Related Experiment Videos
Revenge versus rapport: Interrogation, terrorism, and torture
Laurence Alison1, Emily Alison1
1Critical and Major Incident Psychology, University of Liverpool.
The American Psychologist
|April 7, 2017
Summary
Harsh interrogation tactics lack evidence and violate ethical standards. Rapport-based methods, however, are effective and align with psychological principles of promoting human welfare.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Criminology
- Legal Studies
Background:
- Historical use of harsh interrogation methods since WWII.
- Despite legal, ethical, and moral sanctions, these methods persist.
- Revenge-motivated interrogations occur in high-conflict, dehumanizing environments.
Purpose of the Study:
- Review the historical context and efficacy of interrogation methods.
- Examine the contrast between harsh and rapport-based approaches.
- Advocate for evidence-based, ethical interrogation practices.
Main Methods:
- Literature review of historical and contemporary interrogation techniques.
- Analysis of studies on the efficacy of rapport-based methods.
- Examination of ethical principles in psychological practice.
Main Results:
- Harsh interrogation methods lack empirical evidence of effectiveness.
- Rapport-based methods demonstrate efficacy through alliance-building and interpersonal skills.
- Revenge-motivated tactics are ineffective and ethically problematic.
Conclusions:
- Psychologists must adhere to the Hippocratic Oath of 'first do no harm'.
- Wider recognition of evidence supporting rapport-based interrogation is crucial.
- Psychology must prioritize human welfare and evidence-based conclusions.