by Stan B. Walters, CSP
“The Lie Guy®”

For each of us, the only reason we change our minds about a decision that we have already made is when someone or something convinces us to abandon our first decision and a new or different point of view.  In our mind in some measurable one when see the new position we have taken is being more rewarding or satisfying than the old.  We have made the change after we have been motivated by our perception of “gain” or “pain.”  The same evaluation process is being made in the mind of our interview or interrogation subject while we are persuading them to change their current position and begin to cooperated with us and comply with our requests for information or even confession.  If you can understand the “gain” or “pain” motivation of your subject and demonstrate to your subject a big distinction between the two, you’ll have a better chance at gaining compliance, cooperation and confession.

In the Gain vs. Gain scenario, you subject has already concluded that he has much more to gain by remaining consistent with the position he has already assumed.  First you have two hurdles to overcome, your subject’s commitment to staying consistent with his decision and second demonstrating to him or her the position you want them to choose will provide them even more to gain than they may realize. In this case you’ll need to acknowledge that you subject does have some things to gain by sticking with their decision and point out that the new point of view may also have those very same rewards.  That it itself however, is not enough to move your subject.  You’ll have emphasize the advantages your subject has overlooked or has undervalued in terms of their importance to him and his “gain” objective.

In the second scenario which is Pain vs. Pain, there is the possibility that your interviewee has seen no gain for them at all by accepting your conclusions and you’ll have a long road of persuasion ahead of you. It that case you’ll need to demonstrate to the subject that they have overlooked some pain issues with their point of view and to accept your proposition.  Your recommended position may also afford the subject some “pain” but not nearly as much as what they had not anticipated if they decided to “stand” by his initial choice.  In most cases, carefully listening to your subject and their reasons for rejecting your proposal, you’ll hear the gain-pain issue or issues that is driving your subject’s resistance.  You’ll need to focus on those issues because their are important to your subject but may not be that important to you.

The final scenario is usually the easiest to deal with and that’s the Pain vs. Gain format.  In this case, it is much easier to convince your subject to abandon their choice to resist your recommendations to solve the issue.  They already see themselves has having to deal with some level of “pain” as a result of their behavior and all you have to do is show them the “light” and get them to look forward and see to “gains” they can make by reevaluating their current pain-filled situation.  In many cases, just pointing out what may be obvious “gain” to you is all that is needed because your subject is “blinded” by their current state and has missed the benefits of changing they judgment about the possible outcomes of cooperation.

In any of the three scenarios above, the interviewer has to realize that their subject is motivated by “their” perception of Gain vs Pain.  The evaluation by the subject as to what they define as gain or pain may not even be close to what you as the interviewer think is worth gaining or avoiding.   Once the interviewer recognizes their subject’s gain or pain motivation he can key in on those issues.  The greater the distinction you can make between Gain – Gain, Gain – Pain, and Pain – Pain, the more likely and the more quickly you’ll get the subject to come to the conclusion to abandon their current preferred decision and accept the interviewer’s recommendation.

Stan B. Walters, CSP
“The Lie Guy®”

It is now no secret that a narrative-based interview is the most productive and successful interview technique over the more restrictive accusatory style.  Some of the most recent social psychological research has shown that the narrative process generates not only more information but also has the benefit of stimulating more deception cues if the victim, witness or suspect attempts to mislead the interviewer.  Perhaps another side benefit may be that this technique also allows the interviewer to use a progressive “filter” to help isolate those deception cues for further attention during the cross-examination phase of the interview.

The narrative based interview is a four part information recovery system.  After establishing a baseline through an “orientation” effort, the interviewer then creates an environment favorable to allow the person to explain their observations and point of view regarding any incident under inquiry.  The format in and of itself has consistently proven the ability to recover a large amount of raw information from not only a suspect but just as importantly from any victims and / or witnesses.  A larger verbal response creates details and information sufficient for an abundance of follow-up opportunities for the interviewer.

The first level narrative permits the interviewer to “filter” the statement for any holes, contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement.  The interviewer can now focus his questions on these nuggets to an attempt to clarify the information and make an assessment as to whether the isolated information is the result of an apparent attempt to deceive through omission or embellishment.

The final step allows the interviewer to use cross-examination to probe the further filtered contents for the most significant key topics that triggered to largest response from the subject as demonstrated by the subject’s reactions of Anger, Depression, Denial, and Bargaining and ultimately leading the possibly deceptive subject to compliance or admission and confession.

A key tool of Practical Kinesic Interview & Interrogation® is the information recovery aspect of the narrative interview.  The narrative process is however far more valuable than just a tool to obtain an initial statement.  Used as a multi-level filtering tool it will help the interviewer identify the main issues and marshal all his efforts to address those issues in order to achieve his final objective – “The Truth.”

by Stan B. Walters, CSP
“The Lie Guy®”

Any interrogation can fail but do you know why? If we can figure out the root cause or causes of interrogation failure you can avoid those pitfalls and improve your chances of success in the future. Let’s first establish what we mean by interrogation failure. If you don’t get a confession from a suspect who is guilty – that’s a failure.  If you get a confession from a person who is not guilty – that’s definitely an interrogation failure!  Next it’s important to recognize one common element to these two outcomes – it’s the interrogator’s fault. What are those pitfalls that are keeping us from finding the truth?

One way to avoid interrogation failure is to beware of the “pre- conception assassin.” If you enter the room believing the subject is going to lie, you’ll miss the truth.  If you believe the person is going to be honest you’ll may see lies as being the truth.  No matter which pre-conception you’ve developed you’ll wind up only asking questions whose answers support your predetermined bias. The “pre-conception assassin will kill your interrogation every time!

If you misdiagnose your subject as being either truthful or deceptive, the interrogation will fail.  You can avoid this pitfall first by knowing the commonly held myths about lie signs.  Some common myths about lying including poor eye contact, eye movement, crossing arms or legs, fidgeting, sweating, lots of ah, er, umm, and uh just to name a few.  If you don’t know the few reliable signs of deception you are going to misinterpret the behaviors of the victim, witness or suspect and diagnose them as being deceptive and ultimately miss the truth.  Your interrogation has failed.  There could be nothing worse than telling the truth and nobody will listen to you or believe you.

Interrogation is just not simply talking to people and ultimately they confess.  Recent research just published in the last couple of months has shown that the interrogator’s tactics and style has a direct effect on the outcome of the interrogation.  Now that sounds a little obvious until you read the research a little further.  An accusatory style results on less information, diminished cooperation, a greatly reduced number of lie cues from a deceptive subject and another failed interrogation because you’ve missed the truth.  The narrative based interrogation has once again been proven to be the most effective and productive technique for finding and uncovering the truth.

The next time your interrogation fails, look for these three factors. If you know why an interrogation fails, how the three pitfalls contribute to its failure, and the steps to take to avoid the pitfalls your interrogation success will dramatically improve.  You improvement will be measured not in terms of confessions but in the amount of truthful information you’ve uncovered.

by Stan B. Walters, CSP
“The Lie Guy®”

For most interviewers, their concept of interrogation is that all they have to do is present the facts and the subject will just collapse under the weight of proof.  Interrogation is a little more complex than making a good argument that a person is deceptive.  It is a back and forth battle of persuasion and decision-making.

The battle of persuasion goes both ways.  On one side, by deception, your subject is trying to get you to change your point of view that they may be responsible for some inappropriate act or behavior. The more persuasive and convincing the better the chance the subject has at getting away with their deception. On the other side, you as the interviewer are trying to persuade the individual that their attempt at deception is not being successful and therefore they must accept your evidence of proof and change their position on the issue.

The interviewer needs to remember however, that the main reason a person chooses to lie is for some perceived personal benefits or to avoid some type of punishment.  A person will also confess for the very same reasons – they will confess when they perceive it will be beneficial to them.  They are not just confessing because the proof is there although that is part of the equation.  Think about it. The only time you change your mind about a previous decision you have made is when someone or something has overwhelming convinced you or persuaded you to believe that the new position, point of view or decision is far better than the previous  The better job you do as an interviewer convincing your subject of the very distinct differences between those two points  the easier you will make it for your subject to change rejection to admission or confession.

Don’t totally focus your efforts on just getting a subject to confess. Persuade them that admitting to the truth is far more acceptable and advantageous for them than sticking to their deception.