The Interview Room Archives

Classic Articles on Investigative Interviewing

The Interview Room Archive banner showing a two-way mirror view of an investigative interview room with table and case file as a female investigator observes, representing classic investigative interviewing articles by Stan B. Walters.

For many years Stan B. Walters published The Interview Room, an international electronic magazine read by investigators, law enforcement professionals, and interview specialists around the world.

The articles in this archive explore investigative interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.


Confession Motivators: Gain or Pain

Citation: Originally published in The Interview Room
January 2008 (Volume 7, Number 1) — by Stan B. Walters.

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.

© 2008 Stan B. Walters / Third Degree Publishing. All rights reserved.
This article is part of The Interview Room Archive Series, preserving classic writings on investigative interviewing and interrogation strategy.

Many of the concepts introduced in these early articles continue to evolve today through Stan Walters’ work on the Cognitive Reliability Framework and evidence-based interview practices.

Table of Contents

Interview and Interrogation Techniques

The Categories of Stress Behavior
By Stan B. Walters
(2003)

Stress Creating Events

Each of us experiences stress creating events on a regularly basis and in a large number of different settings. Everything from the simple aggravating issues of daily life up to and including the stress that is associated with creating and maintaining deception. The ability of the interviewer’s interview and interrogation techniques to be able to accurately diagnose deception rests on his or her knowledge of which stress behaviors. Which of those that are associated with deception versus those behaviors that are merely the result of “ambient stress” of the current interview setting.

Those individuals who fail at accurately identifying deception in other people invariably misidentify a large number of general stress behaviors as being signs of deception. At the same time failing to recognize reliable behavioral cues of deception. Understanding the classification of human stress indicators into the three basic categories of general, incriminating potential and discriminatory cues can dramatically improve the investigative interviewer’s interview and interrogation techniques used for deception detection accuracy.

General Stress

The “general ” category of stress cues is the largest and most diverse of all the three categories. These are behaviors that each of us experiences in varying degrees throughout our day. These cues are present when things are absolutely crazy in the mornings as everyone in the household scrambles to get ready for the day’s activities, or the project at work is going badly. The relationship with another person is deteriorating, the bills are late, or one of your children has come home early with a surprise case of the measles and you’ve never had them!

This is the type of stress we experience when we are at the bank applying for a loan or when we are at the restaurant and we’re worried that your credit card may be other limit and will be declined when we “pick up the tab.” It is these types of behaviors that we may describe as being nothing more than the “background” noise of human behaviors that goes on all the time.

Some of these symptoms include a louder voice along with higher voice pitch, agitated facial expressions, increased hand and arm behaviors and even a few speech flaws. They are by no means signs of deception yet are often seized upon by the eye of many untrained or ill-informed observers as reliable signs of deception. If these are signs of deception we all must be lying all the time!

Incriminating Potential

The “incriminating potential” category of stress cues tend to be more prolific than the “lie signs” but there is nowhere as many as those that populate the “general” stress category. These behaviors are more likely to be seen during moments of evasive response by a subject but will not specifically pinpoint to moment of deception by the speaker. The presence of these symptoms appears to be more scattered and not always recurring when the issue is raised at a later time by the interviewer and their interview and interrogation techniques. At the same time both truthful and deceptive subjects are capable of generating these cues but we find that deceptive subjects generate are far higher number of them overall during their general response to some form of inquiry. These can include stuttering, stammering, mumbling speech and general pausing. These symptoms much like the “general” category are problematic in that they are often inappropriately given far more weight toward an end analysis of specific deception. A more accurate analysis from observing these behaviors would be that the subject’s overall behavior “concerns” the interviewer therefore he or she should spend more time with the subject and ask in-depth questions regarding the specifics of the issue under investigation and watch to see if the subject begins to generate the stress signals that are capable of isolating the stress behaviors associated with deception.

Discriminatory Stress

The “discriminatory” category of stress cues are those behaviors that when observed under stringent scientific conditions have been found to be highly reliable in marking moments of deception. It is this category that we focus on a great deal in Practical Kinesic Interview & Interrogation courses. With a good understanding of the “general” and “incriminating” stress categories, the stress behaviors associated with deception become more obvious. The interviewer will find this category populated with nonverbal behaviors such as aversion, negation, contradictions, and to some extent performance and control cues. Verbal cues include the content category of “denial” as well as elements seem in the presentation of an “unclear thought line” or cognitive dissonance.

Conclusions

In-depth knowledge of the “incriminating” and “discriminatory” categories along with accurate recognition of their occurrences can dramatically improve the observer’s interview and interrogation techniques’ ability to spot deception. Just as critical however is to understand the significance of the general stress behaviors. These cues can tell the interviewer a lot about the subject’s current emotional and cognitive state as well as the strength of the emotion being expressed. These cues can guide the interviewer through the entire interview and allow him or her to maintain control over the flow of information and improve the quality of communication. At the same time, the interviewer must still understand that “general” stress cues will often “populate” a deception cluster and can indicate level of severity of stress the subject is experiencing while perpetrating the lie.

 

Stan B. Walters