I

r

·'

' ·.

.
KUBARK COUNl'ERINTELU GENCE INTERROGATION

July 1963

'I,

''
'.,•'

T

KUBA.RK COUNTERINTE LLIGENCE INTERROGATI ON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

I

1.

IN:X.RODUCTION
A.
Explanation of Purpose
B.
Exp1anatlon of Orga.niz;atioo

1-3
1-l ·
3

ll.

DEFINITIONS

4-5

Ill .

LE GAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

6-9

IV.

THE INTERROGATOR

10-14

V.

THEINTERROGATEE
15-29
A.
Types o! Sources: Iotelligeoce Categories 15 -19
B.
Typ es of Sources: Personality Catego ries 19-28
c. Other Clues
l8-2.9VI.

SCREENING AND OTHER PRELiMINARIESA.
Screening
B.
Other Prelimlna.ry Proceduresc. Sununa.ry

VII.

PLANNING THE COUNt'ERINTELLlGENCE
INTERROGATIONA.
The Nature o! CounterintelligencelnterrosationB.
The Interrogation PlanC.
The Specifics

30-37
30-33
33-37
37

38 -51

38--42.
42.--44
44-51

YUI. THE NON-COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
INTERR OGATION
5l-Sl

i

~ ET

'•

I
·~

...
.

;:

Pages
A.
B.

C.

G eneral .Re ma rk•
52-53
T he S tructur e of the Int erroga tion ·53 -65
1.
The Open ing
53-59
2.
T he .R e connaissance
59- 60
3.
The Detailed Questioning
60-64
4.
The Conc lusion
64-65
Techniques of Non-Coer cive Interrogationo{ Rc sistant Sources

IX.

'.

65-81

TH:E; COER CIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
INTER ROGATION O F RESISTANT SOUR CES
A.
Restriction s
Th" T heo\'y o£ Coercion
B.
c.
ArrestD.
Detcniion
Depr ivation o! Se~:~sory Stlmuli
E.
F.
Threats and F ear
G.
D<:bility
Pai n
H.
I.
Heightened Suggestibility and Hyp~:~oai s
NarcosisJ.
K.
Tbe De tect ion o! Malingering
L.
Couclusioo.

BZ- 104
82
SZ-85
85-86
86-87
87-90
90 -9292 - 93
93-95
95-98
98-100101- 102
103-104X.

INTERROGATOR'S CHECK LIST

105- 109XI.

DESCR IPTIV E BILIOGRAP HY

U0-122XII.

INDE X

123-128

ii

.,

·.

.·

,.

.•

·.

-

'

-

I.

·.

A.

s

INTRODUCTION

Explanation o£ Purpo se

This manual cannot te.a ch anyone how to De, or become,a good interrogator. At be s t it can help readers to avoid thecharactt.: risiic miatake s of poor interrogator s4

Ito purpose io to provide guidelines for KUBARK
inte r r ogation, and particularly the cou.nter:intelligenc einterrogation of resistant s o urces. Designed as au aid forinterrogator• and others immediately concerned, It is basedlargely upon the publi ohed results of extensive research,
including ocientific inquiries cond.ucted by specialists inclosely related subjects.

''

There is nothing mysteriouo about inte rrogation. It
con sists oi no more thaD. obtainiD.g needed Wormation throughresponse s to questions. As is true of all craftsmen , someinterr ogators are rnore a ble t han ot.her.s: and some o£ tbeir
superiority may be innate. But sound interrogation neverthele ss
rest s upon a knowledge of the subject matter and on certain
broad principles, chiefly psychological, which are not hardto understand. The success of good iD.terrogators d epends inlarge measure upon their uae , conscious or not, of theseprinciples and of processe s and techniques deriving from them.
Knowledge oi subject matter and oi tbe basic princ iples will
not o£ ihel! create a successful interrogation, b11t it will makepossible the avoidance of mistakes that a re characteristic ofpoor interrogat ion. The purpose. t h en, is not t o teach thereader how to be a good interrogator but rather to tell bim
what he must learn in ordeT to become a. good inte t"r ogator.

1

·.

-

The 'interrogation o! a. renistant source who is a otaif o ragent membet: o( an Orbit intelligence or security service or o!
a clande stine Cornm.uniet orgaoizatioil is one o! the mo st exactingof profess ional task&. Uouall y the odds still h.vor the inte~rogator,
but they are sharply cut by the traini:g. a.xpe~ience, patienceand tougb.nes s of the inte rr ogatee. In Sl.lcb circun\ stances theinterrogator needs a.ll the help that be can get. And a . principal
source of aid today is ocieot Uic finding s. The int elligence
service which is able to bri,n g pertinent, modcr a knowledge tobear upon its problema enjoys buge a dvantage& over a 9ervice
which conducts its clandestine business in e ighteenth century
fas hion. It is true that American psychologists have devoted
somewhat more attention to Communist interrogation techniques,particularly "brainwasb ing" , than to U. 5. ·practi ces . Yet they
have conducted scienti.Cic inquir ies into many subjects that arc
closely related to interrogation: the effe cts oC debility andisolation, the pol ygraph, reactions to pain and fear, hypnosis
and h ei ghtened s uggestibility, narcos is, e t c. Thio work is o!
suJ!icien t i:nportance and relevance that it ia no longer possible
to discuss interrogation signific antly without reference to tb.e
ps ycbological research conducted in the past decade. For thisreason a. major purpose of this study is to !ocus relevantscientific findings upon Cl inte rrogation. Every effort bas been
made to report and interpret these findings in our own language,
in place o( the terminology employed by the p sychologists.

This study is by no means confined to a resume andinterpret ation o! psychological lindlngs. T he approach o! thepsychologists is cu.otomarily manipulative; that io, theysuggest methods of imposing controls or alterations upon
the interrogatee ft·om the outside. Except within the
Com.mu.niet frame of reference, they have paid ieee attention
to the creation of internal controls--i ..e., conversion of thesource , so that voluntary cooperation results . Moralcons iderations aside, the imposition of external techniquesoC manipulating people carries with it the grave risk o! later
lawsuits, adverse publicity, or other attempts t.o· strike back.

2

s

E T

·.

•

....
. ..

.. ..
~

:.

.. ..

' .

:

B.

·,

Explanation of Organization

Thia otudy movea hom the gcncro..l topic of interrogation
per oo (Parts I. II, ill, IV, V, and VI) to plannihg the counterintelligence in-eerrogation (Part VII) to the Cl interrogation o£resistant oources (Parts Vm, IX, and X). The definitions,
legal considerations , and discuaaiono of interrogators andeou rce s, as well as SectioD VI on ac reeuing and otherpreliminarie s, are relevant to all kinds ol ioterTogations4Once it ia established that the source ia probably a counterintelligence target (in other words, io p r obably a member o{a !oreigu intelligence or 111ecurity ae rvi.cc, a Communist, ora par t o£ any other group engaged inc lande otine activity
directed against the national security), the interrogation i splann.e d a .n d conducted accordingly. The C l interrogation
technique$ arc dis cue sed in a.n order of iocrcaeiDg i.nten_sity
aa the focus on •ource resiat~nCe growa aharper. The la.stsection, on do 1 a and dont 1 a, ia a return to the broader viewof the opening parts; as a check-liot, it i o placed last solely
for convenienc e.

' '·

...:

..

THE COERCIVE COUNT:ERINTELLIGENC:E
INTERROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCESA.

For both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogator
may take upon himself the =ilateral responsibility fo•· uoing
coercive methods~ Concealing h ·om the interrogator• 6 supertors
an inten t to resort to coercion, or its unapproved
employznent, does not protect them.. It places them, and
KUBARK, in unconside red jeopardy.
B.

'

Restrictions

The purpose of this part of the handbook is to present
basic information about coercive techniques available for use
in the interrogation situation. lt is vital that this discussion
not be misconstrued as constituting authorization for the useo{ coercion at field discretion .. As was J'loted earlier, there
i. s no such blanket aut horization .

The Theory o{ Coercion

Coercive procedures a.:re desigr\ed oct only to exploit the
resiStant source •s internal conflicts and induce hiln to wres tle
with himself but also to br-ing a superior outside force to beat"upon the subject's resistance. Non.-c.oercive methods are not

82.

~·

.,'

S·r/E T

iX.

II·

...

r

I..

likely to succeed if their selection and use is oot predicatedupon an accurate psychological assessment o£ the source. In
contrast, the same coercive method may &ucceed against persons
who are very UDl.ike each other. The changes o£ success .rise'
steeplyt nevertheless, if the coercive technique is matched tothe sour ce 1 s personality. Individuals .react dH!erently even tosuch seemingly noo-discril:nin.atory stimuli as diuga. Moreover,
it i.o a waste o£ time and energy to apply strong pre.osures on a
bit-or-miss basis if a tap on the psychological jugular willproduce compliance.

All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression.
As Hinkle notes in "The Physiological State of th~ Interrogation
Subject as it Affects Brain FUllction"(7), the result o! externalpress ...res o£ sw!icient intensity is the loss at those defense•
most recently acquired by civilized man: ". • • the capacity tocarry out the bighest creative activities, to meet new, challenging, and complex situations, to deal witb tx-ying interpersonal>:elations, and to cope with repeated frustx-ations. Relatively
small degrees o{ homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep
loss, or anxiety may i.J:npair these functions." As a result,
nmost people wbo are exposed to coercive procedures will talka.nd usually reveal some in!onnation that they :might not haverevealed otherwise. !rI

One subjective reaction often evoked by coercion is afeeling of guilt. Melt:z:er observes, "In some lengthy interrogations, the interrogator may, by virtue of his x-ole as the sole
supplier o£ satisfaction and pllllishment, assume the atatux-e andbnportance of a parental figure in the prisoner's feeling andtbinking. Although there may be intenoe hatred for the interrogator, it is not \lll\l&ual !or warm feelings also to develop. This
ambivalence is the basis tor guilt reactions, all.d if tbe interrogator nourishes these feelings, the guilt may be strong enoughto influence the prisonel" 1 6 behavior . . .. . Guilt makes compliance more likely . . . . " (7).

,Farber says tbat the response to coercion typicallycontains ' 1 . . . . at lea&t three important element9: debility,
dependency. 3-I:Id dread. •• Prisoners ••. , . have reduced· viability, a::-c bclpleaaly dependent <n their captor• !or the
B3

'
s

...·'

·'

r

-S ~ isa t is fact ion o( their m a.ny basic ueeds, and experience theemotional and motivatioDal reactions o{ intense {ea}" and anxiety. . • . Among the (J,merica.~ POW's p ressured by the
Chinese Conun=i s t s, the ODD syndrome in its Cull-blown form
constituted a state of discom!ort that was well- nigh intolerable."(11). Lf the debility-de pendenc y-dread state is unduly prolonged,
however, the arrest ee m:a.y sink into a defensive apathy fromwhich it is hard to arouse hi.Jn.

Psychologist$ aDd otbers who write about phys ical or
psychological duress frequently object tha.t under su!.!icieot
pressure subjects usua lly yield but that their ability to recall
and c ommunicate information accurately is as impaired as thewill to resist. Thi s pragmatic objection bas somewhat the same
validity for a counterintelligence interrogation as for any other.
But there is one signific ant differe nce. Con!cssion is a neces ..
sary prelude to the Cl illterrogat ion o£ a hitherto unr esponsive
or concealing source. And the. u se of coercive techniques will
rarely or never con!use an inter>:ogatee eo compl etely that hedoes net know whether bis o wn confession is true or false. He
does 1\0t need full mas tery of all his powers o£ res istance anddisc>:inlination to know whether he is a spy or not. Only· subject s who have reached a point Vlh ere they a~e w>der delusions
a>:e likely to make fals e confession• tbat they believe. Once at>:ue confes sion. is obtained, the classic cautions apply. The
pressures are lifted, a.t lea$t enough so that the subje ct can
provide counterintelligeDc c infonnation aa accu,r ately as poss ib l e. In !ac't, the relie! gra»ted the subject at this t inle !its
neaUy into t he interrogation plan. He is t old that t he changed
trea.t:xnent is a rewa.rd !or truthfulness and a.n evidence thatfriendly ba.ndling will continue as long as he coope rate e.

'.

'

..

-.

..' ..

The profound mo ral objection to applying dures s past tbe
point of irreversible poychologica! da>nage ha.s been stated.
Judging tbe validity o! otbcr ethical arguments about coercion
exceeds the ecope a£ tbis paper . What is fully clear , however,is t hat controlled coercive manipulation of an interrogatee m ay
inlpair his a b ility t o make f ine distinctions but will n ot alt er his
ability to answer correctly such gro s s ques tion s a s " Ar-c you a
Soviet agent? \Vhat is your assignment now 7 Who is your p r esent
cas e officez- ? 11

84

•.
.;

·.

When an interr ogator s enses tlia.t the subject• s r esis tanceis wavering, that his desire t o yield is g:r owiDg stronger ttan
his wi..sb to continue his resistance, the time bae c o me to pr ov id ~hiin witlt t"'~ a ccep2b!e ra.tioo.allzation: a fa c e-saving re ason or ·excuse for compliance . Novic e interrogators may be tempted tosei:t" upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize thevictory. Such a temptation must be rejected immediately. Aninterr ogation is not a game played by two p eople , one to become
the wiD.Der and the other the loser . It is simpl y a method o{ ob taining correct and useful infor mation. Therefore the interrogator s hould intensify the subj e c t's desire to c ease struggling byshowing him how he cau do eo without seeming to abandon p r inciple. self-protection, or other initial causes: o f zesietance . If,
instead of providing the r ight rat ionalization a t the right time, theinte r r ogator sei:te s gloatingly upo<> the subje ct's wavering, opposition will stiffe n again .
T he following are the principal coercive techniques of interroga tion: arrest, detention, d~privation of sensory stimuli
through solitary confinement or si=ilar methods, threats a.o dfear, dehilit)•, pa.in, heighte ned suggestib ility and hypnosis, narcosis, and induced regr ession. This section also· discus ses thed etection of malingering by int.,rrogatees aud the provision o(appropriate rationalizations for capitulating and cooperating.

C.

Arr e stThe manner and timing of arre st can coDl::r ibute substantiallyto the interrogator •e p urpos es. "What we aim to do is to enourethat the manner o£ arre st achieveo , i£ possible, surprise, andthe maxi=um amount of menial discorr.fort io order to catch thesuspect off balance and t o deprive him of t he initiative. One
should the refore a.rrest him at a moment when be least expects
it and when his mental and physical resistanc e is at its lowest.
The ideal time at which to arrest a person is ln the early hoursof the morning because surpris e is achieved then, and beca use
a person's resistance physiologic ally as well ae psychologic allyis at its l owest.... If a per son c annot be arrested in theearly hours •• • , the n the next bes t time is in the evening • . ••

..

I

ss

'·

.. (1)D.

Detention

1!, .~rough the cooperation of .. liaison service or by unilateral rneans..~l arx-angements have been made £or the confinemento( a resistant source, the cil'C\ll'llstances of detention are arranged to enhance within the subject hie feelings of being cut
ofi h·om the known and the reassuring, and of being plunged into
the strange. Usually his own clothes are i.nunedlatcly taken
away, because fatnUiar clothing reinforces identity and thus thecapacity for resista...nce. (Prisons give close hai.r cuto and issue
prison garb for the s;une reason.) U the interrogatee is espec:ia.lly proud or neat, it may be useful to give hii:n an outftt that is
one or two s izeo too large and to !ail to provide a belt, 9 o that hemust hold hi& pants up.

The point is that man's sense of identity depends upon acontinuity in his &~roundings. habits, appearance, actions,relations with others, etc. Detention pe:nnits the interrogatorto cut through theoe links and throw the interrogatee back upon
hia own unaided internal resources.
Little ia gained if coofinernent merely replaces one routinewith another. Prisoner~ who lead m.onotonously un\'arled livesu • . • cease to care about their utterances, dress, and cleanliness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed." (7) And
apathy can be a very e.Uective defense against i.nterrogation.
Control of the source '• enviromnent pe:rmlta tbe interrogator to

86

'

,.,
•

determine his diet. s l eep pattr:rn. and other fundamentals.
Manipulati ng these into irregularitie a , ao that the subj ect be comes ' ·disorientated, is v er y likely to create f eelings of fea r and hel plessne'o , Hiolde points out,. 11 People who enter prison withattitudes of forebod ing, appreheo•ion, a.ud b.el.plcssnes s generally
d o l eas well than those who enter with asoura.o.ce and a. c onvictionthat they can deal with anything that they may encounter • • • .
Some people who are afraid of losing s leep, or who do not wioh tolose s l eep, soon succumb to s leep l ou . ·. . . " (7)In short, the priooner should not be provided a r outine towhich he caD adapt =d !ron> which he ca.n draw some comfort- or at leact a sense o£ his own identity. E veryon e has read ofprisoners who were reluctant to l eave their c ells after p rolonged
i:ncarce ration~ Little is kn.ow1l abou t tb e du..ration of c oniinement
calc ulated to make a subject ehi!t from anxiety, coupled with adesire l or sensory stintuli and hun1an compaoior.ship., to a. pa ssive,
apa thetic acceptance of isolation aXId .., ultilnate pleasure in thisnega.tlve state. Undoubtedly the rate of cha.o.ge is determinedalmost entirely by the psychological c haracteristics of the individual. [n any event, it ie advisable to k eep the subject upset byconsta.nt disruptions of patterno.
For this re ason, it ie usc(ul to determine whether the Ul •t~rroga.tte e b.as been jailed before, bow o.(ten 1 under what circwn8 ta.nce • , for how long, and whether be wa.a subjected to earlierinterrog·ation. F a.zniliarity with confinement alld even withisolation reduces the effect.
E.

'

Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli

The chief effect of arx·e st and detention , and particularly ofs olitary confinement, ie to deprive the subject of many or moat of
the sights, sounds . tastes, smell e , a.nd tactile sens ations to whichb e hae grown a.ccusto~ned. John C . Lilly examined eighteen autobiographical accounts written by polar explorers and solitary sea farers. He round 11 • • • that isolation per ae acts on moat per eonsas a powerful stress . . . . lD. all c ases of 9urvivo:ts of isolationa t oea or in the polar night, it was t he first expo eurc whi.ch. caueed

87'

-S ~ETthe great es t fears and hence the greatest i:langer of giving way
to Oyn'lptoms: previouG expe rience is a powerful aid in goi.ng
ahead, de&pite the symp toms. "The symptoms mos t commonly
produced by isolat ion are s uperstition, intenoc love of any otherliving thing, pe rce ivi..og lnanirna te objects as alive , hallucinations,and de lusions." (26)The apparent reason for the se effect s is that a per son cut
oU {r om extern a l sti.mull turns his awareneG e inward, upon hi.msclf, and. then projects the contents of bia own unconsc ious
outward6, so that he endows his faceless environment with his
OWll attributes, fears, and forgotten memories.
Lilly notes, "It
Is obvious that in.ner factors U\ the mind tend to be projected
outward, that some of the mind' s activity which is usually reality bound now becomes free to turn to phantasy and ultimately tob.a.llucination and delusion. 11
A nwnber o f experimen~s conducted at McGUl University,

the National Institute of Mental H ealth, and other sites have a t temp~cd to COOle as clooe as possible to the eliznination o( sensory
stiznuli, or to masking remaining stimuli, chiefly sounds, by astronger but wholly monotonous overlay. The results o(theseexperiments have little applicability to inte rrogation because thecircu.xnst.anc es are dissi.mllar. Some of the findings point toward
hypotheses that seem relevant to interrogat ion, but conditions
li.l<e those o( detention for purposes o( counterintelligence inte rro gat ion have not been ciupllca ted lor experimentat ion.

' '•

·.
...

. ·'

..
..
..
...

. ..

.

'

At the National l.ns titute o{ M ental Health two subjects were"
. su.spe::>ded with the body a nd aU but the top of the head
immersed in a tank containing slowly flowing water at 34. s· c
(94. 5 ' F) • . . . " Both subjects wore bla.ck- out masks , ·which enclosed the whole head but a llowed breathing and nothing else. The
sound level wao extremely low; the subjec t beard only his own
brcathU\g and some faint sounds of water from the piping. Neither
subjec t stayed i.D the tank longer than three l1ouu. Both passed
quickly !rom normally directed thinking thro agh a tens ion resultU\g{rorn un&at isfied hunger for sensory etUnuli a.nd concen tration u pon
the !ew available sensati.ontt to private reveries and f~ntasics andeventually to visual i.magery somewhat resembling hallucination&.

s

.·

:

'

..

r

'' In our exoerirnenls, we notice that a ft er imme rsion the d a yapparentl y is star t ed ove r, i.e., the su bject fe e ls as if h e

has risen fro m. bed afresh; this eHect persis t s , and thes ubject finds he i s out of step with the clock f or the :rest of
the day ...
D rs . Wexler , Mendel son, Leider ma n , and Solomon
con ducte d a somewh.at similar experim ent on sev e nt een paidv o l u ntee r s . These subjects were 11 • • • placed in a t a nk- typeres pirator with a specially built matt r ess . ... The ventsof the :respirato r we re left open, so that the s ubject breath edfor himseLf. His arm s and legs were enclosed in c omfortable
but rigid cylinders to inhibit movement a nd t actile contact.
The subject lay on bis back and was unab l e to see any p artof bis body. The motor of the respirator was run c onstantly,
pro ducing a dull, r epet i tive auditory stimulu s . The roorn.
admitt e d n o na tural light, a nd artificia l light was minimal
and cons ta nt ." (4Z) Altho ugh t he es<a blisbed time l.Unit
wa s 36 ho urs and though all ph ysic a l ne e ds we re t ake n careof , only 6 of the 17 completed the stint. The other elevens oon asked fo>: rele ase . :Four of t hese t erminated tbe
expe riment becaus e o f anxiety and panic : seven did so becauseof physical discomfoJ:'t. Tbe.results confirmed e arlier finding sthat (I) the deprivat ion of sensoX'y s tirnull induces stress;( 2) the stress b ecomes unbearable for most s ubjects ; (3)th e subject h as a growing oeed for physical and social stimuli ;and ( 4) s ome subjects p r ogress ively lose touc h with realit)•,focus inv..ra rdly, and produce de lusions, ha llucinati ons, a.nd
other pa th ol ogical effect •·In summarizing s ome scientific r e po rting on sensory
and perceptual d epriva tion, Kub:.an sky offe rs the f ollowing
observations:I'"Thre e s t udie s suggest that the more well-adjusted
o r 'normal' the subject i s , the m o r e he is affected byde priv.u ion of 9ensory stimuli. Neurotic a n d psycho t ic
subjects are either comp aratively unaffected or s how dec r eases
in a nxie ty, h a lluc inationsj etc . u (7 )

89

.·.

I
S

'·~'

~r:; T•'

These findings sc.gge st - but by no means prove - thefollowing theories aboct solitary confinement a~\d isolation:
L The more cor:'lplctely the place of confinement
eHminates sensory stimuli, the more rapidly and deeply will
the interrogatee be afiected. Results p<Oduced only "!ter weeks
or months of irnprisoronent in an ordinary cell can be duplicatedin hours or days in a cell which has no light (or weak artificial
light which neve,- varies). which is sound-proded, in whichodors are eliminated, etc. J:\.Sl environznent still more subject
to control, such as wa.ter-tank or iron lung, is even more
effective.

'·•

Z. An eal'ly eUect of such an envirorunent isanxiety. How soon it appears and how strong it is depends
upon the psychological characteristics o! the individual.

3. The interrogator can benefit from the subject's
anxiety. As the interrogator becomes linked in the subject's
mind with the reward ol. lessened anxiety1' hwnan contact, andrnean.i ngful activity, and thus with providing relief for growing
discomfort, the questioner as swnes a benevolent role. (7)4. The deprivation of stimuli induces regression
by depriving the subject's mind of contact with an outer world
and thus forcing it in upon itsel!. At the same time, thecalculated .provision of stinluli during interrogation tends tomake the regressed subject view the interrogator as a fatherfigure. The result, normally. is a •trengthening o£ thesubject's tendencies toward compliance.
F.

Threats and Fear

The t~reat of coercion usually weakens or dest1·oys
resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat
to inflict pain. !or example, can trigger fears more damaging
than the immediate sensation of pain . In fact, most people
underestimate their capacity to withstand pain. The sam.c
principle holds for other £eat's: sustained long enough. astrong fear of anything vague or u.nknown induces reg.ression.

s.. .: .
...

.f
s

T

whereas the materi a-liz;ation of the !ear. t he inJli c.t i on o£ somef o r m o £ puni shment, is likel y to come as a re lie!. The s ubjec tfinds tha t b e can bold out, and his res istance• are strengthened.
urn genei- al, direct p h ysica.l brutalit~· creates only resentment ,hostility, and further defiance." (18)T he effectiveness of a threat dep ends not only on whatsort of pe rson the i.nterrogatee is and w h e ther be beli evesthat b.i$ questione>: can .a nd will car>: y the thre at out bnt also
on the interrogator' s rea sons £or threatening. I! the i."lterrogatorthreatens. because he Ia angry. the s ubject fre quently sense s
the fea r of f ailure underlying the anger and is s t rengthenedin his o wn resolve t o r eei s t. Thre,ats delivered coldly are
more effective than those shouted ln rage. It is espec ially
important that a th reat not be utte red in res ponse to theinterrogatee 'sown expre ssions o{ hostility. These, i£ ignored ,can induc e feelings n! gvilt, where a s retorts in kind relieve
the subject' s feelings.

I.

Another rea son why threats induce compliance not
evoked by the infle ction of dur ess is that the threat g>:ants' the interrogatee time !or complia nce . lt is not e nough that a.
resi stant source should replaced under the te nsion of fear ;be must also discern an acceptab le escape r otlte. Bide1:manobse>:ves, " Not only c an the s hame or guilt of defeat in tbc
encounte r with the i nt errogator be involved, but also the more
fundam e ntal injun~tion to protect one 's se l.£-autonom.y or'will'. .. . A simple de!ense aga inst threats to tbe sel£ fromthe anticipation of being !creed to comply 'is, o( course, t o
com pi y 'deliberately' or 'voluntarily' . . . . To the extent thatthe fo r egoing interpretation holds, the more int en sely motivatedthe lliiterro gatee:7 is to res i st, the more inte n s e i s thepressurr; toward e arly compliance from such. anxi eties, forthe greater is the threat to sell-esteem which is involvedin contemplating the possibility o! being 'forced t o ' comply...• " (6) In b rief, t h.e threat is like all other coe rcive
tec hniques in being m o st effective when so us 8d as to foster
regre ss ion and whe n joined with a sugg ested way out of thedilemm a . a rationalization acc eptable to the intcrrogatee .

91

:

' •,

.....

T he threat of death has often been ·row>d to be worse
than u s eless. lt 11 ha.s the highest position in law as a.
d~f~nse , but in rr,a.ny Llterz ogad.on :Situations it is a h ighl yineffective threat. tA.any prisoners , in iact, have refused
to yi.eld in the face of such threats who have sub se quently
been 'broken ' by other procedures ." (3} The principal
rea son is t b.at the ultimate threat is likely t o induce s h eer
hopelessness i1 the inter:rogat eo does not believe that il
i s a trick ; he feels that he is aa likely to be condemned
after complio.nce ;u before. The threat of death is also
inei!ective · when used against hard-headed type s who
reali:z.e that silencing tbem forever would de!eat theinterrogator' s purpose. U the threat is recognized a.s abluff, it will not o nly fail but a l so pave the wa y tO failure
for later coercive ruses u sed by the interrogator.

G.

'

....

..

.:.;::..

Debil i ty

N o report of scieDti!ic investigation oi the effectof debility upon the: interrogatee •s powel:' .s of resistancebas been discovered . For centuries interrog ators haye
employed va rious methods of inducing phy sical weakness:
pro longed constraint; prolonged exe rtion : ext remes of heat.
c old, or :noi s tu.rei and deprivation or drastic :-eduction offood or s l ee p . Apparent l y the assumption is that lowering
the sour~e 's physiologi c a l resistance will l ower his
psychological capacity for oppo sition. l{ this notion werevalid, however, it might reasonably be expected that thosesubjects who are physically weakest at the beginning of
an interrogation would be the quic kest to capitulate. ac onc ept not supported by experienc e. The avail able
evidence sugge s ts that resi stance is sapped pdn cipa lly
by p s ychological rather than physica l pressures. The
threat of debility - for example, a brief depr ivation offood - may i nduce much mor e anx.iety than proionge ohunger, whi c h will result after a while in apathy and,perhaps. eventual delusions or haLluci natiOn$. In brief,
it appears probable that the te c h.n ique s of i n duc ing debility
becorne counter- productive at an ear l y stage. T he discomfort,
ten sion. and restle ss search !or an a.v~nuc of escape ar e

E T

r

..

...
·.

~

,.

>:"

iollowed by withdrawal symptoms, a tuxning away b·om
external stim~i, and a sluggish unTesponsiveoess.
Another objection to the deliberate inducing ofdebility is that prolonged exertion. loss of sleep. etc.,
themselves become patterns to which the subject adjusts
through apathy. Tbe interrogator should use bis powerover tbe resistant subject's physical enviromnent to
disrupt patterns of response, not to create them. Meals
a.nd sleep gl:'anted irregularly, in more than abWl.danceor less than adequacy, the shifts occuring on DO discernible
time pattern, will normally disorient an interrogatee andsaP his will to resist more effectively than a sustained
deprivation leading to debility.

H.

I

Pain

. ::::.

Everyone is aware that people react very
differently to pain. The reason , apparently, is not aphysical difference in the intensity of the sensation itsel£.
Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, 11 Tbe sensation of pain
seems to be roughly equal in all men, that is to say,all people have app<ox.imately tbe same threshold at which
they begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuli
are applied to them. their estimates o£ severity a.reapproxi=ately tbe sa:rne.... Yet. .. when men are very
highly motivateq•.• they have been known to carry out
rather complex tasks while enduring the most intense
pain. 41 He also states, 11ln general, it appears thatwhatever may be the role o( the constitutional endowment
in determining the reaction to pain, it is a much lessimportant determinant than is t~e attitude of the man who
experiences the pain." (1):.,The wide x-ange of individual reactions to pain
may be partially explicable in teo-ns of early conditioning.
The person whose first encounters with pain were
frightening a n d intense may be more violently affectedby its later i nfliction than one whose o~iginal experienceswere mild. OT the reverse m a y be true, and the man\qhose childhood {amili.arb:.ed him with pain n'lay dread

..
·.·

I
E T

it l es s,- and react l ess. than one whose cas tress i s he ightenedby f e ar of th e unknown. T he individua l remains the determina nt.

l t has been p lausibly suggeste d th at, wher eas pain
inflicted on. a per son !rom outside himself may actually f~c•..!sor i nt ensi1y his will to resist. his resist ance i s likelier tobe sap ped by pain which be seems to inflict upon himself.
•'In the simple torture situation the contest is one between
the individual and hi s tormentor (.. •. a.nd he can fr eque ntly
endure). Wben the individual is told to stand at attention{or: long pe riods, an int erven ing factor is introduced. The
immediate sour ce o f pain i s n ot t he interrogator but thevictim himself. The motivational strengt h o f tbe individualis likely to exhau st itself in this internal encounter... . Aslong a s the subject re mains standing, he io a ttributing to
his capto r the power to do s ome t hing wor s e to him, but thereis actually no s howdo wn o£ the abilit y of tbe interrogatorto do so." (4)lnter rogatee s who are withholding but who feel qua lms
of guilt and a se cret desire to yield ar e likely t o becorne
intractabl e if made to endure pain . The reason is: tha.t t hey
can then interpret the pain a:s punish.rnent and hence a.s
expiation. There are also person s who enjo y pain and its
anticipation and who will keep ba c k info rmation that theymight otherwis e divulge if they ar e given reason to expect
t hat withholding will re sult in t he punishment that t be ywant. Persons of considerable m oral o~ )ntellectual
stature o ften find in pain inflicte d by othe rs a c onfirm&tionof the belie ( that they are in the hands of infe riors , a n dtheir resol v e not t o submit i s strengthened .
Intense pain is quite likely to produ c e f alse c onfessions,concocte d as a me ans o( esca ping from di s tress. A timeconswning delay result s ~ while investigation i s conducted
and the adznissions are proven untrue. Du ring t hi:~ Tespite
the interrogatee c an pull himself together. He may even
use the time to think up newJ more compl.ex 11 admi ssions,.
that ta ke still longer to disprove . KU:8 ARK is especiallyvulne rable to such tactics b ecause the interr ogation isc onducted for the sake of informat io n a nd not for poli ce pur poses.

94

s ,E;

E T

•'

:.

.. :
~-

.... ...

1.( an inte.r roga.tec is caus~d to suife r paln cather la tein t he in:e r:r o gation proce s s a nd a!te r other tactics h ave{ailed , be is almost c ertain to co nc lude that th e interrogatoris be co ming desp e rat e . He may tb.en decide th a t i! b..o canjust hold o ut against this final a ssault, he will w in the struggle
a nd his fre edom. And he is l ikely to be right. l nterroga t ees
who have withstood p a in are m ore diffi cult to b &ndle b y otherm ethods. The e!Iect ha s been cot to repr e s s the subje c t but
to r es tor e hi s confide nc e an.d matu rity.

•.

1. · Heightened Sugge stibility and Hypno sis
l n recent years a n u mber of hypotheses about hypnosis
have been advan ced by p sycho logists and o thers in th e gui s e o£proven pr inciple s . A mong the se ar e the flat asser tions tha t apers o n c onnot be hypnot\zed agains t h is will; thAt while
hypnotized be cannot be induced to divulge in.formation that h ewant s ur g e ntly to con ceal; and that be will not und ertake , intrance or t h r o ugh post- hypnot ic suggestion, action s to wh ich
he would normally ha.ve ser ious mor al or e th\c.a.l o bject io ns .
1f th ese and related c onten.tion s were proven valid, hypnosi swould ha ve scant value !or the I n te rrogator .
But despite th e fact that h ypnosis has been a.o obje ct of
sci.entili.c inquiry Cor a v ery long time, none o£ these theor ies
ha s yet be en te sted adequately . Each of them Is i n conflictwith So me observations of fact.. In any event, a n interro g ationh andbook cannot a nd need not Inc lude a lengthy d iscussion o!
hypnosis. The case officer or inte rroga tor ne eds to knowe n o ugh about the subj e c t to unde rsta nd the c.i r cu.mstances unde r
w b i.ch hypno s i s can b e a u se!ul tool, so that he can r e quest
expert as sistan ce app'ro pri.at e ly .
I\

Ope ratio nal p~ rson.nel, inc luding interrogators, whocha n ce to have some l ay experienc e or skill In h ypnot ism
should not themse l v~s use hypnotic tec.hniques for interr ogationor other operatio nal pu:rpos es. T her e a !:'e two rea s ons f or
th is posi tion. T h e llrst I s that hypnoti sm u s•d as a n oper a t ion al
tool by a practiti.o ne r who is n o t a psycholog ist , p sychiatrist ,O< M.D. can p<od uee ir rev er sibl e ps ycholog l cal damage. T h es·.·.·.·

lay pra.ctitionec does not kno w enough to u.se th e techniq1.1e
safely. The second r eason is that an unsuccessfu l a.ttetnpt
to hypnot ize a subject £o r purposes o( interroga tion. or as u c cessful attemp t not a d equately covered by post - hypnotic&'Tnnesia or other protect ion, can eas ily lead to lu rid and•embarrass ing publ icity or legal charg es.

Hyp no s i s is freque ntly c alled a state o( h eigh ten<!<!
sugges t ib ility, but the phra se i s a desc'rip t ion rathe r th an ade!init iou. M ert on M. Gill and Margaret Brenma n stat e," T he p sychoanalyti c theory of hypnosi s clearly implies,
where it does not expli citly state, that hypnosi s is a formo f regre ssion." A nd the y add, " ... induc tio n /Of hypnos isJ
is the process of b ringing about a regre ss ion, while thehypnot i c state is the established regre soion . " (13 ) It issugge sted that the interrogato r will find thls definit ion th em o st use ful. The probl e m of over coming the resistanceof an uncooperative inte r roga t.e e is essentially a. proble mof induc i ng r egr ession t o a lev el at which the resi s tancecan no longer be sustained. Hypnosis is one way of
reg r es sing people .
Martin T. Or ne ba s written at some l ength about
hypnosis and inte r rogatio n. Almost al l of his con c lusions
are t entatively negative . Con cerning th e role pla y e d by thewUl o r atti tude of the intertog a t ee , Orne says, "A l thoug h
the cru ci~ experiment bas not yet been d one, ther e islittle or no evidence t o indica te th at trance c an be induce dagainst a per s o n 1 s wi. shes. 11 He adds, 11 • • • the act u aloccurrence of the trance s tate is related t o t h e wish of
the subject to eote r hypnosis." And he also ob s erves,11• • • whether a subject will or will n ot enter tr ance depends
upon his relations hip with the hyponotist rath er than upont b. e technical pr ocedure of trance induction. 11 T heseviews are probably repres entative of those of many
psychologist •, but tbey are not d efinitive . As Ornehimself l at e r p o ints out , tb e lnterrogatee 11 • • • e ou.ld begiven a hypnotic drug with approp r ia te verba l s uggestions
to tal k about a given topic . E v entually enough of the d rug

.. •.

..·
.

-

;.

-·

..

' .·

.·.

_: .

would be given to cause a sho.rt tl¢riod o( unconsciousness.
'r\o'ben the eubje.ct wakesn, the interrogator could then x-cadfrom his 'notes 1 of the hypnotic interview the information·
preswnably told bin>." (Orne had px-eviously pointed out 'that this technique requires that tbe interrogator possess
significant info~:mation about the subject without the subject's
knowledge.) "It can readily be seen how this •.. maneuver...
would facilitate the elicitation of information in subsequentiD.terviews. 11 (7} Techniques of inducing trance in resistantsubjects L'>rougb preliminary administx-ation of so-calledsilent drugs (drugs which the subject does n.o t know he has·taken) or th:rough other non-routine methods of induction
are still under investigation. Until more facts are known,
the question of whether a resi6ter can be hypnotized involWltarily must go unanswered.

'

Orne also holds that even if a resister can be
hypnotized, his resistance does not cease. He postulates" ..• that only in rare interrogation subjects would asufficiently deep trance be obtainable to even attempt to
induce the subject to discuss material which he is unwillingto discuss in the wakiog state. The kind o{ information which
can be obtained in these rare instances is Still an unansweredquestion." He adds that it is doubtful that a subject i..::>. trance
could be made to reveal information which he wished tosafeguard. But here too Orne seems somewhat too cautious
OX' pessimistic. Once an illterrogatee is in a hypnotic trance,
his understanding of reality becomes subject to manipulation.
For example, a KUBARK interrogator could tell a suspectdouble agent in trance that the KGB is conducting the questioning,
and thus invert the whole !raiDe of reference. In other words,
Orne is probably right in holding that most recalcitrant subjects
will continue effective t:esistance as long as the frame of .
:refereoce is undisturbed. But once the subject is tricked into
believiog that he is talking to friend rather than foe, or that
divulging the truth is the best way to serve his own purposes~
his resistance will be replaced by cooperation. The valueof hypnotic trance is not that it permits the interrogator toi.m.pose his w Ul but rather that it can be used to conV'i.nce theinterrogatee that there is no valid reason not to be forthcoming.

A thi.rd objection raised by . Orne and others is thatmate:dal elicited during trance is not reliable. Orne says.
11• • • it has been shown that the accuracy of such information ...
would not be guaranteed since subjects in hypnosis are iully
capable of lying. 11 Again, tb.e ob9ervation is correct; no knov.n
manipulative method gua.-antees veracity. But i1 hypnosis
is employed not as an immediate instrument for digging out
the truth but rather as a way of making the subject want toalign himself with his interrogators. the objection evaporates.
Hypnosis offers one advantage not inherent in othe:interrogation· techniques or aids: the post-hypnotic suggestio:)..
Under favorable circumstances it should be possible toadminister a silent drug to a resistant source, persuadeh.im as the drug takes effect that he is slipping into a. hypnotic
trance, place him under actual bypnosls as consciousness isreturning, shut his frame of re!crence so that his reasons
for resistance become reasons for cooperating, interrogate
him, and conclude the session by implanting the suggestionthat when he emerges from trance he will not remember
a.nyth.ing about what has happened.
This sketchy outline of possible uses of hypnosis in
the interrogation of resistant. sources b.as no higher goal
than to remind operational personnel that the technique
may provide the answer to a problem not otherwise soluble.
To repeat:. hypnosis is distinctly not a do-it-yoursell project.
Therefore the interrogator, base, or center that is considering
its use must anticipate tbe timing sufficiently not only to secure
the obligatory headquarters permission but also to allow for an
expert's travel time and briefing.

J.

Narcosis

Just as the threat of pai11 may more effectively induce
compliance than its infliction. so an i.nterrogatee 1 s mistaken
belief that he has been drugged may make him a more usdul
interrogation subject than he would be under narcosis. Louis
A. Gottschalk cites a group of studies as indicating "that 30 to 50
per cent of i:1dividuals are placebo reactors, that ts, respond

98
E T

:

... ·.·.

r

"'

·'

s

w ith symptomatic rel ief to taking an inert subs tance . " . (7 )[n th e intet-rogation si tu ation, moreover 4 th e effect i ve nes sof a pl acebo may be e nhanced be cause of its ab i lity to pla cate

' ··•the consc \ence. The s ubject 1 s primar y source oi resistanceto confess ion or divulgence may be pride, patri.oti sm~
personal loyalty to supe riors, or f ea.r of. retribution if he isreturned to their hands . Under such circum stances hi snatu ral desi re to e scap e from stress by cornply lng ...vith theinter rogator•s wi shes may be come de cisive if he ls provided
an a cc eptable rationaJi.zation for com pliance . "1 was drug ged"is one o't the best excuse s.
D rug s ar e no more the an swer to the interrogator •spray er th an the polygraph, hypno si s, o r other aids . Stud ies
and repo r ts " dealing witb the v alidity of material extracted
from reluctant informants ... indicate that the re is :\O drug
whi ch can force e very informant t o report all the inforTI'latioo.
h e bas. Not. only may the i nveterate criminal psychopath lie
under the influ e nce o f d rugs which have been test ed , bu t t her elativ el y normal and well -adju sted individual may also
su cce ss (ully disgu i se (actual d ata ." (3) Gottschal_k rci nlor ces
the l a tter observation in ment ioning a n exp eriment involv ing
drug s which indicated that "th e more normal , w e ll-integrate dindividuals could lie better than th e guilt-ridde a, neur otic
sub jec ts." (7)(Neverthele s s , dr ugs can be effective in o ver coming
re si s tance not cJ.is solved by other techniques. As bas alreadybeen noted, the so - called s il ent drug (a. pharmacologicallypotent substance given to a person u.naware o{ lts administration)
can make poss ible the in duc tion o f bypnotic t rance in apreviously unwilli ng subject. Go tt s chalk say s, "The judicious
choice of a. drug with minimal side effects, its matching to
the subject's per sonality. careful gaug ing o£ dosage, and asen se of timing ... [mal<£] silent admini stration a hard -to-equalally fo r the hypnotist intent on producing seli-flllfUling a.nd
inescapable s ugge stions ... the drug effec ts should pro ve . ..
compelli ng to the subj ect sinc e the perceived sen sations originate
entir dy within hi m s e U:. '' Fl.·.··.

-I,t

Par t ieularly imoo ru.nt is the refer ence to tn.atching the
drug to the pe,-sonallty o{ the inte:rogatee. The elfect of mostdrugs depends more upon the personality o£ the s ubject thanupon the physical charact eristics of the drugs them selves. I!
the approval o{ H eadquarters bas been obtained a.nd i..{ a doctor
is at hand !or administration, o n e of the mo s t important of
the interrogator 1 s ! uoctions is providing the doctor with afull and accurate de scr iption of the psychological make - upo{ the intenogatee, to facili tate tbe best poosible choice o(a drug.

Persons burdened with feelings o( shame or guilt arelikely to unburden. t hemsel ves when d rugged, esp ecially i1thes e feelings have been reinforced by the interrogator.
And li ke the placebo, the drug provid es an e xcellent
ration alization oC b.el ple ssne ss for the io terrogate e whowants to yie ld but b as hitherto been unabl e :o violat e his
own value s or loyaltle s .
Like other coercive media , drug s may alfect the coo.t er>to{ what an ioterrogatee d ivulges. Gottschalk note s that certain
drugs "may give rise to ps ychotic m aoiiesta.tio ns such as
hallucinations, Ulusioc.s, delusions, or di sor i entation", sothat "the verbal material obtained cannot always be con.si.d e coedvalid." (7) For this reason drugs (and the other a ids d iscussed inthis section) should not be used p er sistently to fa.cilitate tbe
interrogative: debriefing that {allows capitulation. Their ! unction
i s to c aus e capitulation , to aid in the shift (rom resistance toc ooperation,. Once thi s eb tft bas be en accomplished~ coercive
techniques should b e abandoned both for moral reasons andbecause they are uDJ'lecessary and even counte r-productive.
This discussion does not include a li st o! drugs thatha.ve been employed for interrogation purposes or a.
discuss ion a{ their properties because these are medical
conside r ations within the provinc e o f a. doctor rathec thana.n inte rogator.

"·

[

I<.

!'
'

I

•

s

T he De tec tion of Mali nge ring

The detection of nu..lingering is obV'iously n o t a n'
inte r rogation technique, coe r cive or oth erwise . But the'history of interrogatio n is studded with the stor ie s of p er son s
wbo have attempted, often succe ssfully. to evade. themountiog pre ssure s of interrogation. by f eigning p hysicalor mental illness . l<UBAR K inte rrog•Ltor s may e ncount er
s ee mingly eick or lrrational lnterrogatees a t times andplaces which make it difficult or next - to-i mpossible tosummon. medical or other pro!essi.ona.l assistance. Be causea few t ips may make it possib le fo r the interrogato r t odistinguish between the malingerer and the pers on who isgenuinely Ill, and because both illnes s and malinger ing ares ometimes produced by c oc rc:ive inteTrogation, a brief di scussionof t be topic b as b een included here.

..

Most person s who fei gn a mental or phys ical illne ss
do not know enough about it to de ceive the well- informed.
Malcolm L . Meltze r say s, "The dete ction of malingering
depends to a great exte nt on tbe s i mu.Ja.tor•s failure tounderstand adequately the character istlcs of the role heis feig ning ... . Often he pre sents symptoms which areexceedingly rare, exist ing mainly in the fancy of the layman.
One s uch .s yn1ptom is the del u s ion o f misidentificatio n.
c haracterized by the ... beli e( that b e is s ome poweriul
or histori c personage~ Th i s sy mptom is very unusual intrue psycho sis, but is used by a number o£ simulators . In
schizophren ia, the o n s et t ends to be gTadual. delusions
do not spring up full-b lown over n ight; in simulated d isorders,the on set is usually fast and delu s ions may be readily
available . The feigned psy chosis often c ontains many
contradic tory and incons i s tent symptoms. rarel y exi sting
tog eth er. The ma li.ng ere r tends to go to extremes \ n hi s
pro trayal of his s ymptoms; he exagg erates, ove rd ramatizes,
gTima ces, shouts , is overly b~zar re, a nd call s att ention
to hi mseU in oth e r wa.ys ....
"Another cha racted sti c o{ the m a.l lnger er ls that h e
w dl u sually s ee k to evade or po s tpone examination. A s tudy101

of the beha vior c! l ie-detecto r: subjects , for example , showed
tha.t pe~son s later 'p roven. guilty' showed cert:a.in s imilarities
of beh a vior. The guilty pe r s ons were reluctant t o t a ke thetest , and they tried in various ways to po stpone or dc l~y ~t .
Th<!y o!te n appeared h ighly anxious and sometlm<!s too k ah.ostile att itu de tow ard the te st and the examiner. Evas ive
tactics some times appea_r ed, such as sigh ing, yaW'lling.
moving about, all o{ wbich !oil the e xaminer by obscuring
the recording . Before the ex a.mi oa t\on , they felt it nece ssa ry
to explain wh y the i r response s m ight Tnislead t he cxami oet'lnto th inking they w ere lying. Thus the proeedure of subjecting
a s u s pected ·malinge rer to a He-detector te s t might e vokeb e havio r which would re ln!orce the ~uspidoo o( f raud." (7)Melt:oer al so notes that malingerer s who are n ot
profess ional ps ychologists can usual ly be expo,.t.d throughRorschach t ests .
An impo r t ant element in malin ge ring is the f rame of
m tnd of the examine r . A person pretend ing madness
awakens in a profe sa iooal e xaminer not o n ly ~usplclon but
also a desire to expose the fraud, wherea o a. well person
who pretends to be c ollCt.al ing mental illne ss and whoperm its only a mino r sy mptom or two to p eep through ismuch ll ke lier to create in the e xpert a. d esire to exp o sethe: hidden sickness.
Meltze r observes that siTnulated mutism and amne s ia
can usually be d istinguished !rom the t rue s tates bynarcoanalysis. The reason , h owever, i s the rever s e ofthe popular misconception . Under the influe nce of appropriate
drugs the malinger e r will persist in not s peaki ng or in notremembering, whereas the ·symptoms o! the genu inely
a.Lflleted will tempora rily disappear. Another t e c hnique
is to pr etend to ta ke the d e c e ption serio u sly , express
grave concern~ and tell the "p at i cnt 11 that tb.e only remedy
lor his illnes s is a ser ies of electric shock tre~tments
or a frontal l obotomy.

102

'

[

L.

Conclusion

A Oriel summary of Che ioregolng may help topull the major concepts of coercive interrogation together:' •.

1. The principal coercive techniques are arrest.,
detention. the d.eprivation of sensory stimuli. th.reats andfear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis,
and drugs.

2 . [( a coercive technique is to be use.d~ or if
two or more are to be employed jointly, they should bechosen for their effect upon the individual and carefully
selected to match his personality.
3.

The usual effect of coercion is regre ss\on.
The inte~rogatee's mature ddenses crumbles as he becomes
more childlike. During the process of regression the subjectn"..ay experience feelings of guilt. and it is usually useful tointensify these.

4. When regression has proceeded lar enoughso tha.t the subject's desire to yield begins to overbalance
his resistance, the interrogator should supply a facesaving rationalization. Like the coercive techn ique, therationalization must be carefully chosen to fit the subject•s
personality.
5. The pressures of duress should be slackened
or luted a!te r compliance has been obtained , so that theinterrogatee's voluntary cooperation will not be impeded.
(

No mention has been made of what is lrequentl~ thelast step in an interrogation conducted by a. Communist
service: the attempted conversion~ h\ the Western .view
the goal of the questioning i.s information; once a -sufficientdegree of cooperation has been obtained to permit th.e

103

s

...

•'

t·

SE ~
interrogator acces s to the information~ h.e seeks, he is notordinarily conce rned with the attitudes oi the S011rce. Unde.some circumstances , howe ver, this pragmat ic indiffere nce
can be short-sighted . U the interrogatee remains semi hostil e or remorseful alter a successful inte rrogation has· end ed.. less. time ma.y be requ~red to complete h i s conve rsion(and conceivabl y to crea te an enduring a sset) than might benee ded to d eal with his ant.a.gonism if he is merely squeezed
and forgotten .

: ;

..
'

·.

'.

·.·..
·..

-• ...·..

E T