On Eliciting Intelligence from Human Sources: Contextualizing the Scharff-Technique SIMON OLESZKIEWICZ 1 *, PÄR ANDERS GRANHAG 1,2 and STEVEN M. KLEINMAN 3 1 University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden 2 Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, Norway 3 Operational Sciences International, Monterey, USA Summary: Three techniques for eliciting intelligence from human sources were examined. Two versions of the Scharff-technique (conceptualized as four tactics) were compared against the Direct Approach (open and direct questions). The Scharff confirmation technique used correct claims to elicit information, and the Scharff disconfirmation/confirmation technique used a mix of correct and incorrect claims. The participants (N = 119) took the role of ‘sources’ holding information about a terrorist attack and tried not to reveal too much or too little information during an interview. The Scharff confirmation resulted in more new information than the Scharff disconfirmation/confirmation and the Direct Approach. The sources in the Scharff conditions had a more difficult time reading the interviewer’s information objectives. The sources in the Scharff conditions underestimated, whereas sources in the Direct Approach overestimated, how much new information they revealed. The study advances previous work and shows that the Scharff-technique is a promising intelligence gathering technique. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Human intelligence (HUMINT) gathering is the collection of information through the interaction between two or more in- dividuals (Justice, Bhatt, Brandon, & Kleinman, 2010). One specific form of HUMINT gathering is information elicita- tion. Here, the goal is to gather information in such a manner that the source remains unaware of the true purpose of the exchange (Justice et al., 2010). More precisely, the goal is to gather information in such manner that the source has the following characteristics: (i) underestimates his or her own contribution in terms of new information and (ii) re- mains unaware of the interviewer’s information objectives. Although psychological science offers an extensive array of concepts and principles of direct relevance to HUMINT activ- ities (e.g., persuasion; verbal, nonverbal, and cross-cultural communications; the detection of deception), the body of applied psychological research on techniques aimed at HUMINT gathering remains limited. This is remarkable considering the resurgent interest in the collection of HUMINT following the September 11 attacks in the USA (Brandon, 2011). Recent advancements in the field on suspect interrogations have allowed researchers to compare techniques aimed at in- telligence gathering purposes. Evans et al. (2013) showed that an information gathering approach (designed to facilitate recall) was superior at collecting relevant details, made the interviewees more talkative, and resulted in more admissions than an accusatorial approach (designed to exploit the inter- viewees’ anxiety). Still, the general aim of this particular research was to better discriminate between guilty and innocent suspects, and the details gathered concerned infor- mation related to the suspect’s veracity status. For the para- digmatic HUMINT situation, however, the objectives of the interview are often more complex, and the aim does not necessarily revolve around gathering self-incriminating information (cf. Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010). For example, in some HUMINT situa- tions, it would be a tactical mistake to make clear what infor- mation the interviewer aims to collect. A SHORT NOTE ON HANNS SCHARFF Hanns Joachim Scharff (1907–1992) was an interrogator during World War II who gained recognition because of his friendly and conversational approach (Granhag, 2010; Shoemaker, 2008; Toliver, 1997). Instead of using a stan- dard interrogation technique, Scharff considered the strate- gies that the prisoners adopted to resist the interrogation (Scharff, 1950; Toliver, 1997). In order to learn how to coun- teract these counterinterrogation strategies, Scharff adopted the perspective of the prisoner (Granhag, 2010; Granhag, Cancino Montecinos, & Oleszkiewicz, 2013). In essence, Scharff developed a HUMINT gathering technique that rested upon anticipating the interviewee’s behavior. Perspective taking is the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another person’s viewpoint, which facilitates an anticipation of this person’s behavior and reactions (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008). The ability to take the per- spective of others is predictive of success in negotiations (Galinsky et al., 2008) and of importance for interrogators (e.g., Justice et al., 2010; Soufan, 2011). The research program on the strategic use of evidence technique provides empirical support for the premise that the understanding of suspects’ counterinterrogation strategies (e.g., Granhag & Hartwig, 2008; Granhag & Hartwig, in press; Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014) can be translated into effective interview tactics (e.g., Clemens, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2011; Granhag, Strömwall, Willén, & Hartwig, 2012). Scharff identified three common counterinterrogation strategies (e.g., Scharff, 1950; Toliver, 1997): (i) ‘I will not tell very much during the interrogation’; (ii) ‘I will try to fig- ure out what they are after, and then make sure not to give them what they want’; and (iii) ‘It is meaningless to withhold or deny what they already know’. Scharff then formed his own tactics with the aim of counteracting these strategies. THE SCHARFF TACTICS Scharff treated his prisoners in a friendly and respectful manner. Hence, the first tactic is the friendly approach. The *Correspondence to: Simon Oleszkiewicz, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 500, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: simon.oleszkiewicz@psy.gu.se Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 28: 898–907 (2014) Published online 14 September 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.3073