Editor’s Note: This introduction should have appeared in our special section Psychology of Intelligence, in volume 37, issue 2, Summer 2024. All articles mentioned appear in that issue.
Intelligence practice is a craft and can only be performed by a human being. This means that psychology plays an important part in various aspects of the intelligence process—from spotting and assessing valuable sources, over gathering information, analyzing raw intelligence, furnishing estimates or other finished intelligence products, to finally choosing the right people for the job. Psychology can provide valid and systematic insights into human behavior, motivation, cognition, and decisionmaking pertaining to these aspects. By acknowledging and discussing these insights, intelligence agencies can contribute significantly to the understanding and enhancement of intelligence processes in various ways. Moreover, by actively leveraging psychological research findings, the Intelligence Community (IC) can strengthen its capabilities and, thus, its mission to safeguard national security and prevent threats. With contributions from leading international experts, this special section on the psychology of intelligence provides insight into the latest research and ideas relevant to intelligence analysis, collection, and organizations.
RELEVANCE OF PSYCHOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENCE
Why should the IC care about psychological research? Psychology as a science is multifaceted (i.e., ranging from the neuropsychology of the brain to the social psychology of groups), and so are the potential contributions to intelligence work and national security. In the following, we sketch some of the key contributions that psychology can make for intelligence and security studies. However, this list is neither complete nor exhaustive.
By providing insights into (intercultural) motivations and behavior, psychology can help to understand better the traits and intentions of adversaries like violent nonstate actors. There is also research on extremism and radicalization trying to elucidate what creates these actors in the first place. Cognitive, forensic, and social psychology further offer a large body of research, evaluations, and tools for detecting deception and assessing the credibility of information and its sources. Even more important, research is regularly debunking tools that do not work.
Likewise, these subdisciplines can aid human intelligence (HUMINT) gathering by studying interviewing, perceptions, and memory. Cognitive, methodological, and brain research can also help to create more accurate predictive models and to counter cognitive biases in intelligence analysis. Moreover, psychology can support staff and organizations by evidence on good leadership and the effective management of human resources, which could include the clinical aspect of assessing and strengthening the resilience of officers and sources against the adversities of their trade. Finally, the vast field of moral psychology can contribute research on moral decisionmaking and ethical frameworks, a thriving topic in intelligence studies.
The articles in the present special section pick up on several of these key themes. This collection encompasses articles on the possibilities and limits of the reduction of cognitive biases in intelligence analysis, teaching of professional deception detection, investigative and intelligence interviewing tactics, and improvements in the understanding of analyst thinking and deciding with an overall aim to improve intelligence strategies and operations.
GOALS OF THIS SPECIAL SECTION
Our foremost goal is to showcase what is there, in order to raise the awareness of psychology as a valuable resource for intelligence and security professionals. We aim to further the professional community’s knowledge of the possibilities and advancements in the social sciences. There is probably rarely enough time for the professional to dive into the various research journals regularly, given the ever-changing challenges of the intelligence profession. By accessing relevant, current psychological topics through this special section, we might also enhance our understanding of the psychological processes underlying intelligence. Relying on sound research and ideas by leading experts is a reasonable basis for thinking about improvements in intelligence operations, training, or analysis.
As intelligence organizations seek to understand and respond to an ever-changing landscape of threats, this section demonstrates that intelligence can increasingly turn to the field of psychology to inform and enhance its practices. Considering in parallel the micro and the macro approaches in intelligence, this special section addresses some of the most essential current intelligence themes, such as applied neuropsychology on the one hand, arguing its growing importance, and on the other hand providing scientific analysis of the field examples in order to offer food for thought regarding the next generation of intelligence operations.
Finally, what we hoped to accomplish is creating a platform for promoting findings and ideas on the psychology of intelligence from science and practice. The scientific and the operational side need to deepen their exchange to become more intertwined and therefore productive. This is why we encouraged and included submissions from scientists and practitioners alike. In our view, the outcome demonstrates the merits (and importance) of cross-disciplinary collaboration. The multifaceted discussion on structured analytic techniques (SATs) in this section, provided by three different perspectives, or the neuropsychological contribution with the most innovative outcomes regarding human brain developments can serve as an excellent example of these merits.
CONTRIBUTIONS
This section addresses a variety of current topics, among which is the subject of cognitive issues and implications for intelligence practitioners. Looking at future intelligence directions, intelligence can take a step forward, especially given the recent results coming from neuropsychology and neuroscience, which are shaped for intelligence work. This is what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization asked for in the future operating environment, such as the cognitive one.
Scientific developments and findings to explain specific brain functions, limitations and, then, human being behaviors and reactions—along with the explanation of new neuropsychological mechanisms that impact perceptions and daily work in the IC as well as the need for training implementations—are the innovative arguments addressed by Davide Bellomo, a top expert working at the link between neuropsychology and global security. Furthermore, neuropsychology permits the opening of new frontiers related to intelligence practice and the future intelligence recruitment processes with new analysis and practical tools.
Tapping into the big project of how to reduce cognitive bias in intelligence analysis, three articles critically discuss the possibilities and limitations of using SATs. SATs comprise a substantial collection of tools that aim to improve analytic outcomes by reducing error and biases and increasing standardization. While all three authors agree on the punches that SATs have taken in recent years by research questioning their conceptual validity and effectiveness, each author takes an individual stance on how to go on from there. Whereas Michael Ard sees merit in SATs for analysts apart from their questionable bias-reduction potential and makes practical suggestions for a revised usage, David Mandel and Daniel Irwin advocate moving on from bias-minimizing interventions to interventions that directly aim to improve intelligence. Here, they argue for statistical optimization procedures and human augmentation. Markus Denzler finally reviews three specific SATs and their application in more detail and shows that while some receive no empirical support, others do. Moving on, he uses this differentiated outcome to make a case for more openness toward empiricism and evidence-based approaches in intelligence. Apart from cognitive biases, there is, of course, a host of other factors involved in the psychological processes of intelligence analysts. Adrian Wolfberg discusses the importance of insight and how it can improve the quality of analytical products. Based on qualitative research with analysts’ real experiences, the author provides useful advice and input for training activities.
Turning to the field of intelligence collection, Simon Oleszkiewicz, Dominick Atkinson, Steven Kleinman, and Christian Meissner show that intricate interpersonal processes in handling sources or informants can be subjected to experimental research. They report three studies on the effectiveness of two trust-building techniques (condensed as “You can trust me” and “I trust you”) that every interviewer can use. This usability is emphasized by another author, Pär Anders Granhag, who states that “to really make a difference outside the laboratory, researchers must know if their proposed techniques can be taught to practitioners.” Accordingly, he delivers a state-of-the-art overview of professional training to detect deception and false intent and to elicit information from human sources subtly.
CONCLUSION
We believe that this section offers only a brief glimpse of the findings. We hope to strengthen the practice–science dialog and cross-disciplinary collaboration efforts with this section. To achieve this, scientists need to communicate the practical merits of their research clearly and be aware of the relevant challenges and problems where research is helpful. On the other hand, for intelligence to be attractive as a field of work for scientists, their research needs support, advice in handling the specifics of the craft, and platforms to publish new findings (like this special section). What is more important even is to increase the exchange and trust between academia and practice. Scientists must recognize the special nature, needs, and limits of this field of research because lab experiments are good and vital. Still, we also need field results with a high environmental validity to the intelligence work, contextualizing the data to real-world application. We hope that the readers of this special section agree with these assessments and that there will be more releases like this as we move forward.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Sabrina Magris
Sabrina Magris, Psy.D., J.D., is the President of École Universitaire Internationale, Italy. She served as Special Consultant for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Presence in Albania. She serves as a trainer for the Italian Military Intelligence. She is Course Director for the European Security and Defense College in collaboration with the Italian Centre for Higher Defense Studies and for the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Trainings. The author can be contacted at [email protected].
Stephan Lau
Stephan Lau is a Junior Professor of psychology at the Federal University of Administrative Sciences, Faculty of Intelligence, in Berlin, Germany. He worked as a researcher at the University of Greifswald, where he received his Ph.D. in 2013, after which he did his postdoc in the Baumeister/Tice Lab at Florida State University. The author can be contacted at [email protected].