Article Categories

The Lie Guy

Over Prepared Interviews

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

There is nothing unusual at all about any investigative interviewer preparing extensively for an upcoming interview. There is really no situation that I can think of that I had too much information on hand when I went into the room. The danger may be however that we can become too obsessed with the preparation at the expense of being spontaneous and flexible when we finally get into the room.   Certainly “turning unknowns into knowns”  is a good strategy for reducing our tension as the interviewer and we often mentally practice what we are going to say and anticipate any possible surprises and build backup plans to deal with such surprises.  Over preparation however can paralyze the interview and information recovery.

Are your “scripting” your interviews?  One telltale sign of over preparation is literally scripting the interview questions.  In some cases writing out the questions in advance and even sequencing the questions in the order they may be asked.  The danger here is that the interviewer becomes so “fixated” on completing the list of questions that they fail to follow up on incomplete answers or on responses that warrant further attention be the interviewer. Listening to these interviews on tape makes you think the interviewer is merely in a conversation with himself, never hearing the subject.

Over preparation obsession is frequently manifests itself as pre-conception thinking by the interviewer.  A common and easily recognized hallmark of an interviewer bearing pre-conceptions is an overwhelming presence of leading questions and especially the use of short answer questions. If the casual observer where to map the direction of logic of the interviewers discourse he would find that questions are focused toward only one possible conclusion.  Movement of the dialogue to a direction contrary to the pre-conceived charted course is met with resistance and the conversation directed back to the only acceptable conversation thread. This will be obvious despite that fact that often the subject’s responses clearly indicate the dialogue should follow the different track.

Finally, the obsessively over prepared interviewer will frequently find themselves extremely frustrated and impatient with their interview.  He or she will invariably regard their interview subject as belligerent, antagonistic and uncooperative in the face of what the interviewer considers to be overwhelming evidence and logical proof. The frequent result is an interview that degrades into verbal hostilities with marginal or no real productive results.  The interviewer frequently misses opportunities to elicit available information from their subjects due to the interviewer obvious growing frustration.

It is certainly prudent for any investigative interviewer to prepare for all their interviews.  Dispensing with such preparation altogether and forging ahead on a wing and a prayer would be the devil’s folly.  The best advice is to recognize that there is a delicate balance between being prepared and manically trying to prepare for every possible scenario or worse, only one possible scenario.  Preparation is essential but not at the expense of being able to respond to the numerous moments that will arise during the interview that will require you to be flexible to a change in course and react spontaneously to your subject and their behaviors.

Four Channel Observation

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

I was recently contacted by a department and asked view a videotaped interview of a subject in a homicide case.  The investigator wanted me to make an assessment of the subject’s credibility based on the interview and possibly testify regarding my findings.  There was a small catch to the request – the audio recording had failed and I was to make an analysis of just the subject’s body language deception signals.  It is not uncommon to receive requests through my office to make a behavior analysis of audio taped or video taped interviews and interrogations or even transcripts of interviews and interrogations.  I’m certainly glad to try to help any department anyway I can but there are times that I am presented with conditions that will limit my ability to make a complete credibility analysis.

The investigative interviewer should also be aware of the limitations of trying to make any credibility assessment without the benefit of observing all four channels of a subject’s communications – body language, voice content, voice quality, and micro signals.

For more than fifty years behavior analysts have noted that human communication is made up of about 65 percent body language.  Obviously that figure is not an absolute but a generalization with some people using a little less and others possibly using a larger percentage.  The father of the science of “kinesic” analysis Dr. Ray L. Birdwhitsell noted that more human communication takes place through the use of gestures, postures, position and distance than any other method.  Birdwhitsell did note however that one could make some prediction as to the nature of a conversation or interaction between parties by watching body language but he also noted that complete communication was still dependent upon all four elements.  Certainly the same can be said about the investigative interviewer’s ability to make a complete assessment of the subject’s credibility based solely upon body language cues alone.  One of the critical findings that my colleague Dr. Martha Davis and I noted in the research that we conducted was that there were numerous times that we could document that a subject was being deceptive yet there was absolutely no observable body language deception clues generated by the subject at that moment.  The cues to deception came from other any source or even sources.

Conversely, we cannot make a total analysis of a person credibility based solely of the “content” of a subject’s speech.  Speech content only comprises approximately 7 percent of human communication.  Verbal content most certainly contains the “structure” or the “logic” of a subject’s deception.  We must remember however that speech is the most diligently self-monitored portion of any individual’s communication behaviors.  Because of this constant self-censorship, verbal content cues to deception are more rare in comparison to the total volume of speech generated.  Our research as well as many other behavior analysts before us have documented that there will be many incidents of documented deception during which there will be no verbal content cues but a telltale body language cue may be generated. Such a cue and very likely the deception would be missed without the benefit of the observation of both the mediums of voice content and nonverbal cues.

Voice quality by itself holds no cues of deception.  Changes in the subject’s voice qualities of rate of speech, voice pitch and volume are quite reliable as indicators of stress, tension and anxiety. They are also certainly useful in making assessments of your subject’s current emotional state and the overall strength of the emotion being experienced. It is for this reason however that we often find voice quality cues of stress accompanying moments of deception. The value of recognizing deception using the changes in voice quality arises from the moments when the quality of the subject’s voice directly contradicts the emotional content of body language and / or the emotions articulated in voice content.

Of all forms of deception that are most difficult for anyone to accomplish are those involving emotion.  The stronger the emotion, the more difficult it is for your subject to suppress successfully.    For the same reason it will be difficult to convincingly express a typically powerful emotion that one is currently not experiencing.  Accurate analysis of the expression certainly depends on the ability of the observer to spot and identify the emotional symptoms. These failures in emotional expression are most often displayed in momentary “leaks” or what Dr. Paul Ekman refers to as “micro signals.”  Facial tics, incomplete smiles, frowns, displays of aversion, activation of the “grief muscle”, false smiles, are but a few of these telltale markers.

There are many tools available to assist the interviewer in making an assessment of any subject’s credibility.   Yet as tools they can also be subject to misuse.  We realize that human deception behavior can take on many forms and is exhibited in the various venues of human communication – nonverbal, voice content, voice quality and micro signals. Each “channel” can present the observer with critical information about the subject being observed but we will never be able to make a full and accurate analysis of the credibility of a subject’s statements without observing all four channels.  It is quite common to recognize deception only when there is a “contradiction” between the messages generated by two or more channels.  Tools for analysis of credibility will best serve the investigator when he or she recognizes symptoms of severe stress if not deception and probes those areas asking questions in depth regarding that issue and observes all four channels for more clusters of signs of credibility.