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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Cognitive Reliability Framework

Joe Biden and A Bad Interrogation:

What do They Have in Common?
Stan B. Walters

Really! What does V.P. Joe Biden and a bad interrogation have in common?  Think about the question and Biden’s performance in the recent Vice Presidential debate. Now think about how a poorly trained, bad interrogator carries out an interrogation. The parallels are obvious.

My question is not meant to be a political statement on V.P. Joe Biden or the current presidential campaign.  If however, you look at the analysis of Biden’s behavior and demeanor during the debate by some communication experts and social scientists there are several very strong parallels.

Fails to Listen

First, Biden was criticized for the fact he would not even listen to any responses by Ryan before he began his rebuttal. The poor interrogator approaches the interview with the preconception that they already have all the facts they need and have already reached a conclusion about the subject’s innocence or guilt regarding the issue at hand. In the past, I have referred to this as the “preconception assassin syndrome.”  See Duke LaCrosse rape case and the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

Enforced Conclusions

Second, Biden was criticized for trying to force his conclusions on Ryan. The interrogator intends to enforce their conclusions on the subject they are interviewing.  They will not accept any other explanations.  The interrogator will accept no rebuttals and makes sure that the subject understands that it is futile to do so. God forbid that he or she should spend a little more time listening to their subject because they might learn something or hear some facts that disagree with their preconceived conclusions!

Rude, Dismissive, Condescending

Third, Biden was criticized for being rude, dismissive, and condescending toward Ryan. The interrogator behaving the same way has little or no respect for the subject and will gain little or no rapport or cooperation or compromise with the subject.  The interrogator intends to prove that they are superior to the subject. The subject is an underling and beneath the station of their interrogator and therefore should know their place or certainly they will be put in their place by the interrogator. “Just who do you think you are?” “How dare you question me or challenge me?”  In the end this is an affirmation in the mind of the  interrogator that they are the superior individual in the conversation. Of course this works real well when you are trying to develop “rapport” with a subject and apply ethical influence or persuasion tactics that encourage cooperation and compliance.

Leaves a Poor Impression

Finally, for many viewers, Joe Biden left the audience with a poor impression of who he is and what he stands.  In short, his message was lost because of what many observers called extreme, over the top, erattic behavior.  This type of interrogator will wind up being blindsided when the true facts of the case are revealed, or when a case is lost, a conviction is overturned, or when an innocent person is the victim of injustice, or the victim of the crime is not protected.  Of course the interrogator’s response is invariably the system failed, the judge or jury just doesn’t understand, there was nothing wrong with “my” work, etc.  One of my favorite statements is “I don’t interrogate innocent people.” Another is “that’s the way I or we have always done it.”

Coerced Confession

Can you say “coerced confession?”  Repeat after me “contaminated witness statements.”

It’s time we weeded out these type of interviewers and keep them out of our interview rooms and away from our witnesses.  It is also time we took a critical look at how we are training our interrogators because the accusatory tactics and mythological deception cues we teach during interview and interrogation training are the real genesis of these types of interrogators.

Regarding V.P. Joe Biden… draw your own conclusions and vote accordingly!

Of course, this is just MY opinion!

Stan B. Walters,
“The Lie Guy®”

TheLieGuy.com
TheLieGuyAcademy.com
Upcoming training events
LinkedinYouTube
Twitter