of interrogation methods.
Because a mesolevel has the potential to offer a better way to
study and describe the methods of interrogation, a secondary aim
here is to propose a process model of interrogation. Whereas two
competing paradigms of interrogation (e.g., accusatorial vs. infor-
mation gathering) contribute very little toward a meaningful de-
scription of the dynamic between the interrogator and the source,
scores of individual techniques can be too detailed for one to
accurately understand or capture the process that occurs during an
interrogation. In contrast, the mesolevel interrogation domains
may provide a useful, parsimonious structure with which scholars
and operators can study, analyze, and influence interrogations. As
such, after the mesolevel domains have been introduced and de-
fined, we propose a testable theoretical model of how the interro-
gation domains may interact with and follow one another. The
result of this paper, we hope, is to influence both the current
practice of interrogation and the scientific study of it.
Prior to reviewing existing research on interrogation methods, a
note on terminology is warranted. A generic terminology is most
appropriate, as the taxonomy and process model are intended to
apply across criminal, counterterrorism, military, and human in-
telligence (HUMINT) contexts. In this paper, “techniques” is used
as a catch-all term that refers to individual methods of information
gathering that have elsewhere been described as approaches, tac-
tics, or procedures of interrogation. Likewise, “interrogation” is
the generic term used for all manners of directed information
gathering, including interviewing, investigation, or HUMINT col-
lection. The individual conducting the interrogation is referred to
here as the “operator,” a label that may be applied to the interro-
gator, detective, intelligence officer, and so forth. Finally, the term
“source” is employed to identify the subject of the interrogation—
the individual to whom techniques are applied—referred to in
various spheres as the suspect, detainee, or defendant. Although
the proposed mesolevel domains and process model may be ap-
plicable to witnesses and victims based on the research specific to
these actors, we are only concerned with the interrogation of
individuals accused of some wrongdoing, including those possible
conspirators in possession of information about wrongdoing.
Moreover, the concepts introduced here are intended to be relevant
to both cooperative and uncooperative sources, though in future
empirical evaluations of the process model of interrogation, dis-
tinctive pathways may be uncovered for cooperative and uncoop-
erative individuals.
Broad Interrogation Categories
Some of the most widely cited literature on interrogation orga-
nizes techniques into general categories based on the intended
outcome or the underlying purpose. For example, one of the most
prominent broad classifications of interrogation techniques is min-
imization and maximization, first introduced by Kassin and
McNall (1991). Minimization and maximization are most often
described as packages of techniques (Horgan et al., 2012; Russano
et al., 2005) under which specific tactics may be categorized.
Minimization is based on principles of friendliness and attempts to
gain a subject’s cooperation by minimizing the seriousness of the
offense. It includes techniques like expressing sympathy and pro-
viding excuses that lessen the subject’s culpability. In contrast,
maximization seeks to emphasize the seriousness of the offense
and intimidate the subject. Maximization includes techniques like
directly accusing the subject, disallowing denials, and bluffing or
lying about evidence.
A second dichotomy into which interrogation tactics are divided
within the literature is humane versus dominant techniques. Ac-
cording to Häkkänen, Ask, Kebbell, Alison, and Granhag (2009),
dominant techniques are based on principles of hostility, aggres-
siveness, and condemnation. On the other hand, humane tech-
niques are more strongly related to principles of sensitivity and
empathy (see also Holmberg & Christianson, 2002). Techniques
classified into the dominant category include striving for confron-
tation, exhibiting a hostile attitude, and being silent after the source
has answered a question. Techniques classified into the humane
category include exhibiting a friendly attitude, striving for coop-
eration, and displaying calm behavior. These two categories are
considered discrete and often in opposition to one another.
A third dichotomy is the information-gathering model versus the
accusatorial model (see Meissner et al., 2012). The information-
gathering method uses techniques that seek to extract accurate
intelligence from subjects. As demonstrated in Britain’s PEACE
model (Planning & Preparation, Engage & Explain, Account,
Closure, Evaluation), this method is based upon rapport, respect,
and prohibits the use of deception and psychological manipulation
on the part of the operator (Schollum, 2005). It is often referred to
as a “fact-finding” mission that does not presume guilt, but instead
uses open-ended questions to discern the truth. It is associated with
the operator actively listening to the subject and developing rap-
port. In contrast, the accusatorial method of interrogation presumes
guilt, seeks to establish control, and uses psychologically manip-
ulative techniques to confront the source. The main goal of this
approach is to elicit a confession. The United States-based “Reid
technique” is often cited to exemplify the accusatorial approach
(Inbau et al., 2013; www.reid.com). Some techniques associated
with the accusatorial method are isolation, intimidation, disallow-
ing denials, and repetitive questioning. Another difference be-
tween this method and the information-gathering approach is that
the accusatorial method permits the use of deception and lying
(Meissner et al., 2012).
Related to the previous classification is the broad dichotomy of
rapport- versus control-based techniques. Rapport-based tech-
niques are most closely associated with the information-gathering
model of interrogation, while its antithesis is most related to the
accusatorial method. Rapport-based techniques seek to establish a
working relationship between the operator and the source. In
contrast, control-based techniques are those that emphasize the
operator’s authority over the source (see Army Field Manual,
2006; Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010).
As laid out above, no matter the label researchers have put onto
these categories, there appear to be essentially only two. It would
not be unreasonable to collapse the minimization, information-
gathering, humane, and rapport-based categories under one um-
 INTERROGATION TAXONOMY
brella, and maximization, accusatorial, dominant, and control-
based categories in the other.1 Although no one (to our knowledge)
has suggested that operators in practice only use one category of
techniques to the exclusion of the other, the science examining
these classifications has tended to do just that. More specifically,
most laboratory studies have, for instance, pitted maximization
techniques against minimization ones (e.g., Kassin & McNall,
1991; Klaver, Lee, & Rose, 2008; Narchet, Meissner, & Russano,
2011). Our intent is not to criticize these seminal pieces of re-
search, as we fully recognize that laboratory studies offer the
advantage of experimental control and the disadvantage of not
allowing the testing of too many factors simultaneously. Rather,
our intent is to highlight the fact that actual operators use multiple
techniques (e.g., Leo, 1996; Soukara, Bull, Vrij, Turner, & Cher-
ryman, 2009) representing multiple categories.
Specific Interrogation Techniques
In contrast to broad interrogation categories, at the other end of
the spectrum are individual, specific interrogation techniques. For
example, Leo (1996) observed police interrogations in California,
identifying 25 interrogation techniques. Similarly, Soukara et al.
(2009), in reviewing audio recordings of British interrogations,
found 17 distinct interrogation techniques. Though there is some
overlap between these combined 42 techniques, some of the most
commonly used techniques in one are not included in the other. For
example, in Leo’s study, appealing to the subject’s conscience and
undermining the suspect’s confidence in his or her denial of guilt
emerged as frequent tactics, neither of which was observed in the
Soukara et al. analysis, perhaps because of the different broad
interrogation models used by the operators (i.e., Reid-based vs.
information-gathering). Other researchers (e.g., Gudjonsson &
Sigurdsson, 1999), having used a variety of methods, have iden-
tified additional specific techniques, including isolating the suspect
and identifying contradictions in the suspect’s story.
To be sure, previous researchers have sorted interrogation tech-
niques into a smaller but meaningful number of categories. For
example, in surveying North American police investigators about
their interrogation practices, Kassin et al. (2007) asked about 16
interrogation techniques and then conducted a factor analysis,
based on the reported frequency of use. Four factors resulted,
labeled Isolation, Rapport, and Minimization (e.g., appeal to the
source’s self-interest, establish rapport, isolate the source), Con-
frontation (e.g., identify contradictions in the source’s story, inter-
rupt denials), Threatening (e.g., threaten the source, demonstrate
impatience), and Presentation of Evidence (e.g., communicate to
sources that they failed polygraph exams, show sources photo-
graphs related to the incident). Though fairly parsimonious, the
practical usefulness of these groupings is uncertain. This is be-
cause techniques that are not necessarily conceptually related are
grouped together—like establishing rapport and isolating the
source. Though useful for the purposes of determining which
techniques may be used with similar frequency, these four factors
may be less useful for identifying conceptual clusters of interro-
gation tactics.
In another attempt at classification, one which was based on
conceptual similarities, Leo and Liu (2009) created six categories,
derived from Ofshe and Leo’s (1997) process model of interroga-
tion influence. They then sorted 18 identified interrogation tech-
167
niques into the six categories: (a) Accusation/Reaccusation (i.e.,
repeated accusations and prompts to take lie detector test), (b)
Challenging Denials (i.e., repeated claims to suspect that alibi is
false and disallowing denials), (c) Confronting with True Evidence
of Guilt (i.e., truthful claims of failed or inconclusive polygraph),
(d) Confronting with False Evidence of Guilt (i.e., false claims of
failed polygraph, video, DNA, and fingerprint evidence), (e)
Promises of Leniency (i.e., implicit and explicit suggestions of
more lenient charges and sentences), and (f) Threats/Use of Phys-
ical Harm (i.e., implicit and explicit threats of harm, and assault).
These resulting categories, although certainly conceptually fitting
of the 18 techniques, appear to be far too narrow to accommodate
other, unidentified interrogation techniques. For instance, no
rapport-based techniques or isolation/contextual techniques were
included, and do not naturally fit into one of the developed
categories.
In summary, with few exceptions, the extant classification and
description of interrogation techniques is simultaneously overly
broad and overly narrow. Though there have been attempts at
intermediary classifications, they are few and far between, and
tend to lack conceptual suitability and extensive applicability. In
what follows, we describe our procedures and outcomes of creat-
ing a mesolevel of interrogation methods. We aimed to create
interrogation domains that were conceptually distinct, but have the
ability to accommodate techniques not yet developed or specifi-
cally named.
Identifying and Classifying Interrogation Techniques
Like much scientific advancement, the development of a taxon-
omy of interrogation methods has been incremental; that is, new
research is largely anchored to, and builds upon, that which pre-
ceded it. We followed a multistep process to create conceptually
based and adaptive interrogation domains (categories). In this
section, we describe our method of forming the mesolevel of
interrogation techniques that fit in between the broad dichotomies
and the specific individual techniques. Before doing so, we make
two points clear.
First, the constellation of techniques employed to detect decep-
tion are not discussed here. Deception detection is a category of
techniques independent of the present discussion. It is undoubtedly
related to interviewing and interrogation, though detecting decep-
tion does not directly speak to eliciting information. Instead, these
techniques generally have to do with assessing the credibility of
the information that is being offered by a source (Vrij, 2008).
Second, we adopted fairly expansive inclusion criteria, regard-
less of the techniques’ perceived or actual effectiveness or legal
status specific to any one country. Although the taxonomy includes
techniques that some deem to be psychologically coercive (and
indeed outlawed in certain countries, such as the use of trickery
and deception), torture and other forms of physically abusive
techniques have been purposefully omitted from the taxonomy.
Like all the techniques we examined, torture is real and has been
used against sources, but we have chosen to not engage with these
techniques because torture is a category unto itself and arguably
1
Another similar dichotomy is the fostering and forcing paradigms
found in the negotiation literature (Cutcher-Gershenfeld, McKersie, &
Walton, 1995).
168 KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN
“different” (for a detailed discussion, see Colb, 2009). Although
acts of cruelty by state actors in the pursuit of information remain
a common scourge in certain parts of the world, we have chosen to
remain in line with the Geneva Convention’s idea of preserving
and promoting the humane treatment and interrogation of pris-
oners.
In addition, we have chosen to construct the taxonomy and
process model in the most generalized and comprehensive manner
by including all techniques (sans torture) regardless of perceived
effectiveness. For one, agreement does not always exist on what
are and are not perceived to be effective techniques, particularly if
the views of both scientists and practitioners are included, and
depending on how effectiveness is defined. Furthermore, because
our purpose here is to introduce to the academic and operational
communities a new way of thinking about interrogation in terms of
the mesolevel domains, we intend for the taxonomy to be dis-
cussed, debated, researched, and refined according to best prac-
tices and customs of those utilizing it. As such, at this point in
time, consideration of the actual and perceived effectiveness of any
one specific technique or collection of techniques in the taxonomy
is not warranted.
The initial step, therefore, in creating the taxonomy’s mesolevel
was to conduct a comprehensive review of the extant literature in
an attempt to identify all previously recognized interrogation tech-
niques. One of the authors of the current paper had recently
participated in a meta-analytic review (Meissner et al., 2012) of the
interview and interrogation literature, in which published, unpub-
lished, and multinational government documents were sought. We
thus feel confident that we reviewed most, if not all, possible
sources of interrogation techniques. This first step resulted in 47
sources, in which 824 techniques were listed. These sources in-
cluded criminal investigation and interviewing, HUMINT collec-
tion, and the interrogation of cooperative and uncooperative
sources. With two exceptions—the Inbau et al., (2013) manual and
the Army Field Manual (2006)2—the publications were empirical
examinations of the reported use and/or effectiveness of the tech-
niques under review. In addition, most studies were observational,
experimental, or self-report surveys; three United States Office of
the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reports consisted of
semistructured interviews with interrogators and intelligence op-
erators (see the Appendix for a complete list of the 47 sources,
including the primary methodologies and country where the stud-
ies were conducted). Finally, of these publications that studied
actual interrogations and interactions between operators and
sources—as opposed to those that surveyed or interviewed op-
erators (e.g., Kassin et al., 2007)—all but a few did not specify the
characteristics of the sources.3 As such, the domains and process
model can be applied to the spectrum of possible subgroups within
sources, though it is important to empirically test this assertion in
the future.
To ensure comprehensiveness, we also considered related pub-
lications, such as the Gudjonnson Confession Questionnaire
(GCQ-R; Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999), which does not pertain
to interrogation techniques per se, but it does identify reasons for
confession that are translatable into interrogation techniques. For
instance, several related reasons for confessing found in the
GCQ-R are that the suspect felt guilty, wanted a sense of relief,
was concerned about how others viewed him/her, and was
ashamed of committing the crime. To elicit these feelings within
the source, operators could use the technique of “appealing to the
suspect’s conscience,” which can be found in the literature (Kassin
et al., 2007; Leo, 1996).
The second step in developing the mesolevel was to reduce the
number of techniques identified to allow for closer examination
and eventual sorting. The paring process was accomplished in
three ways. First, some of the more than 800 techniques were not
what we would consider to be interrogation techniques, but rather
operator characteristics or related topics. For example, “caution
given” and “explains right to legal advice” (Walsh & Milne, 2008)
are not considered interrogation techniques for our purposes. As
the essence of Miranda warnings and those warnings required by
the PEACE model, these actions are undoubtedly critical to un-
derstanding the context of interrogation and the overall effective-
ness of other techniques. Similar to the techniques of deception
detection, however, these were excluded from consideration be-
cause they do not relate directly to eliciting information from
sources. We readily concede that there is more to interrogation
than the techniques addressed here, but for the purposes of the
present discussion, we confine ourselves to only those tech-
niques directly related to eliciting information or producing a
true confession.
Next, many techniques were listed in two or more sources. It
was quite common to find individual techniques appearing in more
than one reference, as many of the references built on earlier
published ones and/or were written by the same author(s). For
example, Culhane et al. (2008), Feld (2006), Kassin et al. (2007),
King and Snook (2010), and Leo & Liu (2009) asked about or
coded for techniques that were based in part on the work of Leo
(1996). Additionally, about 36% of the publications listed in the
Appendix were coauthored by individuals who appeared on two or
more publications. Third, we considered specific variations of a
technique as one technique. For instance, we were interested in
“presenting false evidence” rather than “presenting false DNA
results,” “presenting false fingerprints,” and “presenting false
polygraph results” (Leo & Liu, 2009). For our purposes, these
three are functionally the same and fall under the technique “con-
fronting the source with false evidence of guilt or complicity”.
These three steps reduced the list of techniques from 824 to 209.
We then entered a total of 209 techniques into a spreadsheet,
which the first three authors used to independently examine them.
A color-coding system was used to identify duplicates and others
that were very similar, or those that were not true techniques that
may have been missed the first time (e.g., offer moral rationaliza-
tions and offer moral justifications). Of these 209, 53% were
determined to be duplicates and 13% were not considered to be
2
Interrogations conducted by members of the United States Armed
Forces are governed by the United States Army Field Manual (FM) 2-22.3,
Human Intelligence Collector Operations, September 6, 2006. This docu-
ment supersedes the long-standing reference, FM 34-52, Intelligence In-
terrogation.
3
Faller, Birdsall, Henry, Vandervort, and Silverschanz (2001) focused
on sex offenders; Feld (2006); Kostelnik and Reppucci (2009); Meyer and
Reppucci (2007), and Reppucci, Meyer, and Kostelnik (2010) focused on
juveniles; Holmberg and Christianson (2002) researched murderers and sex
offenders; Lippert, Cross, Jones, and Walsh (2010) examined those sus-
pected of child sexual abuse; and Pearse, Gudjonsson, Clare, and Rutter
(1998) assessed psychological vulnerability among suspects.
 INTERROGATION TAXONOMY
specific techniques for our purposes. This step resulted in a total of
71 unique techniques identified.
Our third step was to find or develop a suitable classification
scheme to categorize the 71 identified techniques. In 2010, one of
the authors of the present paper devised a system to categorize the
19 Army Field Manual approaches. The objective of this catego-
rization was to collect better data “by setting aside the Field
Manual labels (which may be subject to individual variation in
definition) in favor of a set of generic, yet more descriptive
categories of interrogation strategies” (p. 1). Kleinman (2010)
sorted the approaches into six categories, based on the approaches’
underlying conceptual goals: (a) Focus on information and facts;
(b) focus on relationship/rapport; (c) appeal to/elicit emotion; (d)
emphasize threats and competition; (e) emphasize rewards and
collaboration; and (f) leverage context.
Using Kleinman’s (2010) six categories to sort the individual
techniques into meaningful groups, and a similar process of color-
coding within a spreadsheet, we grouped the techniques according
to their underlying principle or aim. Some were easier and more
straightforward than others, such as those techniques that spoke to
the physical setting in which an interrogation took place (e.g.,
leverage context), or that evidence or established fact that would
be used as leverage to compel the source to divulge additional
information. Similarly, the techniques that could be considered
harsh or fear based were fairly simple to group together. Two
coders independently sorted the techniques into the six categories,
and the interrater agreement was 84%, with a free-marginal kappa
of .71. Discrepancies were then discussed and consensus obtained.
Once all the techniques were reliably sorted, we refined the six
category labels and definitions.
The final step was an attempt to assess face validity. Experts,
who included three senior interviewing and interrogation research-
ers and one military intelligence operator, reviewed our process,
coding scheme, and placement of identified techniques within the
six domains. Whereas the researchers had no suggestions on im-
proving the classification system, the operator suggested additional
techniques. These techniques, however, could either have been
considered duplicates of several of the 71 techniques already
identified or could not be sourced to a written document. In
keeping with our inclusion/exclusion criteria, the decision was
made to only include techniques that could be sourced, and were
thus not idiosyncratic to any one individual with interrogation
experience.
Mesolevel: Interrogation Domains
The resultant six interrogation domains are: (a) Rapport and
Relationship Building; (b) Context Manipulation; (c) Emotion
Provocation; (d) Confrontation and Competition; (e) Collabora-
tion; and (f) Presentation of Evidence (see Table 1). We note here
that, whereas existing techniques may have been inadvertently
overlooked during the taxonomy’s development, or the more likely
scenario that new tactics will be developed and researched in the
future, we believe it unlikely that neglected or newly recognized
techniques will fall outside of these six domains. In other words,
the six domains within the interrogation taxonomy presented here
represent the universe of conceptually meaningful yet parsimoni-
ous groupings of what operators do to elicit information and
confessions, even if the techniques within them are not exhaustive.
169
Like other scientific classifications, the taxonomy of interrogation
methods, based on the best information available at the time of its
development, is intended to incorporate additional techniques as
they are discovered and put into use in the field.
Arguably, some of the techniques in Table 1 can be plausibly
sorted into more than one category, thereby negating the entire
conceptualization of the taxonomy, the domains, and the process
model. This would be an act of neglecting the forest for the trees.
Although the assembling, reducing, and sorting of the individual
techniques into the domains was carefully considered, we do not
make the assertion that the domains are defined by the sum of their
constituent techniques. Instead, this process was methodically per-
formed and detailed above to demonstrate that the scores of known
individual interrogation techniques could be meaningfully grouped
together in a way that has not been previously considered. It is the
introduction of the mesolevel domains within a taxonomic struc-
ture, however, that is the main contribution to the literature. Future
research can and should use as indicators of the domains the
techniques (either separately or clustered temporally within an
interrogation) as they have been identified and sorted here.
Rapport and Relationship Building
As shown in Table 1, we identified 14 individual interroga-
tion techniques under the heading of Rapport and Relationship
Building. Although the importance of rapport between operator
and source is noted in nearly all studies of interrogation (see
Borum, 2006; Hays, 2008; Kleinman, 2006; St-Yves, 2006), no
previous work has attempted to operationalize rapport by the
techniques that can be or are used to build it. Examples of
rapport-based techniques include finding common ground with
the source, demonstrating kindness and respect, and meeting the
basic needs (e.g., food, water) of the source. In the Reid model,
rapport-building is most likely to begin during the distinct
interview phase, but certainly (especially as we define it here)
continue on into the interrogation.
Rapport can be considered the cornerstone of any attempt to
successfully elicit information from a uncooperative source. Al-
though it has been argued that the term “operational accord” is
more appropriate than rapport in describing the phenomenon of
building a relationship between operator and source (Borum,
Gelles, & Kleinman, 2009), for purposes of this paper, we will use
the more common term “rapport. ” We define rapport as a working
relationship between operator and source based on a mutually
shared understanding of each other’s goals and needs, which can
lead to useful, actionable intelligence or information. It is the
give-and-take, interactional nature of rapport, based on a respectful
relationship between two humans that sets rapport apart from the
other domains. It is “the invisible wave along which information
can flow from the one to the other” (St-Yves, 2006, p. 88).
Rapport does not necessarily imply that the two parties must
have affection for one another (Kleinman, 2006). Instead, rapport
is based on respect (Hays, 2008), mutual trust (Bucheimer &
Balogh, 1961), empathy (Schafer & Navarro, 2004), and reciproc-
ity (Archer, 1979). Further, St-Yves (2006) details five basic rules
of rapport: (a) keeping an open mind and remaining objective; (b)
building up rapport; (c) paying attention; (d) keeping a profes-
sional attitude; and (e) knowing how to conclude. Indeed, nowhere
in the five basic rules of rapport is the requirement that operator
 170
Table 1
Interrogation Domains and Constituent Techniques

Rapport and relationship Confrontation and

building Context manipulation Emotion provocation competition Collaboration Presentation of evidence

1. Find common ground 1. Conduct the
or shared experiences interrogation in a small
room
2. Show kindness and 2. Move the interrogation
respect from a formal room to a
more neutral setting
3. Identify and meet basic 3. Move the interrogation
needs from a neutral setting to
a more formal room
4. Be patient 4. Isolate source before
interrogation
5. Allow source to play 5. Disorganize source by
role of teacher manipulating the
physical space
6. Build a bond 6. Consider the time of
day
7. Present self as in a 7. Consider your physical
role/persona other than appearance (clothing)
being an interrogator
8. Touch source in a 8. Prisoner’s Dilemma
1. Appeal to self-interest
2. Appeal to conscience
3. Appeal to religion
4. Interrogate source while
very stressed.
5. Offer moral rationalizations
6. Capitalize on capture shock
7. Appeal to negative feelings
for individuals or
organizations
8. Identify and exaggerate
1. Emphasize your
authority and expertise
over source
2. Challenge the values
held by source
3. Threaten source with
consequences for non-
cooperation
4. Express impatience,
frustration or anger
5. Use deception
6. Obscure source’s fate
7. Ask the same question
over and over
8. Ask a series of questions
1. Offer rewards or 1. Confront source with
reinforcement for actual evidence of
desired information involvement
2. Make bargains with 2. Confront source with
source fabricated or knowingly
unsubstantiated evidence
of involvement
3. Appeal to sense of 3. Bluff or bait source about
cooperation supposed evidence you
have of involvement
4. Present scenario so 4. Identify contradictions
source may regain or with source’s story
assert control
5. Offer special rewards 5. Reveal evidence to
(e.g., cigarettes, candy) source, demonstrating that
for cooperation s/he can offer no more
useful information until
s/he eventually does
6. Offer intangible rewards 6. Use polygraphs or other
(e.g., encouragement, physiological measures
respect)
7. Present a scenario where 7. Show source photos or
interrogator’s “job” is to statements from witnesses
accurately represent or others
source as innocent or
helpful to higher
authorities
8. Use visual aids
KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN

friendly manner fears quickly and without

allowing source to
answer
9. Find identities in 9. Consider where operator 9. Reduce fears 9. Do not allow denials
common and detainees’ chairs are from source
in relation to one
another
10. Attempt to become 10. Create setting that is 10. Flatter source 10. Do not speak to source,
source’s lifeline culturally attractive. only stare at source
11. You make yourself 11. Consider the effect of 11. Instill hopelessness in 11. Confront source
appear to be similar to certain colors or source without insulting
the source sounds
12. Show concern for 12. Encourage source to take 12. Adopt a non-friendly
source and his/her responsibility for the stance
situation outcome
13. Use similar language as 13. Insult source
the source (e.g. slang)
 INTERROGATION TAXONOMY 171

and source become friends, though it has been suggested that

Presentation of evidence
feigning friendship can assist in establishing rapport (Gelles,
McFadden, Borum, & Vossekuil, 2006), or that a genuine friend-
ship of sorts could evolve over time (Kleinman, 2006). Some
scenarios, however, do not permit operators as much time as others
to build rapport with the subject, such as those with tactical and/or
time-sensitive aims; nonetheless, there is general consensus in the
literature that, at some level, a working relationship must be
established between operator and source in order to produce useful
information or intelligence.

Context Manipulation
Collaboration

The next domain, Context Manipulation, includes 11 interroga-

tion techniques. Context manipulation speaks specifically to alter-
ing the physical and temporal space where the interrogation occurs
to maximize the probability of a successful outcome. More gen-
erally, Context manipulation can refer to any technique that does
not possess an interactional quality or interpersonal dynamic that
occurs between the operator and the source. They are, neverthe-
14. Get another interrogator

less, critical aspects to which the operator must attend prior to, and
16. Accuse source of being
15. Directly accuse source
and employ good cop/

17. Disparage or dismiss

during, the interrogation session. Examples of this include the

alternative questions
with being involved

source’s own words

someone s/he is not
Confrontation and

information source

Army Field Manual approaches of separation, which under differ-

19. Ask unexpected/
competition

18. Misconstrue the

ent circumstances could be referred to as isolation or solitary

confinement, or “change of scenery” where the source is moved
provides
bad cop

from a formal interrogation room to a more neutral location in an

effort to reduce the stress of the source.4 Other techniques in this
domain include considering the time of day when the interrogation
takes place, creating an atmosphere where the source feels com-
fortable and less likely to view the interaction as adversarial,
making the room uncomfortably hot or cold, arranging the furni-
ture or other fixtures in the interrogation room in a fashion that
Emotion provocation

sends a specific message to the source (e.g., removing the desk that
might be between the operator and source to create a more inter-
active exchange), or conducting the interview in a small, window-
less, room.

Emotion Provocation
The relationship or rapport that is established between operator
and source at the outset of the interrogation and considering the
context of the interrogation serve as necessary but not sufficient
Context manipulation

elements to the success of the interrogation or interview. Once

rapport has been established, the operator will invariably need to
employ additional techniques to increase cooperation or reduce
resistance. We have identified approximately 40 techniques be-
yond the ones relating specifically to rapport and context described

4
The term “separation” as set forth in the Army Field Manual—and in
general discussion about the technique—may arguably refer to “isolation,”
14. Employ active listening
skills (e.g., eye contact,

a very different process with a decidedly different objective. Separation, as

Rapport and relationship

nodding, summarize
source’s statements)

traditionally used in both law enforcement and intelligence domains, refers

Table 1 (continued)

to the strategy of disallowing two or more sources to interact prior to

questioning to prevent collaboration on a false story or protect a source
building

from being pressured by another to resist. In contrast, isolation refers to

holding a source for an extended period of time under circumstances where
social interaction and/or sensory input is purposely limited in an effort to
deplete their cognitive, affective, or physical ability to resist interrogation.
This is a restricted technique in the Army Field Manual, requiring autho-
rization for its use.
172 KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN
above and sorted them into the four remaining domains. The first
such domain (and its various techniques to be described here) is
Emotion Provocation, along with the 12 techniques from which the
operator can choose to employ to prompt information from a
source.
It can be argued that many techniques of interrogation fall into
the realm of provoking emotions, as modern interrogation far more
often relies on psychological, as opposed to physical, tactics to
gain compliance (Kassin et al., 2010; Leo, 2008). The difference
between this domain and the others, however, is that these tech-
niques are specifically designed to target the source’s raw emo-
tions or any real or perceived evidence against the source. Anger,
anxiety, fear, guilt, hope, love, pride, and sadness are some of the
emotions that operators can tap into as a means of gaining coop-
eration and, in turn, meaningful information from a source. The
techniques in the Emotion Provocation domain include appealing
to the source’s self-interest, conscience, or religion, capitalizing on
the stress of being captured or at other periods of heightened stress,
and exaggerating or alleviating the source’s fear.
For instance, in orchestrating the Army Field Manual ap-
proaches of “fear up” and “fear down,” the operator seeks to be
either intensely provocative in the hopes of eliciting an emotional
outburst by the source, or conversely, softly compassionate to
encourage the source to inadvertently reveal useful information
while in a relaxed and unthreatened state of mind. A somewhat
similar dynamic occurs in the course of employing the techniques
of flattering or insulting the source, also known as “ego up” and
“ego down” in the Army Field Manual. Through sustained and
gushing flattery, the ego-up approach supposedly benefits from the
source’s ego-driven desire to “show off” his superior knowledge to
his questioner. In contrast, by relating to the source in a conde-
scending manner, one that involves allegations of incompetence
and ignorance, the operator hopes to arouse the source’s desire to
defend his self-esteem by describing in detail his “true” talents and
knowledge.
Confrontation/Competition
Our next two categories of interrogation techniques, Confron-
tation/Competition and Collaboration, are, in essence, opposite
sides of the same behavioral coin. The former relies on threats or
perceived punishment and the latter upon a reward system, both of
which are utilized to gain compliance with the source. In the
Confrontation/Competition domain, which includes 19 specific
interrogation techniques, the operator asserts authority and control
over the subject to gain compliance, and the relationship becomes
a zero-sum game where the operator wins and the subject loses
(Kleinman, 2010). The techniques in this domain build off those in
the Emotion Provocation domain that increase the source’s stress
and may include the operator challenging the values of the source,
expressing impatience, frustration or anger, obscuring the fate of
the source, and employing deception in order to induce coop-
eration.
Many of the techniques in the Confrontation/Competition do-
main are the approaches found in the Army Field Manual, 2–22.3.
One might expect this, as these techniques come from the rulebook
of a military institution where command and control are of primary
importance. These techniques, such as repeated and rapid-fire
questions, the expression of authority and expertise, and challeng-
ing the values of the source, all conjure images of an interrogator-
versus-source scenario.
An additional Field Manual approach, labeled “silence” (but
found elsewhere as well, e.g., Häkkänen et al., 2009; Inbau et
al., 2013), involves a scenario in which the operator simply
stares at or maintains eye contact with the source, without
speaking, until the source breaks eye contact or the silence, at
which time the interrogation can proceed. This is not the overtly
confrontational style of the other techniques within the domain,
but it is included here because it was originally intended to
induce cooperation by expressly ratcheting up the source’s
anxiety. As pointed out elsewhere (Brandon, Bhatt, Justice, &
Kleinman, 2010), however, there are perhaps elements of build-
ing rapport through the use of silence, especially with sources
from Arab cultures. Although this may be supported, silence is
an example of a technique for which an argument can be made
for the cross-classification of techniques.
Lastly, the Army Field Manual approach known as Mutt and
Jeff, also widely known as good cop/bad cop, is another example
of a technique that could plausibly be sorted into more than one
domain. It is included in the Confrontation/Competition domain,
because of the aggressiveness of the bad cop, which is intended to
be threatening to the source, is then followed up with the gentler
demeanor of the good cop. This dynamic is designed to leverage
the contrast between the unattractive and attractive personas of the
two operators, respectively, and, thereby create a collaborative
relationship with the latter.
Collaboration
The techniques in the Collaboration domain are the opposite of
those in the Confrontation/Competition domain, in that the author-
ity and control exercised in the previous domain are minimized or
eliminated altogether. Whereas employing techniques that ulti-
mately lead to a zero-sum game in the Confrontation/Competition
domain, the operator and source are more equal partners in a
working relationship in which each person has something to offer
the other, when the seven techniques in the Collaboration domain
are used,. One approach to collaboration is the offering of rewards
in exchange for information.
Rewards can come in one of two forms: tangible and intangible
(Kleinman, 2010). Examples of tangible rewards through interro-
gation techniques can be necessities, such as food, or water, or
amenities such as a pillow, extra blanket, candy, or cigarettes.
Intangible rewards, on the other hand, are promises of better
treatment while detained or a reduced punishment for cooperation.
No less tangible, though not quite a reward per se, is appealing to
the source’s sense of cooperation and demonstrating genuine con-
cern for him/her. These are basic human instincts to which all but
the most hardened sources are susceptible, and operators can
capitalize on these instincts in exchange for information from the
source.
Presentation of Evidence
The final domain, Presentation of Evidence, focuses on demon-
strating to the source in various ways what the authorities already
know or claim to know in an attempt to glean more information.
There are eight techniques included in this domain. As Kleinman
 INTERROGATION TAXONOMY
(2010) states, the Presentation of Evidence domain can be used
“for gaining cooperation or compliance; for testing veracity or
detecting deception; and/or exploring the source’s level of knowl-
edgeability” (p. 1).5 Nearly all reports and studies reviewed in-
cluded the straightforward technique of presenting the source with
actual evidence of the source’s guilt, or possession of information
that would be of use to the operator. On the other hand, Leo (1996)
presented data that false evidence is used in the interrogation room
and Kassin et al. (2007) reported that a subset of their sample
would have the source take a polygraph and tell him he failed it.
Lastly, a commonly used technique in this domain is identifying
contradictions in the source’s accounting of events (Kassin et al.,
2007; Soukara et al., 2009). This is included in the Presentation of
Evidence domain because such contradictions become evidence in
and of themselves, and leverage for purposes of gaining coopera-
tion, information, intelligence, or an admission of guilt or involve-
ment in illegal or suspicious activities.
To this point in the scientific inquiry into interrogation, what
was used or found to be effective in interrogation was described
and researched in very specific terms of the technique, or in broad
dichotomies into which the techniques could be sorted. Post hoc
empirical investigations (Kassin et al., 2007; Leo & Liu, 2009) into
the existence of more detailed categories of interrogation tech-
niques have not been sufficient for our purposes here. The six
domains in the current work, which include the full spectrum of
interrogation techniques, represent a parsimonious rendering of
what operators do to elicit information from uncooperative
sources. The mesolevel domains presented above, when viewed in
conjunction with the specific techniques and the broad categories,
produce a viable taxonomy of interrogation techniques. It thus
gives researchers and operators alike the ability to examine inter-
rogation in a more meaningful way, as well as representing an
advance in how we think about, discuss, research, and conduct
interrogations.
A Theoretical Interactive Process Model of
Interrogation
The foregoing description of the six domains in our taxonomy
sets the stage for the second aim of this paper: a theoretical
exploration of how the domains relate to one another in an inter-
rogation session, or in the ongoing relationship between operator
and source. Because the macrolevel categories cannot describe the
process of interrogation and the microlevel techniques are too
numerous to succinctly explain it, the exposition and addition of
the six meaningful mesolevel domains to the literature is a neces-
sary step forward in our understanding of the science of interro-
gation and interviewing. Furthermore, it would be of great utility
to both researchers and operators in the field to have a theoretical
framework of how the domains could plausibly interact. As we
present no data to support this model, it is not our intention to state
with any empirical certainty that the model follows the actions of
operators in the field. Instead, the purpose of the model is to create
a heuristic device that can be subsequently exposed to the rigors of
scientific investigation, validation, remediation, and debate. It is
through such a process that our understanding of interrogation and
its practice can improve. The theoretical interactive process model
of interrogation using the derived domains is the second step
toward this goal, and is presented in Figure 1.
173
The resemblance of the model to a wheel with a hub-and-spoke
design is purposive. All components of the model must function
together in order to work properly, but it does not necessarily
imply that all components are of equal import. To extend the
metaphor, the entire functioning of a wheel would be impossible if
not for the presence of an effective hub at the center. Likewise, the
tire surrounding the structure, facilitating the operation of the
wheel’s design, is also a critical element. The spokes, on the other
hand, are necessary, but at times can represent extraneous elements
of the design. There may be an optimal number of spokes in a
wheel, though when one or more are missing— or if more func-
tionally unnecessary spokes are added—the wheel can still suc-
cessfully operate.
Due to the overwhelming support in the studies and reports on
interrogation and interviewing for rapport-based approaches as
critical to any successful interrogation, the Rapport and Relation-
ship Building domain is therefore the hub of the model. St-Yves
(2006) stated, “Whereas other techniques can be helpful, rapport
can do without these techniques, and techniques without rapport
are unlikely to be effective” (p. 92). Likewise, the Army Field
Manual 2–22.3 acknowledges the importance of building relation-
ships with sources, as establishing and maintaining rapport is a
common thread through all interrogations, regardless of other
approaches and techniques employed (pp. 8 –3). Finally, according
to Borum (2006), rapport serves two functions: it gets the source
talking, and “allows the [operator] to identify and assess potential
motivations, interests, and vulnerabilities” (p. 22).
We contend that it is from rapport-based techniques that all
others flow, for without a minimum level of rapport between the
operator and source, the interrogation is unlikely to succeed. In
other words, no other domains are possible without first establish-
ing rapport, leading to the centrality of the domain in the model.
The arrows are double-headed because of the assumption that
operators can and do return to the basic rapport-building tech-
niques if the other domains fail to produce the intended outcome of
the interrogation. In addition, the arrows go both ways because
success in one of the other domains can produce a recursive
relationship, whereby rapport and relationships are further
strengthened.
The Context Manipulation domain envelops the model because
the physical setting and other noninterpersonal techniques (e.g.,
considering the time of day) ought to be considered in all interro-
gation sessions. These factors can contribute to the success or
failure of the interrogation, and we argue that the context can affect
any of the other domains, starting with Rapport and Relationship
Building.
Once rapport has been successfully established, and depending
on the contextual factors in the interrogation room, the process
then moves to one of the four other interpersonal domains within
the model. The Emotion Provocation and Presentation of Evidence
domains are theorized to act as mediators, or intermediate do-
mains, to both the Confrontation/Competition and Collaboration
domains, as within the former domains are techniques that can
5
In the vernacular of intelligence, the term “knowledgeability” refers to
the depth and breadth of information a source possesses through direct
access (i.e., through direct experience as opposed to hearsay or specula-
tion).
174 KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN
Figure 1. Theoretical interactive process model of interrogation.
reasonably lead to the zero-sum relationship of confrontation or
the partnership that is created when operator and source collabo-
rate. To illustrate the mediator effect of these two domains, take an
example technique from the Presentation of Evidence domain. As
noted above, presenting fabricated evidence of the source’s in-
volvement in an act or possession of knowledge, although an
interrogation technique in its own right, can be considered coercive
in nature (Leo, 1996). The coerciveness of the technique is more
likely to lead to employing the techniques within the Confronta-
tion/Competition domain, should the interrogation process go for-
ward. On the other hand, successfully using flattery or praise, a
technique within the Emotion Provocation domain would more
likely lead to adopting more collaborative techniques than con-
frontational ones.
The Confrontation/Competition and Collaboration domains,
then, represent “dead-ends” in the model, in that they are not
linked to one another, nor do they directly lead to others. We
theorize that once operators move to employing the Confron-
tation/Competition or Collaboration domains, either directly
from Rapport and Relationship Building or through the medi-
ating domains of Emotion Provocation or Presentation of Evi-
dence, there can be no application of the other domains without
returning to the central domain. Of the six domains in the
model, these represent the two most diametrically opposed
approaches, and the techniques within them are not likely to be
located in another domain.
The model’s double-headed arrows between Rapport and
Relationship Building and the other domains and the single-
headed ones emanating from Emotion Provocation and Presen-
tation of Evidence are indicative not just of the process of
interrogation but also of the interdependent nature of the do-
mains. Although we have attempted to impose scientific order
on the practice of interrogation through a taxonomic structure,
the domains and techniques are much more fluid in actual
practice. Flexibility within the domains allows operators to
adapt to conditions in the interrogation room, and the blending
of techniques where necessary.
The development of the interrogation domains has allowed
for a theoretical process model to be introduced, as existing
interrogation research that focuses on broadly defined catego-
ries or highly specific techniques does not lend itself to mean-
ingful declarations on how interrogation “works.” We put forth
this model not as the definitive statement on how interrogation
works or on what is effective; instead, the ideas presented here
are intended to inspire research and practice in the short term,
such that they may be tested empirically and refined accord-
ingly. In the long run, however, the present examination may be
the antecedent of a more rational and effective interrogation
policy, based on scientific evidence that will meet the day’s
legal and ethical standards for the questioning of sources,
suspects, and detainees.
Conclusion
The preceding taxonomy of interrogation methods, including
the development of the six domains and the theoretical process
model, is decidedly not a polemic against the current state of
interrogation research. On the contrary, we see the taxonomy
and its domains as an organic outgrowth of what has come
before it, a natural progression from existing knowledge to the
next stage of how we understand the very important topic of
interrogation. As new techniques are discovered and old ones
are better understood, an interrogation framework can be of
great value to the academic and operational communities.
Training manuals and research on interrogation and inter-
viewing are replete with various techniques, tactics, and pro-
 INTERROGATION TAXONOMY
cedures for obtaining confessions, generating human intelli-
gence, or any number of other goals of an interaction between
operator and source, subject, or suspect. At one end of the
spectrum, there are highly specific techniques, such as appeal-
ing to the suspect’s self-interest (Leo, 1996) and disclosure of
evidence (Soukara et al., 2009), which have been found to be
frequently used by authorities and related to outcomes. At the
other end of the spectrum are techniques on the overall process of
interrogation (Gudjonsson, 2003; Inbau et al., 2013), representing
a bird’s eye view of nationalistic interrogation approaches, like
accusatory versus information gathering (Meissner et al., 2012).
Related to this are broader methods of persuasion that have been
cited by interviewing and interrogation scholars on the process of
gaining cooperation (e.g., Cialdini, 2001).
Using a wide range of methodologies, including laboratory
experiments, observational field studies, in-depth interviewing,
and survey research, scholars will rightly continue researching
these broad and specific tactics in search of the most diagnostic
techniques. Nevertheless, actual interrogations do not consist of
merely one technique (either narrowly or broadly construed)
practiced in a vacuum. Rather, operators use a constellation of
techniques; conceivably each technique within this constella-
tion impacts the effectiveness of the next one employed. There-
fore, any one interrogation technique’s diagnosticity when used
alone may not be the same when used in conjunction with other
techniques. For scholars to better understand the production of
true versus false confessions, or complete versus incomplete
intelligence, a move toward studying the gestalt of interroga-
tions is required. The domains described as part of the larger
taxonomy of interrogation techniques, and the theoretical pro-
cess model described above, get us—scholars and operators
alike— closer to this ideal.
References
Alison, L., Kebbell, M., & Leung, J. (2008). A facet analysis of police
officers’ self-reported use of suspect-interviewing strategies and their
discomfort with ambiguity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1072–
1087. doi:10.1002/acp.1408
Archer, R. L. (1979). Anatomical and psychological sex differences. In
G. J. Chelune & Associates (Eds.), Self disclosure: Origins, pattern, and
implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 80 –109).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, J. (1992). Videotaping police interviews with suspects—an eval-
uation. Police Research Series: Paper No. 1. London, UK: United
Kingdom, Home Office Police Department.
Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or
proof? British Journal of Criminology, 33, 325–352.
Borum, R. (2006). Approaching truth: Behavioral science lessons on educ-
ing information from human sources. In Intelligence Science Board
(Ed.), Educing information: Interrogation. Science and art: Foundations
for the future. Phase 1 report (pp. 17– 43).Washington, DC: National
Defense Intelligence College Press.
Borum, R., Gelles, M. G., & Kleinman, S. M. (2009). Interview and
interrogation: A perspective and update from the USA. In R. Milne, S.
Savage, & T. Williamson (Eds.), International developments in investi-
gative interviewing (pp. 111–128). Cullomtpon, Devon, UK: Willan
Publishing.
Brandon, S. E., Bhatt, S., Justice, B. P., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010). Army
field manual 2-22.3: Interrogation methods. A science-based review.
Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence College Press.
175
Bucheimer, A., & Balogh, S. C. (1961). The counseling relationship: A
case-book. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
Bull, R., & Soukara, S. (2010). Four studies of what really happens in
police interviews. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police
interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and
policy recommendations (pp. 81–95). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association. doi:10.1037/12085-005
Cassell, P. G. (1996). Miranda’s social costs: An empirical reassessment.
Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 387–399.
Cassell, P. G., & Hayman, B. S. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s:
An empirical study of the effects of Miranda UCLA Law Review, 43, 839.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 284,
76 – 81. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0201-76
Colb, S. F. (2009). Why is torture “different” and how “different” is it?
Cardozo Law Review, 30, 1411–1473.
Culhane, S. E., Hosch, H. M., & Heck, C. (2008). Interrogation technique
endorsement by current law enforcement, future law enforcement, and
laypersons. Police Quarterly, 11, 366 –386. doi:10.1177/
1098611107309116
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. E., Mckersie, R. B., & Walton, R. E. (1995). Why
change? Pathways to change: Case studies of strategic negotiations.
(pp. 1–14). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research.
Deslauriers-Varin, N., Lussier, P., & St-Yves, M. (2011). Confessing their
crime: Factors influencing the offender’s decision to confess to
the police. Justice Quarterly, 28, 113–145. doi:10.1080/
07418820903218966
Dixon, D. (2007). Interrogating images: Audio-visually recorded police
questioning of suspects. Sydney, Australia: The Sydney Institute of
Criminology.
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman,
S. M. (2010). Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance
of psychological science to improving interrogative practice. Journal of
Psychiatry & Law, 38, 215–249.
Faller, K. C., Birdsall, W. C., Henry, J., Vandervort, F., & Silverschanz, P.
(2002). What makes sex offenders confess? An exploratory study. Jour-
nal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10, 31– 49. doi:10.1300/J070v10n04_03
Feld, B. C. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of
policy and practice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97,
219 –316.
Frantzen, D. (2010). Interrogation strategies, evidence, and the need for
Miranda: A study of police ideologies. Police Practice & Research, 11,
227–239. doi:10.1080/15614260902830005
Gelles, M. G., McFadden, R., Borum, R., & Vossekuil, B. (2006). Interview-
ing Al-Qaeda-related subjects: A law enforcement perspective. In Tom
Williamson (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Developments in research,
rights and regulation (pp. 23– 41). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Greene, C. H., Greene, M. E., & Holt, J. S. (2010). Intelligence interview-
ing: Final report with methodology analysis and coding. Washington,
DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Griffiths, A. (2008). An examination into the efficacy of police advanced
investigative interview training. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University
of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Grimes, J. T., Holt, J. S., & Tanios, M. P. (2010a). Intelligence interview-
ing. Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Grimes, J. T., Holt, J. S., & Tanios, M. P. (2010b). Intelligence interview-
ing (paper #2). Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). Interrogation tactics & techniques. The psy-
chology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook (1st ed., pp.
7–37). John Wiley & Sons.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (1999). The Gudjonsson confession
questionnaire-revised (GCQ-R): Factor structure and its relationship
176 KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN
with personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 953–968.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00278-5
Häkkänen, H., Ask, K., Kebbell, M., Alison, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2009).
Police officers’ views of effective interview tactics with suspects: The
effects of weight of case evidence and discomfort with ambiguity.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 468 – 481. doi:10.1002/acp.1491
Hays, P. A. (2008). Making meaningful connections: Establishing respect
and rapport. In P. A. Hays (Ed.), Addressing cultural complexities in
practice: Assessment, diagnosis, and therapy (2nd ed., pp. 85–101).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/
11650-005
Hirst, J. (1993). Royal Commission research papers: A policing perspec-
tive. Police Research Series: Paper No. 6. London, UK: United King-
dom Home Office Police Department.
Holmberg, U., & Christianson, S.-A. (2002). Murderers’ and sexual offenders’
experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny
crimes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 31– 45. doi:10.1002/bsl.470
Horgan, A. J., Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2012).
Minimization and maximization techniques: Assessing the perceived
consequences of confessing and confession diagnosticity. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 18, 65–78. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.561801
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal
interrogation and confessions (5th ed.), Burlington, MA: Jones & Bar-
tlett Learning.
Irving, B. (1980). Police interrogation: A case study of current practice
(Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure Research Study No. 2).
London, UK: United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., &
Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and
recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38. doi:10.1007/
s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H.,
Leach, A.-M., & Fon, D. L. (2007). Police interviewing and interroga-
tion: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and
Human Behavior, 31, 381– 400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions:
Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and
Human Behavior, 15, 233–251. doi:10.1007/BF01061711
King, L., & Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a Canadian interrogation
room: An examination of the Reid Model of interrogation, influence
tactics, and coercive strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36,
674 – 694. doi:10.1177/0093854809335142
Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Rose, V. G. (2008). Effects of personality,
interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false con-
fession paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 71– 88.
doi:10.1348/135532507X193051
Kleinman, S. M. (2006). KUBARK counterintelligence interrogation re-
view: Observations of an interrogator. In Intelligence Science Board
(Ed.), Educing information: Interrogation. Science and art: Foundations
for the future. Phase 1 report (pp. 95–140). Washington, DC: National
Defense Intelligence College Press.
Kleinman, S. M. (2010). Generic interrogation approaches/themes. Un-
published document.
Kostelnik, J. O., & Reppucci, N. D. (2009). Reid training and sensitivity to
developmental maturity in interrogation: Results from a national survey
of police. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 361–379. doi:10.1002/
bsl.871
Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 86, 266 –303. doi:10.2307/1144028
Leo, R. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police
interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 27, 381–399. doi:10.1002/bsl.872
Lippert, T., Cross, T. P., Jones, L., & Walsh, W. (2010). Suspect confes-
sion of child sexual abuse to investigators. Child Maltreatment, 15,
161–70. doi:10.1177/1077559509360251
McConville, M., & Baldwin, J. (1982). The role of interrogation in crime
discovery and conviction. British Journal of Criminology, 22, 165–175.
Mcgurk, B. J., Carr, M. J., & Mcgurk, D. (1993). Investigative interviewing
courses for police officers: An evaluation. Police Research Series:
Paper No. 4. London, UK: United Kingdom Home Office Police De-
partment.
Medford, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Pearse, J. (2003). The efficacy of the
appropriate adult safeguard during police interviewing. Legal and Crim-
inological Psychology, 8, 253–266. doi:10.1348/135532503322363022
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Brandon, S. E., & Bhatt, S. (2012). Interview
and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions.
Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13. Retrieved from http://www
.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/2249. doi:10.4073/csr.2012.13
Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions
regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behav-
ioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 757–780. doi:10.1002/bsl.774
Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects
of case characteristics on suspect behavior during police questioning.
British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23– 40.
Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the
influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confes-
sions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 452– 65. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-
9257-x
Neubauer, D. W. (1974). Confessions in Prairie City: Some causes and
effects. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 65, 103–112.
doi:10.2307/1142356
Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational
choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 1–130.
Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997a). Police interviewing and legal
representation: A field study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psy-
chology, 8, 200 –208.
Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997b). Police interviewing techniques at
two south London police stations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 63–74.
doi:10.1080/10683169608409795
Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1999). Measuring influential police
interviewing tactics: A factor analytic approach. Legal and Criminolog-
ical Psychology, 4, 221–238. doi:10.1348/135532599167860
Pearse, J., Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., & Rutter, S. (1998). Police
interviewing and psychological vulnerabilities: Predicting the likelihood
of a confession. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8,
1–21. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199801/02)8:1⬍1::AID-
CASP435⬎3.0.CO;2-D
Reiss, A. J., & Black, D. J. (1967). Interrogation and the criminal process.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
374, 47–57. doi:10.1177/000271626737400105
Reppucci, N. D., Meyer, J. R., & Kostelnik, J. O. (2010). Police interro-
gation of juveniles: Results from a national study of police. In K. D.
Lassiter, & C. Meissner (Eds.), Interrogations and confessions: Current
research, practice and policy (pp. 67– 80). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12085-004
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005).
Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental
paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481– 486. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/40064252
Schafer, J. R., & Navarro, J. (2004). Advanced interviewing techniques:
Proven strategies for law enforcement, military, and security personnel.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Schollum, M. (2005). Investigative interviewing: The literature. Welling-
ton, NZ: Office of the Commissioner of Police. Retrieved from http://
 INTERROGATION TAXONOMY 177

www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/investigative-interviewing. doi:
10.1002/jip.48
Softley, P. (1980). Police interrogation: An observational study in four
police stations (Research Study No. 61). London, UK: United Kingdom
Home Office.
Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, J. (2009). What
really happens in police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 493–506. doi:10.1080/
10683160802201827
Stephenson, G. M., & Moston, S. J. (1994). Police interrogation. Psychol-
ogy, Crime & Law, 1, 151–157. doi:10.1080/10683169408411948
St-Yves, M. (2006). The psychology of rapport: Five basic rules. In Tom
Williamson (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing: Rights, research, regula-
tion (pp. 87–106). Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
United States Department of the Army. (2006, September). Human intel-
ligence collector operations. (Field Manual 2-22.3; FM 34 –52.) Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd
ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010). What really is effective in interviews with
suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing
outcomes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 305–321. doi:
10.1348/135532509X463356
Walsh, D. W., & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of
investigative interviewing practices in the public sector. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 13, 39 –57. doi:10.1348/
135532506X157179
Willis, C. F., Macleod, J., & Naish, P. (1988). The tape-recording of police
interviews with suspects: A second interim report (Research Study No.
97). London, UK: United Kingdom Home Office.
Witt, J. W. (1973). Non-coercive interrogation and the administration of
criminal justice: The impact of Miranda on police effectuality. The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 320 –333. doi:10.2307/
1142375

(Appendix follows)
178 KELLY, MILLER, REDLICH, AND KLEINMAN

Appendix
Primary Sources for Interrogation Techniques

Source Method Study site

Alison, Kebbell, & Leung (2008) Survey China (Hong Kong)

Baldwin (1992) Video and audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Baldwin (1993) Video and audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Bull & Soukara (2010) Survey and audio recording United Kingdom
analysis
Cassell & Hayman (1996) Survey United States
Cassell (1996) Literature review United States
Culhane, Hosch, & Heck (2008) Survey United States
Department of the Army (2006) N/A United States
Deslauriers-Varin, Lussier, & St-Yves (2011) Survey Canada
Dixon, (2007) Video and audio recording analysis Australia
Faller, Birdsall, Henry, Vandervort, & Silverschanz (2001) Case file analysis United States
Feld (2006) Case file analysis United States
Frantzen (2010) Survey & interviews United States
Greene, Greene, & Holt (2010) Interviews United States
Griffiths (2008) Direct observation, audio recording United Kingdom
analysis, and interviews
Grimes, Holt, & Tanios (2010a) Interviews United States
Grimes, Holt, & Tanios (2010b) Interviews United States
Hakkanen, Ask, Kebbell, Alison, & Granhag (2009) Survey Finland
Hirst (1993) Literature review United Kingdom
Holmberg & Christianson (2002) Survey Sweden
Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne (2013) N/A United States
Irving (1980) Direct observation United Kingdom
Kassin et al. (2007) Survey United States
King & Snook (2009) Video recording analysis Canada
Kostelnik & Reppucci (2009) Survey United States
Leo (1996) Direct observation and video United States
recording analysis
Leo & Liu (2009) Survey United States
Lippert, Cross, Jones, & Walsh (2010) Case file analysis United States
McConville & Baldwin (1982) Case file analysis United Kingdom
Mcgurk, Carr, & Mcgurk (1993) Video and audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Medford, Gudjonsson, & Pearse (2003) Case file analysis United Kingdom
Meyer & Reppucci (2007) Survey United States
Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson (1992) Survey & audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Neubauer (1974) Case file analysis United States
Pearse & Gudjonsson (1997a) Audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Pearse & Gudjonsson (1997b) Audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Pearse & Gudjonsson (1999) Audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Pearse, Gudjonsson, Clare, & Rutter (1998) Interviews United Kingdom
Reiss & Black (1967) Direct observation United States
Reppucci, Meyer, & Kostelnik (2010) Survey United States
Softley (1980) Direct observation United Kingdom
Soukara, Bull, Vrij, Turner, & Cherryman (2009) Audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Stephenson & Moston (1994) Survey and audio recording United Kingdom
analysis
Walsh & Milne (2008) Audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Walsh & Bull (2010) Survey United Kingdom
Willis, Macleod, & Naish (1988) Audio recording analysis United Kingdom
Witt (1973) Survey United States

Received March 28, 2012

Revision received August 13, 2012
Accepted August 16, 2012 䡲