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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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.

Lying and Eye Contact

Fact or Fiction

Stan B. Walters

 

Lying and eye contact is one of the many reasons I started TheLieGuyBlog.com to deal with myths just like this one.  It’s one of those myths that just won’t die. 

I was cruising the web doing some research and looking for current published articles on deception, lying, and interview and interrogation.  I found a main web page by an “expert” in Canada who is offering a book on the Internet through their website.  Right smack in the middle of the “contents” section, the “expert” clearly stated how you can spot deception by watching for poor eye contact.  Also mentioned were armed crossing, leg crossing, fidgeting, and similar myths. 

Hey folks!  Do a little research in “scientific journals” and you’ll find eye contact is the worst thing to look for as a cue to deception.  Dr. Bella DePaulo reviewed more than 40 different studies that proved that the eye contact of liars is no different than truth tellers. 

No wonder so many people including investigative interviewers miss deception.  Think of all the truthful people erroneously labeled as liars!

There are MANY reasons a person may break eye contact and it doesn’t mean deception.  It can be a person with a very submissive personality.  Different cultures can have different degrees of eye contact such as females may not maintain strong eye contact with males and even vice versa.  Some groups don’t exhibit extensive eye contact with an authority figure or someone considered as an elder. The person can be embarrassed about discussing the top or the topic is a little taboo.  There are also situations when poor eye contact can be a symptom of emotional, psychological, or personality disorder.

There are a LOT of ignorant people that just keep on perpetuating these myths. Why would you trust ANYONE who is still teaching these concepts to investigators?  You know, you can’t let a silly thing like science get in the way of preconceived notions.

Just my observations…what about you? (Make sure you are giving me good eye contact so I’ll believe your answer! )

Stan B. Walters
TheLieGuy®
TheLieGuyAcademy

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
The Truth About Body Language & Deception Online Course
The Truth About Lying – Book