amazon.de wurde im letzten Monat von mehr als 1.000.000 Nutzern besucht
Wähle aus unserer großen Auswahl an diversen Fachbüchern. Jetzt online shoppen! Bei uns finden Sie zahlreiche Produkte von namhaften Herstellern auf Lager.
Courses:
Suchergebnisse
Suchergebnisse:
1. Nov. 2014 · The Who, What, and Why of Human Intelligence Gathering: Self-Reported Measures of Interrogation Methods. November 2014. Applied Cognitive Psychology 28 (6) DOI: 10.1002/acp.3040....
- (PDF) Intelligence Gathering Post-9/11 - ResearchGate
Abstract. The gathering of information for intelligence...
- (PDF) The Scharff-Technique: Eliciting Intelligence From ... - ResearchGate
We compared the efficacy of two human intelligence gathering...
- (PDF) Intelligence Gathering Post-9/11 - ResearchGate
5. Analysis and analytical process. The analysis stage of the intelligence process is critical for it concerns the examination of the meaning of the available information highlighting the essential features. Analysis highlights information gaps, the strengths, the weaknesses and pinpoints the way forward.
- 3MB
- 104
Human intelligence gathering involves the collection of information through the interaction between two or more individuals.8 One specific form of HUMINT gathering is information elicitation, for which the goal is to gather information in such a way that the source remains unaware of the true purpose of the exchange.
- Current Research
- Design
- Procedure
- Interviews
- Challenge.
- Closure.
- Free account.
- Probed questioning.
- Probed questioning.
- Free account.
- Blame Questions
- Information Revealed
Below we report an empirical evaluation of MCI and CCE techniques for human intelligence-gathering, comparing them to adapted versions of each, which we refer to as Framed-MCI and Framed-CCE. In the adapted versions, each information-gathering request is preceded by a positive responsibility frame that explic-itly highlights personal responsibiliti...
Participants were assigned to either CCE or MCI interview groups. Each group was further subdivided into Framed or Unframed groups, giving four interview conditions. Key dependent measures included the number of participants in each condition who yielded target information (i.e., the information they were incentivized to withhold), the number of in...
In the experiment, participants witnessed a staged accident during a classroom session in which a laptop computer fell from a table as it was being moved by two confederates, one posing as a researcher and the other posing as a student taking part as a study participant. The event was designed to set up conditions under which participants would, in...
Irrespective of condition, all interviews comprised the same number of discrete phases (5 in total) in the same order: a) explain and build rapport, b) free account, c) probed questioning, d) challenge, and e) closure. The interview protocols differed as a function of condition in the free account and the probed question-ing only. The remaining pha...
This was the last of the information gathering phases of all interviews where, irrespective of information yield and/or interview performance, interviewees were verbally chal-lenged concerning the completeness of the account given thus far, and “pushed” for more information: I think I have a fair understanding of what has happened, but I am not sur...
This final phase marked the end of the interview. Here the interviewer explained that the interview had now finished and thanked the participant for taking part and for explaining how the laptop was damaged. The participant was offered the oppor-tunity to ask any questions. The recording device was turned off.
This phase is the initial information gathering phase of the interview. Participants were first asked the following two blame questions (verbatim) a) who was to blame for the damage to the laptop and b) was anyone else involved. Once these questions had been answered, the participant was asked to provide a detailed account of what had happened, ver...
Each segment mirrored that described in the MCI probed questioning but was preceded by a shorted rein-forcement of the framed persuasion message that had been deliv-ered at the start of the free account as described above.
This phase of the CCE interviews com-prised four information-gathering segments concerning people, actions, verbal and mistakes. People involved. “Describe to me absolutely everything about everyone involved in the damage to the laptop. I know this will be really hard for you, but can you try and provide as much detail as possible because I was not...
The second phase of interviews in this condi-tion commenced with the interviewer providing the same posi-tively framed moral rationale as to why the participant ought to fully explain what had occurred as in the Framed-MCI (above). From then on, the protocol mirrored that of the CCE condition.
At the commencement and end of the free account phase of all interviews, participants were asked two blame questions: a) who was to blame for the damage to the laptop and b) was anyone else involved. All participants complied with the experimenter instruc-tions by replying “the researcher” and “no”, respectively.
Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were coded for the overall total amount of event information provided, which was then clas-sified as target or nontarget information. For the purposes of this research, target information is defined as being any information concerning or indicating the presence and/or involvement of an-other person other than ...
13. Mai 2014 · The Who, What, and Why of Human Intelligence Gathering: Self-Reported Measures of Interrogation Methods. Allison D. Redlich, Christopher E. Kelly, Jeaneé C. Miller. First published: 13 May 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3040. Citations: 35. PDF. Tools. Share. Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.
