Institute For The Future

From torture to persuasion

 

Not only are torture techniques like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced stress positions evil, they don't work very well for interrogation. Former IFTF researcher and boardmember Jacques Vallee talked about that on Boing Boing last year in his provocative essay, "Waterboarding's curious corollaries." This week's New Scientist also considers the efficacy of torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (CIDT). On the heels of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, Obama established the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group to study and practice "scientifically proven" techniques to interrogate without torture or CIDT, which are illegal. From New Scientist, "Beyond Torture: The Future of Interrogation":

 

A former US military interrogator in Iraq, who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander (says) "There's an erroneous mentality that for interrogation to be effective you have to somehow weaken the resistance of the detainee, physically or psychologically," he told New Scientist. "I never saw harsh techniques work. Every time they were used, the detainee would clam up as they were scared that anything they said would make that pressure increase."

 

 

(University of South Florida psychologist and terrorism expert Dr. Randy) Borum believes that one way forward may be to learn from social psychology and negotiation theory, both of which can provide insights into ways to achieve resolution using influence and persuasion rather than coercion. For instance, a key lesson from studies of negotiation is that success depends on tailoring your approach to the circumstances. "It offers a better understanding of what kinds of techniques and approaches are most likely to work for what kinds of people, for what kinds of outcomes, in what kinds of circumstances," he says. Meanwhile, social psychologists have shown that pressuring people to change their minds often produces precisely the opposite of the desired effect: it makes them more resistant to change. There may be non-coercive ways to address resistance, says Borum, which could be applied to an interrogation setting. Alexander sees the merit in this approach. "Taking knowledge from other fields and applying it to interrogation is very important," he says.

 

Of course, marketing, advertising, and sales, are fields that spend a great deal of time and money to stay at the forefront of the latest techniques for influencing behavior. Indeed, an accompanying essay in New Scientists asks, 'Where coercion has failed, why not try persuasion?'" Interestingly, the author of the piece suggests that the most persuasive technique may actually be transparency. That aligns with what I've found in my own research on the future of advertising: authentic stories about good products are what really sell. Any other techniques may be temporarily successful, but we quickly build up immunities. From New Scientist:

We know, for example, that successful persuasion rests on the reputation of the person doing the persuading. This may help explain the civilian justice system's greater success at bringing terrorists to book: they have a much better reputation for fair dealing than the military tribunals system.

 

Commenting on the announcement that the alleged Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - who is to be tried by the civilian courts - is cooperating with the FBI, (US Attorney General Eric) Holder said: "You are much more likely to get people to cooperate with us if their belief is that we are acting in a way that is consistent with American values."

 

If the security services want to improve their reputation there is a proven way: reputation requires trust, and trust rests on openness.