Eliciting Information in Online Interactions: Development of a Rapport-based Approach for Security Contexts

Overview

For logistical, security and practical reasons law enforcement and intelligence professionals often rely on computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools, including text-based chat systems and phone calls, to facilitate information-gathering processes (Stanier & Nunan, 2021). Recent work by Lorraine Hope and team explores whether the established benefits of rapport-based information elicitation techniques, typically employed in face-to-face interactions, remain effective in online communication contexts and, specifically, in chat-based interactions.

Rapport and Information Disclosure

Rapport-building has been empirically and anecdotally linked to positive disclosure outcomes in interrogation, investigative interviewing, and human intelligence debriefings. This is unsurprising as rapport, an adaptive social skill, helps us create bonds and form relationships with others. A growing body of scientific research demonstrates that fostering rapport helps create a non-coercive environment conducive to cooperation and information sharing (Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Alison et al., 2013, 2021; Gabbert et al., 2021). Data from laboratory studies, simulation exercises and real-world investigative interviews indicate that rapport-based interviewing encourages adaptive interpersonal behaviour in both suspects and victims, which leads to increased information yield (Alison et al., 2013; Brimbal et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020).

However, little research has explored the relationship between rapport building and information elicitation in online contexts relevant for security settings. So far, recent studies in simulated investigative interviewing contexts, have shown that while there are limited detrimental effects on the elicitation of accurate and detailed information in online settings (Hoogesteyn et al., 2023; Luke, 2021; Nash et al., 2014); however, perceptions of rapport can be negatively affected (Hoogesteyn et al., 2023).

Current research

The latest research examined the effectiveness of a rapport-based information-gathering interviewing approach to elicit human intelligence information from semi-cooperative individuals in online interviews. Drawing from evidence-based information elicitation techniques developed for in-person human intelligence interviews, Hope et al. developed two interviewing protocols adapted for online chat-based interviews, with a focus on overcoming some of the limitations of CMC by incorporating techniques that enhance rapport in this uniquely challenging context. Specifically, chat-based communication presents several interaction challenges, including delays in response, reduced nonverbal communication, and the potential for misinterpretation due to the absence of tone and visual context. These new tailored rapport-based interviewing protocols for online contexts were tested against a control interview measuring the quantity and quality of information obtained in an online chat-based interview in a scenario-based role-play.

The Scenario

To make the research as ecologically valid as possible, the team worked with practitioners to create a realistic intelligence scenario. Participants took on the role of a human intelligence source faced with the dilemma of what information to provide to the authorities about a friend of theirs who had become increasingly involved in extremist activity involving right-wing groups. They received a detailed information pack comprising text, visuals, video clips and animations designed to build an engaging role-play scenario while establishing an information dilemma which moved participants towards engaging in semi-cooperative behaviour. This methodology underwent extensive piloting (N = 98) to ensure participants understood the dilemma and refrained from providing fully informative responses.

The information pack included details about the relationship between the participant and their friend ‘John’, the recent involvement of John in online political activism, information about a meeting in which John discussed committing a public offence (putting up stickers with ideological content in public spaces, harming those hindering their activities) including details of other people associated with that campaign and, finally, information that suggested escalation towards more direct extremist action.

The interviews

The interviewing protocols included elements from effective face-to-face information gathering techniques, such as rapport, reflective listening, summaries, empathy/affirmations, autonomy, and open prompts (Alison et al., 2013; Brimbal et al., 2021; Gabbert et al., 2021).

Hope and team also examined whether aspects of the Scharff technique (Oleszkiewicz et al., 2014), a technique effective for use with semi-cooperative interviewees, would transfer to the online context. The core of the Scharff technique comprises a 1) friendly approach; 2) not pressing for information; 3) illusion of knowing it all; and 4) the use of a confirmation/disconfirmation tactic.

The two rapport-based interviewing protocols tested were designed for use with different interviewer strategies: one protocol was designed to reflect contexts where the interviewer either does not have knowledge of key information held by the interviewee (or potentially chooses not to divulge any of that information) [Rapport+Questions] while the other was designed to examine efficacy of the confirmation/disconfirmation tactic when partial information is shared with the interviewee [Rapport+Confirmation]. As in previous related research, both protocols were tested against a control interview. In the control condition, neither deliberate rapport-building strategies nor the strategic information-gathering techniques of the new protocols were used. Instead, the interviewer asked direct, focused questions.

In Phase 1 (Opening), the interview in the rapport-based conditions opened with the interviewer using a professional and friendly approach, with an emphasis on building rapport and giving the interviewee autonomy to decide whether to provide information in the interview or not (e.g., “This is your opportunity to present your view of things”; “It is your choice whether you tell us anything or not”; “It is your right not to answer”), whereas participants in the Control condition were introduced to the purpose of the interview in a direct ‘business-like’ manner involving basic rapport.

In Phase 2 (Initial account), all participants were asked about target topics (e.g., personal info about John, their motivations, his online activity and extremist activities) using open prompts (e.g., “Tell me everything you know about X”). Additionally, in the rapport-based conditions the interviewer asked two follow up questions. Further, minimal encouragers and echoing words (i.e., verbal indicators of reflective listening) were used to maintain rapport adapting to the online context.

In the Rapport+Confirmation condition, participants were advised about creating an illusion of interviewer's knowledge to minimise the perceived contribution required from the participant. This technique is a feature of the Scharff Technique and may be effective in certain contexts or for certain types of information. Meanwhile, in the Rapport+Questions condition, the interviewer used transfer of control instructions to establish that participants took the role of information provider.

In Phase 3 (Follow-up), participants in the Rapport+Confirmation condition were presented with claims to confirm or deny (e.g., “We know that Erik introduced John to his political network where he met more people…”). In Scharff’s approach to creating an impression of extensive knowledge, the interviewer can provide opportunities for the source to provide additional information by means of their responses to statements which the interviewer knows to be probable or improbable. This approach avoids the use of direct questions which generally reveal the interviewer’s lack of knowledge. Instead, the intention is to capitalise on conversational norms where the interviewee feels they ought to respond to contribute or to correct information.

In the Rapport+Questions and control conditions, the interviewing protocol followed a funnel approach and used focused questions to follow up on the initial account (5WH questions; e.g., “Who are the new people in John’s political network?”). The number of questions and claims used were matched across protocol conditions.

Finally in Phase 4 (Closing), all participants were asked for information one last time using an open prompt (e.g., “Is there something else?”). The protocols used in the rapport-based conditions included affirmations demonstrating empathy (e.g., “Thank you for speaking with us,” “We appreciate the difficulty of talking about this issue”). See Table 1.

The Experiment

198 participants were allocated at random to one of the three interview conditions (Rapport+Confirmation, Rapport+Questions, or a Control interview protocol). The interviews were conducted entirely online through a written chat platform. The number of correct information units provided by participants in the interviews was coded and the strategies used by interviewees to protect information (Counter Interrogation Techniques; CITs) were explored.

The results

Rapport-based approaches can be used effectively for online chat-based information elicitation

Participants interviewed using the rapport-based online protocols reported more information than participants interviewed using the control interview.

The type of elicitation protocol used had a significant effect on information disclosure. Participants interviewed using the Rapport+Questions protocol provided significantly more units of correct information than the control group.

Rapport-building attempts were positively perceived by the interviewees

Participants interviewed with a rapport-based protocol rated their interactions with the interviewer more positively than those in the control group.

Confirmatory statements do not appear to be effective in the context of online elicitation attempts

Participants interviewed using the Rapport+ Confirmation protocol, which included a phase involving the use of confirmatory statements, did not disclose as much information as those participants interviewed using the Rapport+Questions protocol, who were asked focused questions instead (pertaining to the same topics). It appears that the confirmatory statements did not tend to produce additional information in a chat-based interaction. In the absence of direct pressure of social dynamics or conversational norms that may be present in a face-to-face interaction, it was relatively easy for participants in online interactions to simply not respond or to respond in a vague or non-committal way. This finding is likely consistent with the outcomes of a meta-analysis on research on the Scharff technique which showed that effect sizes for perceived interviewer knowledge were smaller for sources interviewed remotely compared to sources interviewed in person (Luke, 2021).

A wide range of Counter Interrogation Techniques were observed in online elicitation

There was a heavy reliance on verbal strategies that simultaneously appeared to convey cooperation while enabling interviewees to strategically control what information they actually provided during the interview. Participants appeared to make strategic judgments about what to report based on their estimates of what information the interviewer already held and what they reasonably could claim to be unaware of while retaining some credibility. In this respect, they often provided ‘reasons’ (unnecessarily) for why they did not know certain information about John’s activities or made other non-committal or distancing type statements. At the same time, reflecting their information management dilemma, they often used positive framing when providing information about the target while distributing blame or responsibility to other parties.

Strategies used included:

• Introducing unrelated topics to discuss
• Providing information that they thought the interviewer already had
• Providing the same information again using paraphrasing when probed
• Strategic context framing around target information (e.g., advocating for the target, emphasising his positive attributes)
• Distancing themselves from the extremist group
• Focusing blame and responsibility on members of the extremist group
• Denying information they knew to be correct
• Pretending to not know the answer to the interviewer’s questions
• Claiming to have a lack of memory, providing only short answers and attempting to change the subject
• Using humour or other disruptive strategies to distract, change the topic, and avoid providing a response

Conclusion

Rapport-based approaches can be used effectively to elicit information in online interactions and, based on current findings, such approaches outperform interactions where rapport was not strategically applied. The use of rapport in the online context was also perceived by interviewees who rated the interviewer more positively.

This is the first security-focused research to examine the counter-interrogation tactics deployed in (simulated) online interviews of this nature. These data provided an interesting initial opportunity to examine the extent to which strategies deployed in online interactions map onto the strategies deployed in face-to-face interactions. Overall, this was the case – although this research also identified some interesting adaptations for the online context. Future research should examine online interactions and information elicitation attempts to (i) track usage of CITs in more covert interactions and (ii) determine the efficacy of different approach and response strategies to attenuate the impact of CITs or evade their use in the first instance.