from his 'notes' of the hypnotic interview the information presumably told him.
He also suggests that an interrogatee who is consciously resistant could be placed in circumstances conducive to hypnosis, without being hypnotized. His submerged desire to divulge what the interrogator wants to know, in order to escape stress, could persuade him that he is or was hypnotized and thus provide him with a rationalization for capitulating. But, after a cogent discussion of other possibilities, Orne concludes that "there is no direct evidence that such techniques have been or will be employed by interrogators nor any evaulation of their effectiveness."
Why isn't there?
In the sixth chapter, written by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton and entitled "The Experimental Investigation of Interpersonal Influence," we encounter first the drear familiar fact that the evidence to be reviewed is not really related to interrogation: "The relevance of this review for the problem of the volume rests on the validity of the assumption that the dynamics of influence operate beyond the range of intensity of conflict which has been studied experimentally." We are further disheartened upon learning that the experiments discussed are unrelated not only to interrogation but also to reality: "Many of the experiments reviewed . . . have employed . . . conditions that are extremely artificial. As a result, conformity or resistance may develop under conditions that bear little resemblance to actual situations." A typical experiment:
Jenness used initial individual judgments of the number of beans in a jar to assign students with initially divergent estimates and those with initially similar estimates to groups of three members and four members respectively. After discussion to arrive at a group estimate, the variation among individual judgments was reduced more in the three-member than in the four-member group.The relevance to interrogation is indeed a little obscure.
The last chapter, "Countermanipulation through Malingering," by Dr. Malcolm L. Metzer, shares with those by Dr. Orne and Dr. Gottschalk two characteristics rarely found in the others--a sensible use of English and an interest, however inexpert, in interrogation. Dr. Metzer discusses the possible