Building Trust to Enhance Elicitation

Abstract

Drawing on the scientific literature on trust and the experiences of distinguished interviewers, two primary trust-building tactics with potential application in investigative and intelligence interviewing were identified and assessed for their efficacy in this context. Trust-building tactics that demonstrate trustworthiness and demonstrate a willingness to trust portray the interviewer as reliable and dependable (i.e., perceptions of cognitive trust) as well as convey goodwill and warmth (i.e., perceptions of affective trust) were viewed as likely to increase a source’s willingness to disclose critical information. Across three experiments, both tactics were found to be influential in engaging the reciprocity principle in a manner that elicited the sources’ cooperation and enhanced information yield. However, perceptions of cognitive trust were found to function as a direct encouragement to reveal information. In contrast, perceptions of affective trust first facilitated a willingness to cooperate that had the potential for subsequently manifesting as an instrumental form of cooperation.

Intelligence has been called “the second oldest profession.” There is a certain irony, then, when intelligence officers routinely ask a recruited source to “trust me,” as such a request means trust me with your safety, trust me to protect your family, even trust me with your life. Nonetheless, accomplished interviewers view the challenge of earning a source’s trust to be of vital importance to eliciting intelligence information. Across the spectrum of human intelligence—from agent handling to interrogation—case studies of successful operators highlight the fact that time and effort in building trust can facilitate intelligence elicitation.¹

This article builds on the theoretical literature on trust and the experiences of distinguished interviewers to describe the role of trust building in mitigating resistance. Central to the discussion are two trust-building tactics—demonstrating trustworthiness and demonstrating a willingness to trust—that can be leveraged to encourage cooperation in an operational context. The next step was to evaluate the efficacy of these proposed trust-building tactics via three experiments and explore the application of these tactics in investigative and intelligence elicitation contexts.

A REVIEW OF THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON TRUST

Trust has been described as a state of mind where the trusting individual is prepared or willing to accept a degree of vulnerability that comes with the risk of losing something of importance.² Although researchers have struggled to define and measure trust, the consensus is that trust comprises two main components: the intention to accept vulnerability and the maintenance of positive expectations regarding the outcome.³ Consequently, scholars have evaluated trust by measuring it (1) as a perception, (2) as a psychological process, and (3) as a risk-taking act.⁴ These three facets of trust are briefly described below.

Trust as a Perception

A primary function of trust is to reduce perceptions of uncertainty about events. An individual considering whether to trust another will likely look for cues that might inform them of the other’s trustworthiness. Research has established three behavioral characteristics that predict an individual’s perceived trustworthiness: ability, integrity, and benevolence.⁵ Ability relates to a group of competencies and characteristics relevant to a specific domain in which an individual may be skilled. For example, an individual may possess a technical skill or expert knowledge (e.g., medical or financial expertise) affording some trust on related tasks; however, this trust perception may not extend to other domains outside of the individual’s area of expertise. Integrity is the perception that an individual adheres to a set of principles that reflect trustworthiness. Hence, if the trusting individual does not deem another individual’s principles to be acceptable, then that individual would not be considered to have integrity for the right reasons and may not be trusted.⁶ Benevolence is a trusting individual’s perception that another individual would help them without a requirement or extrinsic reward. As such, benevolence suggests that the trusting individual holds some form of positive orientation toward the individual.⁷

Trust as a Psychological Process

To understand trust better in the human intelligence context, it can be helpful to think of trust as both perception and process. Although perceptions of another’s trustworthiness facilitate the development of positive expectations, an individual may also process information (relating to ability, integrity, and benevolence) on both cognitive and affective levels to help them forecast potential behavior for those they are considering whether to trust. When processing cognitive trust, people seek information that supports calculated predictions about another’s behavior, which is rooted in whether they appear reliable, dependable, and professional.⁸ This psychological process of cognitive trust reduces uncertainty by providing a rational calculus for when it might be safe to assume vulnerability. Another psychological process is affective trust, in which people look for confidence rooted in appearances of emotional investment, goodwill, and warmth. The affective trust process can assist in reducing the complexity of making calculated cognitive decisions, and it can be so influential that it may shield against logic-based challenges to its cognitive basis.⁹ Some argue that when affective trust has been established, there may no longer be any need for a cognitive foundation to trust.

Trust as an Action

Although the research has clarified how individuals perceive trustworthiness and process such information on cognitive and affective levels to form a mental platform for engaging in trusting behaviors, the research has not examined activities of direct relevance to engaging and interacting with sources within the human intelligence context (e.g., improving cooperation and increased sharing). However, some studies have evaluated “intentions to assume vulnerability” and “risk behavior” to better understand what behaviors and actions can result from trust.

The intention to accept vulnerability refers to a willingness to engage in trusting behaviors. Such studies have examined the motives to trust, providing insights into how individuals make trust decisions.¹⁰ This research suggests that the intention to trust is facilitated by open and accurate communication, informal agreements, and task coordination; in contrast, intentions to trust are reduced by maintaining surveillance.¹¹ For example, if an individual thinks carefully before voicing opinions and is transparent with information, enters into agreements without stating obligations, and relies on others to make appropriate decisions, while refraining from monitoring or attentively observing others to make sure no mistakes are being made, then that individual is more likely to be trusted.

Risk-taking behavior has commonly been examined in rational-choice simulations known as trust games.¹² These studies suggest that players who do not know what to do early in a game will begin with selecting more neutral options and eventually utilize the transaction history to inform future decisions of whether (or not) to adopt a trusting behavior.¹³ However, such trust game paradigms examine sequential exchanges of economically consequential behaviors and thereby inspire theory based on the premise that the reasoning behind such decisions (i.e., perceptions, psychological processes, and intentions to trust) are secondary, even irrelevant, to the explicit choices and preferences people make.¹⁴ Hence, there exists very limited knowledge on risk-taking behavior when trust is studied as a state of mind.

SOME THOUGHTS ON DISTINGUISHING TRUST AND RAPPORT

Rapport is a concept highly regarded in intelligence elicitation contexts and is closely related to trust.¹⁵ Although more work is needed to distinguish between trust and rapport, a key difference relates to how each concept informs information processing. The literature on trust typically examines how individuals perceive, process, and evaluate another individual’s characteristics (e.g., reliability, dependability, goodwill, and warmth), where the primary function is to forecast potential behavior to reduce any perceived uncertainty regarding future behavior. In contrast, the rapport literature typically focuses on how individuals perceive the quality of interactions (e.g., conversational fluidity, positivity, and coordination) and how such perceptions can inform the development of personal connections and relationships.¹⁶ Although there may be similarities with respect to the type of information individuals process when evaluating trust and rapport, we suggest that the information may be processed differently depending on whether the individual is evaluating an interaction or forming expectations about future behavior.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RECIPROCITY IN DEVELOPING TRUST

Although the literature on trust offers a robust assessment of how people (1) perceive trustworthiness, (2) process trust, (3) form intentions to trust, and (4) engage in trusting behavior, little work has been conducted with respect to trust-building strategies. In synthesizing the available literature, the principle of reciprocity was proposed as being helpful in shaping tactic development.¹⁷

Reciprocity refers to social exchanges of objects and gestures. In contrast to economic exchanges and game theory, which are based on contracts and specified quantities that can inform cost–benefit analyses, social exchanges involve vaguely specified future obligations that occur over an open-ended timeframe.¹⁸ For example, if Peter buys his colleague Alan lunch every now and then, Alan might eventually reciprocate Peter’s gesture by inviting Peter and his family to spend the holidays in his vacation house (i.e., a social exchange). However, suppose Alan reimburses Peter every cent for the lunches (i.e., an economic exchange). In that case, Peter’s action is no longer a gesture but rather the first step in a transaction (with Alan’s repayment the second step). As a result, Alan is less likely to be invited to Peter’s vacation house. As such, many social relationships place subjective psychological evaluations of trust, rather than explicit negotiated agreements, as the exchange facilitator.¹⁹

Some argue that reciprocity relates to an implicit obligation to return a gesture.²⁰ In contrast, others believe reciprocity is based on perceptions of consequences (e.g., if Peter has a lunch loyalty card that offers two lunches for the price of one, it might reduce Alan’s perceived need to reciprocate) and intentions (e.g., if Peter always offers the lunch to whoever stands with him in the cue, Alan’s perceived need to reciprocate may similarly be reduced).²¹ It is important to take perceptions of consequences and intentions into account when attempting to gain trust. This rationale assumes that the context matters more than the object, especially when the outcome of an interaction is both uncertain and consequential, as is mirrored in many intelligence elicitation contexts.

In addition, trust-building attempts should be performed through subtle behaviors independent of apparent gain on the part of the individual seeking to build trust. Trust-building tactics should, for example, work in parallel with, yet be independent of, eliciting information. While it can seem counterintuitive, appealing to trust as a psychological state is likely influenced by reciprocal displays of trust (i.e., as an exchange of trust demonstrations) rather than as a transaction (e.g., offering money in exchange for information). While the reciprocity principle can effectively leverage trust, the trust-building gesture would need to be offered on a social level (e.g., taking the time to listen in order to later be listened to) rather than a quid pro quo arrangement (e.g., offering reduced punishment in exchange for information).

TWO FUNDAMENTAL TRUST-BUILDING STRATEGIES

According to many law enforcement and intelligence professionals, earning the trust of a source is of vital importance in successfully eliciting valuable information.²² Research has also shown that interviewers use a variety of social influence strategies to increase liking and prompt reciprocity.²³ Although such findings lend support to reciprocity as a valuable strategy in building relationships,²⁴ this research will examine how the reciprocity principle itself could be used to develop trust. Based on the extant research literature and operational case studies that exemplify how trust building is critical in mitigating resistance, two basic trust-building tactics are hypothesized to facilitate cooperation in an intelligence elicitation context. Specifically, where the interviewer consistently demonstrates their trustworthiness and/or demonstrates a willingness to trust, the source is more likely to reciprocate and to increase their perceptions of trust in the interviewer.

Demonstrating Trustworthiness

One fundamental strategy for the interviewer to demonstrate their trustworthiness is to engage in an act that reassures the source that benevolent obligations will be fulfilled. This strategy is the interviewer’s attempt to make clear that they will follow through whenever they commit to something. By such a demonstrative act, the interviewer indirectly communicates to the source that “you can trust me,” which is likely to manifest in reciprocal trusting behavior. For example, to be trusted with a secret, you may first have to offer proof of how you would keep a secret.

Demonstrating a Willingness to Trust

A second strategy for developing trust involves the interviewer demonstrating a willingness to trust the source by accepting the uncertainty—and the risk—as to whether the source will fulfill benevolent obligations. This strategy could be exemplified as allowing freedom under the responsibility and can thus communicate indirectly to the source that “I trust you.” Attempting to demonstrate confidence in the source’s judgment and actions in such a manner is likely to result in reciprocal trusting behavior. For example, to be trusted with intimate details, you may first have to confide intimate details.

EXAMPLES OF TRUST-BUILDING TACTICS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ELICITATION CONTEXTS

Several notable historical examples of these trust-building strategies were identified in law enforcement and intelligence elicitation contexts. Two examples for each strategy are offered below to highlight how these strategies can be used to develop trust and elicit information successfully.

Demonstrating Trustworthiness

During World War II, Navy Lieutenant Otis Cary employed a strategy of demonstrating trustworthiness. He knew the Japanese warrior ethos of Bushido forbade Japanese soldiers from allowing themselves to be captured and that returning prisoners were likely to face allegations of cowardice. This resistance mindset provided a source of power for the prisoners of war (POWs). Yet Cary was able to earn their trust by encouraging a belief in themselves as courageous patriots with a critical role in building a democratic and prosperous Japan in the postwar era. He suggested they could hasten the realization of this vision if they were to help the Allies bring the war to a successful conclusion. Beyond providing critical intelligence information, the prisoners also worked on drafting a new national constitution and assisting in developing psychological campaigns that would encourage their fellow soldiers to surrender.²⁵

Following the 11 September 2001 attacks, Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Robert McFadden was tasked with interrogating ‘Abdul ‘Aziz bin ‘Attash, a known al-Qaeda member and a suspect in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Held in detention within the Republic of Yemen, he was alternately annoyed and curious when encountering American interviewers. In his initial encounter, ‘Abdul ‘Aziz demonstrated an unwillingness to even engage with the Americans. McFadden, who had been observing ‘Abdul ‘Aziz being questioned by Yemeni officers, made note of the detainee’s abiding concern for his family’s welfare. Acting on this insight, McFadden navigated a challenging and unsympathetic bureaucracy to enable ‘Abdul ‘Aziz to call his family. By arranging for him to make a call to his mother, McFadden not only mitigated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz’s concerns but also demonstrated that he could be trusted to keep his word. Soon thereafter, ‘Abdul ‘Aziz began to cooperate and ultimately disclosed exceptionally valuable intelligence to Special Agent McFadden.²⁶

Demonstrating a Willingness to Trust

Hanns Scharff, a Luftwaffe (German Air Force) interrogator during World War II, questioned 450 POWs, all of whom had been trained to resist interrogation and were acutely aware of the protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention. Central to Scharff’s overarching strategy was the offer of privileges that reflected his willingness to be vulnerable to his POWs’ actions. Specifically, Scharff escorted prisoners outside the detention center, including long walks in unsecured areas and meetings (including dinners) with German military pilots. In one notable instance, Scharff arranged for an American POW to fly a Messerschmitt Bf 109, the premier single-seat fighter aircraft in the Luftwaffe inventory.²⁷

During the Vietnam War, Central Intelligence Agency contract interrogator Orrin DeForest emphasized the role of trust building as central to successful interrogation strategies. A prime example of this is revealed in how DeForest managed the detention of high-value Viet Cong sources who had collectively demonstrated a deep resolve to resist interrogation. Rather than holding them in secure confinement per convention, DeForest arranged for several detainees to live with their interrogator, participate in daily activities, and sleep under the same roof without a guard. This arrangement demonstrated the interrogator’s trust that the detainee would not escape nor take advantage of the circumstances to harm the interrogator. Deforest reported that this approach proved incredibly effective in eliciting cooperation from these challenging sources.²⁸

THE CURRENT STUDIES

This article sets forth a tactical understanding of trust-building strategies generated by a series of three experiments. Drawing from the theoretical literature on trust and a review of historical successes by interrogators, two trust-building tactics were identified that appear to facilitate trust building: demonstrating trustworthiness (i.e., “you can trust me”) and demonstrating a willingness to trust (i.e., “I trust you”).

The examination of trust building in intelligence elicitation contexts drew from the idea that positive expectations are essential to trust and that such perceptions would inform a process leading to reciprocal trusting behavior. Specifically, it was expected that a trust demonstration on the part of the interviewer (e.g., fulfilling an obligation, accepting risk) would enhance the sources’ cognitive and affective reasons to reciprocate and that their trust reciprocation could be approximated via their willingness to cooperate (i.e., a proxy for an intention to trust) and their disclosure of critical information (i.e., a proxy for a risk-taking act). A process model was tested that is likely to explain the influence of trust-building tactics in both eliciting cooperation and ultimately achieving disclosure of information. This model is consistent with extant research on developing rapport in intelligence elicitation contexts.²⁹ As displayed in Figure 1, it was originally predicted that demonstrating trustworthiness and demonstrating a willingness to trust would increase perceptions of cognitive and affective trust, which, in turn, would increase cooperation and information disclosure.

Figure 1. Predicted path model of the effects of trust-building interview tactics.

The examination of the proposed interrogative process model (Figure 1) began via a vignette study (Experiment I) before replicating the findings using a realistic behavioral paradigm (Experiment II). The lessons learned from Experiments I and II helped inform an examination of the role of reciprocity and a trust-building framework in a vignette study (Experiment III).

Experiment I: An Initial Test of the Trust-Building Tactics

Participants included 115 individuals (56% female) who were recruited for the study via an online recruitment platform (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk).³⁰ Participants were randomly assigned to one of four cells that comprised a 2 Demonstrating Trustworthiness (present vs. absent) × 2 Demonstrating a Willingness to Trust (present vs. absent) between-participants design.

Participants were first presented with an engaging prologue that described a crime scenario wherein participants imagined that their neighbor had been involved in a drug-related business and had been asked to help their neighbor turn cash into money orders to avoid taxes. The participants then viewed a videotaped interrogation from the perspective of the interviewed source, after which they answered questions relating to key interview outcomes and measures of cognitive and affective trust using Likert-type scales that ranged from 1 to 7 (Table 1).

Table 1. An Overview of the Main Psychological Constructs and Items Used.

Concepts	Descriptions	Experiment
Cognitive Trust
Professionalism	The interviewer approached his/her job with professionalism and dedication.	I, III
Skill	The interviewer was very skilled at his/her job.	I, III
Competence	Given my experience with the interviewer, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence and preparation for the interview.	III
Fairness	I felt that the interviewer was fair.	I, II, III
Patience	I felt like the interviewer was patient with me.	I, II, III
Experienced	The interviewer was experienced in interviewing.	III
Carelessness	I can rely on this interviewer not to make the interview more difficult by making careless mistakes.	III
Affective Trust
Interest	The interviewer was interested in helping me out.	I, II, III
Sharing relationship	The interviewer and I had a sharing relationship. We could both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes.	I, III
Speak freely	I could talk freely to the interviewer about difficulties that I am having in my life and know that he/she will want to listen.	I, III
Respond caringly	If I shared my problems with the interviewer, I know the interviewer would respond constructively and caringly.	I, III
Cooperation
Truthful	How willing would you be to truthfully provide the information that the interviewer specifically asks for?	I, II, III
Additional details	How willing would you be to provide additional truthful details beyond the interviewer’s questions?	I, II, III
Admission
Critical information	Five items of information from the scenario.	I, II, III

Note. A complete description can be found at the Open Science Framework link: https://osf.io/n2u9g/.

The interviewer in the video demonstrated trustworthiness by asking the source if he has his phone with him. As the source responds “no,” the interviewer explains why phones are normally confiscated, offers to retrieve the phone, and immediately follows through on that promise. The interviewer returns after a few minutes and gives the source his phone.

The interviewer in the video demonstrated a willingness to trust by offering the source the option of using the staff restroom if needed. The interviewer explains that the staff restroom is located in an area where high-value equipment is stored and provides the source with a key to the restroom.

As displayed in Figure 2, the vignette paradigm supported the efficacy of the proposed trust-building strategies in developing cognitive (but not affective) trust perceptions. Specifically, both trust-building tactics increased sources’ perceptions of cognitive trust, and perceptions of cognitive trust increased sources’ willingness to cooperate, which mediated their disclosure of key admissions in an intelligence elicitation context. Although affective trust also increased sources’ willingness to cooperate and indirectly increased disclosure, neither of the two trust-building tactics had significant direct effects on affective trust. While this study offered results generally consistent with the original theoretical predictions, having participants imagine themselves in the shoes of a source may not fully capture the behavioral effects of the trust-building tactics. Hence, Experiment II used a behavioral paradigm in which participants were placed in a realistic interrogative simulation.

Figure 2. Observed path model illustrating effects sizes of the direct effects of trust-building interview tactics. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Experiment II: A Behavioral Test of Trust-Building Tactics

A sample of 117 participants (62% female) from Iowa State University was randomly assigned to one of four conditions comprising a 2 Demonstrating Trustworthiness (present vs. absent) × 2 Demonstrating a Willingness to Trust (present vs. absent) between-participants design. The study used a modified version of a cheating paradigm that involves a high degree of psychological realism.³¹ Participants were induced to cheat on an academic test and were later informed that they were suspected of colluding with another participant in academic dishonesty. Participants were then interviewed about the suspected cheating and led to believe that the situation was genuinely a matter of concern (and not a part of the “experiment”). Following the interview, participants were immediately debriefed about the true purpose of the study (i.e., that the researchers had arranged the cheating and that there would be no academic consequences) and then answered questions related to their perceptions of cognitive and affective trust (see Table 1).

Interview manipulations were consistent with Experiment I. When demonstrating trustworthiness, the interviewer would follow the relevant protocol described above (involving the source’s phone) before resuming the interview.

When demonstrating a willingness to trust, the interviewer would follow the relevant protocol described above (involving the key to the staff restroom) before resuming the interview.

Findings from the simulated, although psychologically realistic, behavioral paradigm showed that only the demonstrating trustworthiness tactic (i.e., “you can trust me”) increased sources’ perceptions of cognitive trust (see Figure 3). Further, cognitive trust increased sources’ willingness to cooperate, and their willingness to cooperate again indirectly increased their disclosure of key admissions. However, trust-building strategies did not show significant effects on the sources’ perceptions of affective trust, and affective trust showed no significant effect on the sources’ willingness to cooperate. Moreover, and in contrast with Experiment I, no significant effects were found that emerged from the “demonstration of a willingness to trust” tactic. This “failed” outcome may have been the result of sources’ perceptions of the need for such a gesture—that is, gestures involved in trust demonstrations may be most impactful when they satisfy a source’s genuine need (in this case the need to retrieve their phone). These findings encouraged us to consider a more central role for the reciprocity principle in the trust-building framework.

Figure 3. Observed path model illustrating effects sizes of the direct effects of trust-building interview tactics. *p < .05; **p = .01.

Experiment III: Assessing the Role of Reciprocity in a Trust-Building Framework

As noted previously, subjective psychological evaluations of trust may serve as the essence of reciprocity and the facilitator of exchange.³² Herein, reciprocity may represent the foundation of trust building, particularly when the outcome of an interaction is—as in real-world intelligence operations—both uncertain and consequential. Prior research has largely ignored evaluations of the role of reciprocity in mediating the efficacy of trust-building tactics. In Experiment III, the role of reciprocity in facilitating trust perceptions was assessed.

Furthermore, a review of the extant literature suggested that four facets of a trust-building interaction may be key to its efficacy: empathy, genuineness, risk, and independence. These facets may serve to guide a trust-building framework as predictive of both affective and cognitive trust. Experiment III assessed the extent to which they predicted perceptions of both forms of trust.

Empathy

The perception of an empathic connection with the interviewer is likely to increase trust perceptions. As such, empathy may bolster the source’s perception that the interviewer’s intentions are personalized rather than dismissing the interviewer’s effort as routine behavior.

Genuineness

The perception that an interviewer’s behavior is sincere is likely to increase trust perceptions. In this context, adopting behavior that is authentic may facilitate a source’s processing of cognitive and affective justifications as to why the interviewer’s intentions are personalized rather than being routine behavior.

Risk

The perception that an interviewer is willing to accept risk and accountability to facilitate a source’s best interests may influence trust perceptions. For example, risk-taking may bolster positive feelings of being favored and offered special treatment, although the interviewer should not be seen as acting unethically or inappropriately.

Independence

Offers of trust-building gestures should be independent of any expected gain on the part of the source. Reciprocity functions most effectively on the implicit level, absent any overt expectation of a response. As such, demanding or requesting something in return of a trust-building attempt is likely to undermine trust perceptions. That is, trust building should work independently from expectations of an instrumental return.

Experiment III Methods and Results

Experiment III (N = 285 participants) used a vignette paradigm to assess the importance of reciprocity to the efficacy of the trust-building tactics and further assessed the role of empathy, genuineness, risk, and independence in predicting perceptions of affective and cognitive trust. Participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and randomly assigned to one of four conditions comprising a 2 Demonstrating Trustworthiness (present vs. absent) × 2 Demonstrating a Willingness to Trust (present vs. absent) between-participants design. Two important modifications were made to the method used in prior tests: (1) the “demonstrating a willingness to trust” tactic was adjusted to better address a need that a source might express—namely to use the interviewer’s cell phone to make an unsupervised call to one’s family—and (2) measures of reciprocity, empathy, genuineness, risk, and independence were also added.

At the outset, it was predicted that perceptions of reciprocity would mediate the effects of trust-building strategies on cognitive and affective trust perceptions, increasing cooperation and disclosure. As displayed in Figure 4, reciprocity was a significant mediator for increasing the effects of the trust-building strategies on perceptions of both affective and cognitive trust. Perceptions of reciprocity also, directly and indirectly, increased the sources’ willingness to cooperate and their disclosure of key admissions to the interviewer. Consistent with these predictions, it appears that reciprocity plays a significant and central role in the efficacy of trust-building tactics.

Figure 4. Observed path model illustrating effects sizes of the direct effects of trust-building interview tactics. ^p = .06; *p = .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Based on the literature review completed for this study, it was predicted that four elements of trust (i.e., risk, empathy, genuineness, and independence) might facilitate the success of an interviewer’s trust-building strategy. As displayed in Figure 5, sources’ perception of the interviewer’s risk proposition, empathy, and genuineness increased perceptions of affective trust. The sources’ perception of the interviewer’s empathy and genuineness similarly increased perceptions of cognitive trust, whereas perceptions of the interviewer’s risk proposition and a lack of independence decreased perceptions of cognitive trust. Consistent with the original predictions, it appears that this trust-building framework plays an important role in the trust-building process.

Figure 5. Observed path model illustrating effects sizes of the direct effects of trust facilitating elements on affective and cognitive trust. Dashed lines denote negative relationships. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This article synthesized the theoretical research literature on trust. It offered case examples of trust-building attempts in the field to inform the development of two trust-building tactics: demonstrating trustworthiness and demonstrating a willingness to trust. An assessment of the efficacy of these trust-building tactics on cooperation and information disclosure in an intelligence elicitation context followed this. Attempts to build trust were predicted as portraying the interviewer as reliable and dependable (cognitive trust) and conveying goodwill and warmth toward the source (affective trust). Both cognitive and affective trust perceptions were expected to increase the likelihood that the source would decide to cooperate and to disclose critical information. Experiments I and II support the vital role of these trust-building strategies in facilitating cooperation and information disclosure. However, the effects were mediated by cognitive trust rather than affective trust.

Findings from Experiment III highlight the importance of reciprocity in building trust, as perceptions of reciprocity were shown to facilitate the source’s positive affective and cognitive trust evaluations of the interviewer, which, in turn, increased their cooperation and disclosure of critical information. This study further demonstrated that reciprocity can be successfully engaged by the interviewer, demonstrating their trustworthiness (e.g., by fulfilling their promise to retrieve the source’s confiscated cell phone) and demonstrating their willingness to trust (e.g., by accepting risk by offering the source to use their personal cell phone to call their family).

The discussion begins with a consideration of the importance of reciprocity in the tactical implementation of trust-building strategies. This is followed by an examination of how perceptions of cognitive and affective trust might offer two different pathways to a source’s cooperation and consider how a trust-building process could be facilitated through four elements of trust. Finally, several main limitations are highlighted before concluding the study.

Tactical Implementation

For a tactic to build trust, it appears important that the interviewer understand what a source truly values rather than offering gestures or things that may be appreciated but are not essential. Support was found for this notion through the observed consistency of the demonstrating trustworthiness tactic and the inconsistency of the demonstrating a willingness to trust a tactic across these experiments. That is, sources’ perceived need for the item offered in the trust demonstrations (i.e., retrieving the sources’ phone vs. providing access to a restricted restroom) appeared to influence whether sources perceived the gesture as an appropriate act that might prompt reciprocity. When the demonstrating a willingness to trust tactic was altered to reflect a genuine need in Experiment III (i.e., allowing the source to make a phone call), both cooperation and information disclosure ensued. As such, if the interviewer identifies what a source truly values, then the interviewer’s trust-building gesture is more likely to encourage the source to reciprocate and therein facilitate positive trust perceptions. As an example, if the interviewer offers the source a customary glass of water, the source will likely appreciate the gesture but may not be encouraged to reciprocate the act. In contrast, if the interviewer learns the source is hungry, then a gesture in which the interviewer breaks from their interview objectives and provides food to the source is likely to be viewed positively and to induce both affective and cognitive trust.

Strategic Considerations

The current studies suggest that trust-building tactics can produce two different pathways to information disclosure. An affective pathway seems first to facilitate a cooperative mindset, which eventually leads to a more instrumental form of cooperation. In contrast, a cognitive pathway seems to function more as a direct encouragement to facilitate cooperation in the immediate context. Perceptions of affective trust, or processing emotional reasons to trust, likely require more time to facilitate the steps of transformational relationship building. Such relationships typically begin with casual meetings and small talk that can identify commonalities, potentially leading to the development of shared experiences and eventually a stronger relational bond. While the development of a complete state of affective trust would likely require continued interactions over an extended period of time,³³ research has shown that trust perceptions can be established rather quickly.³⁴ In an intelligence elicitation context, these more immediate trusting behaviors are likely to be influenced by perceptions that the interviewer is reliable and dependable (i.e., cognitive trust), motivating a source’s initial decision to cooperate. This overall finding lends support to the importance of strategic patience. Success in any human intelligence collection effort is founded on the operationally meaningful relationship between the collector and the source, which often takes time to develop. Consistent with this reality, trust building is a prime example of the professional adage slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.

Facilitating Trust-Building Processes

Experiment III examined four elements (i.e., empathic connection, genuineness, risk, and independence) predicted to facilitate trust perceptions. The findings support the importance of these processes and their utility in the tactical context. First, the perception of having an empathic connection with the interviewer increased both cognitive and affective trust perceptions. When the interviewer was perceived as showing concern for the source’s situation, a perception of empathy bolstered the salience of the interviewer’s underlying intentions on both cognitive and affective trust levels. This finding lends support to the value of reducing the power differential between a collector and a source to facilitate an empathic connection.

Second, perceiving that the interviewer’s behavior was genuine also facilitated both affective and cognitive trust perceptions. This suggests that adopting an authentic behavior—one reflecting true thoughts and feelings—is important for encouraging perceptions of cognitive and affective trust. This highlights the practical need to move away from deceptive tactics and toward a practice characterized by frank and forthright communication.³⁵

Third, a perception that the interviewer was willing to accept risk and accountability for how he supported the source increased affective trust perceptions while also showing a negative impact on cognitive trust perceptions. As such, interviewers must carefully balance risk perceptions when engaging in trust-building efforts by, for example, avoiding actions that might be viewed as unethical or inappropriate. The collector represents the organization they serve, and breaking allegiance to it in a misguided effort to build trust is likely to be counterproductive.

Finally, a perception that the interviewer held an explicit expectation of reciprocity in return for his trust-building actions harmed cognitive trust perceptions (but no effect on perceptions of affective trust). This suggests it is important that trust-building attempts are offered without expecting a return. Conventional practice has long viewed collector–source relationships as primarily transactional. In contrast, the findings suggest that relationships built on trust and empathy are likely to increase information yield.

Limitations and Future Research

The current studies showed that perceptions of cognitive trust can develop in the absence of perceptions of affective trust, and that affective trust may not be required to directly encourage disclosure in intelligence elicitation contexts. However, further research is needed to distinguish cognitive and affective trust from the concept of rapport, and to evaluate their individual and combined functions to influence cooperation and disclosure in different intelligence elicitation contexts. Relatedly, the current study did not consider any factors that might moderate the demonstrated trust-building effects. Future studies may benefit from including measures and manipulations of other factors, such as culture, to assess possible variations in the findings.

On a separate note, the fact that a normative sample of participants were tested across the three experiments made it challenging to identify and utilize items or gestures that might be meaningful to every participant in the trust demonstrations. Hence, the current studies are best considered a “proof of concept” and assessment of the efficacy of trust-building tactics. In this context, practitioners are encouraged to use active listening skills throughout an engagement to assess the stability of the relationship (e.g., rapport), seek to identify their source’s needs as they arise (e.g., through evocation), and, as appropriate, pause their elicitation agenda and directly attend to such needs. In doing so, they have an opportunity to “demonstrate their trustworthiness” or to “demonstrate their willingness to trust,” thereby promoting an enhanced perception of positivity on the part of the source.

Finally, it should be noted that the proposed trust-building tactics could also be applied in a risky and unethical manner. For example, interviewers might attempt to manipulate the setting to deprive the source of something valuable (e.g., confiscate items to offer them back) or to manipulate a need (e.g., deprive the source of sleep and then offer a quiet room with a bed). However, manipulating the context to promote trust-building attempts in such a manner is not only unethical and should be discouraged on that merit alone, but also comes with the risk that the source may uncover the interviewer’s deception. Such a realization will undoubtedly damage even the most trusted relationships and may also damage any perceived trust in the interviewer’s associated institutions. It is thus important that policymakers and legal practitioners understand how reciprocity can be deployed in ways that span the broad spectrum of ethics and productivity.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Simon Oleszkiewicz

Simon Oleszkiewicz is an independent research scholar at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). His research has been funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats. In 2018, Dr. Oleszkiewicz received the Early Career Award of the European Association of Psychology and Law. The author can be contacted at [email protected].

Dominick J. Atkinson

Dominick J. Atkinson holds a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology from Iowa State University (2019). His research focuses on investigative interview tactics, including rapport and trust building, tactics that facilitate memory retrieval, assessing cues to deception and credibility, and investigating individual differences in lying ability. The author can be contacted at [email protected].

Steven Kleinman

Steven Kleinman began his career with the Central Intelligence Agency, and rose to the rank of Colonel in the United States Air Force. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from the University of California, Davis, and a Master of Science from the National Intelligence University, Washington, DC. He is a founding member and chair of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group’s Research Advisory Committee. The author can be contacted at [email protected].

Christian A. Meissner

Christian A. Meissner is a Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University. He holds a Ph.D. in Cognitive and Behavioral Science from Florida State University (2001). He has published more than 125 peer-reviewed publications. His research contributions to interviewing and interrogation practice have been recognized by such organizations as the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, the American Psychology-Law Society, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The author can be contacted at [email protected].

Notes

1 James A. Stone, David P. Shoemaker, and Nicholas R. Dotti, Interrogation: World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2008); Melissa B. Russano, Fadia M. Narchet, Steven M. Kleinman, and Christian A. Meissner, “Structured Interviews of Experienced HUMINT Interrogators,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 28 (2014), pp. 847–859.

2 Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman, “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 (1995), pp. 709–734; Denise M. Rousseau, Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer, “Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 (1998), pp. 393–404.

3 Jason A. Colquitt, Brent A. Scott, and Jeffery A. LePine, “Trust, Trustworthiness, and T Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 (2007), pp. 909–927.

4 Bill McEvily and Marco Tortoriello, “Measuring Trust in Organisational Research: Review and Recommendations,” Journal of Trust Research, Vol. 1 (2011), pp. 23–63.

5 Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.”

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Roy J. Lewicki and Barbara Benedict Bunker, Trust in Relationships: A Model of Development and Decline (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 1995); Roy J. Lewicki and Barbara B. Bunker, “Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships,” Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Vol. 114 (1996), pp. 114–139; Jason A. Colquitt, Jeffery A. LePine, Ronald F. Piccolo, Cindy P. Zapata, and Bruce L. Rich, “Explaining the Justice–Performance Relationship: Trust as Exchange Deepener or Trust as Uncertainty Reducer?" Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 (2012), pp. 1–15.

9 Daniel J. McAllister, “Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 (1995), pp. 24–59.

10 McEvily and Tortoriello, “Measuring Trust in Organisational Research.”

11 Steven C. Currall and Timothy A. Judge, “Measuring Trust between Organizational Boundary Role Persons,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 64 (1995), pp. 151–170.

12 Joyce, Berg, John Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History,” Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 10 (1995), pp. 122–142; Noel D. Johnson and Alexandra A. Mislin, “Trust Games: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 32 (2011), pp. 865–889.

13 Colin F. Camerer, “Behavioural Game Theory,” in Behavioural and Experimental Economics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 42–50.

14 McEvily and Tortoriello, “Measuring Trust in Organisational Research.”

15 Christian A. Meissner, Frances Surmon-Böhr, Simon Oleszkiewicz, and Laurence J. Alison, “Developing an Evidence-Based Perspective on Interrogation: A Review of the US Government’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group Research Program,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 23 (2017), pp. 438–457.

16 David A. Neequaye and Erik Mac Giolla, “The Use of the Term Rapport in the Investigative Interviewing Literature: A Critical Examination of Definitions,” Meta-Psychology, Vol. 6 (2022); Fiona Gabbert, Lorraine Hope, Kirk Luther, Gordon Wright, Magdalene Ng, and Gavin Oxburgh, “Exploring the Use of Rapport in Professional Information‐Gathering Contexts by Systematically Mapping the Evidence Base,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 35 (2021), pp. 329–341.

17 Mark A. Serva, Mark A. Fuller, and Roger C. Mayer, “The Reciprocal Nature of Trust: A Longitudinal Study of Interacting Teams,” Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 26 (2005), pp. 625–648.

18 Peter M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: Routledge, 1964).

19 Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe, “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.”

20 Robert B. Cialdini and Lloyd James, Influence: Science and Practice, Vol. 4 (Boston: Pearson Education, 2009).

21 Armin Falk and Urs Fischbacher, “A Theory of Reciprocity,” Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 54 (2006), pp. 293–315.

22 Stone, Shoemaker, and Dotti, Interrogation.

23 Jane Goodman‐Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Mandeep K. Dhami, “Interviewing High Value Detainees: Securing Cooperation and Disclosures,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 28 (2014), pp. 883–897.

24 Meissner, Surmon-Böhr, Oleszkiewicz, and Alison, “Developing an Evidence-Based Perspective on Interrogation.”

25 Stone, Shoemaker, and Dotti, Interrogation.

26 Robert McFadden, personal communication, 25 January 2019.

27 Raymond Toliver, “The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff,” in Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe (Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 1997).

28 Ibid.

29 Laure Brimbal, Rachel E. Dianiska, Jessica K. Swanner, and Christian A. Meissner, “Enhancing Cooperation and Disclosure by Manipulating Affiliation and Developing Rapport in Investigative Interviews,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 25 (2019), pp. 107–115.

30 M. Chmielewski and S. C. Kucker, “An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 11 (2020), pp. 464–473.

31 Jacqueline R. Evans, Christian A. Meissner, Amy B. Ross, Kate A. Houston, Melissa B. Russano, and Allyson J. Horgan, “Obtaining Guilty Knowledge in Human Intelligence Interrogations: Comparing Accusatorial and Information-Gathering Approaches with a Novel Experimental Paradigm,” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Vol. 2 (2013), pp. 83–88.

32 Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe, “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.”

33 Roy J. Lewicki, Edward C. Tomlinson, and Nicole Gillespie, “Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions,” Journal of Management, Vol. 32 (2006), pp. 991–1022.

34 Robert B. Lount, Jr., “The Impact of Positive Mood on Trust in Interpersonal and Intergroup Interactions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98, No. 3 (2010), pp. 420–433.

35 Laurence J. Alison, Emily Alison, Geraldine Noone, Stamatis Elntib, and Paul Christiansen, “Why Tough Tactics Fail and Rapport Gets Results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to Generate Useful Information from Terrorists,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 19 (2013), pp. 411–431.