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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Terrorism: Empathize with terrorists?

“We need to empathize with the terrorists.”  When I first heard this comment my initial reaction was that once again we have a bunch of out of touch fools displaying their complete ignorance.  But then I was reminded one of the quotes of Sun Tzu in “The Art of War.”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

So let’s go through a short “exercise” and “empathize with the terrorist” and see if we know ourselves and compare us to them and see how things stand.

1. Terrorists – Rights / status of women in terrorist belief system.  Property, can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t get an education, can’t own or run a business, can be beaten or even killed if disobedient or violate any tenants that permit the total subjugation of women by men.

Please tell me why I should show tolerance to such a belief system or people who profess this to be their belief.  Oh but wait!  I am asked to be tolerant.  Interesting hypocrisy!

2. Terrorists – Rights of Christians, Jews, the Hindu, Buddhists, et al.  Convert!  Renounce your faith now and swear allegiance to Islam or die a horrible death.

Now compare that to our First Amendment right of  (Note it does not say “from”) freedom of religion here in the US. Although religious beliefs and practice in the US does appear to be under gov’t assault as of late.  But I am told that I am the one being intolerant and must “empathize with terrorists.”

3. Terrorists – Freedom of speech.  You can’t speak out against the leaders of the faith, leaders of the movement or of any of the followers except on pain of torture or death.

Once again, compare that to our First Amendment right which also appears to be under assault of late by our gov’t or anyone who speaks out against a “select” or “privileged group.”

4. Terrorists – Sexual freedom.  Do I need to point out the persecution, torture and even execution of gays, lesbians, transgender or bisexual people in the name of the terrorists belief system.  Ah but wait…we must be tolerant.  Really?

5. Terrorists – Respect for others / life.  So yesterday we have the news that 141 school children were gunned down in their school.  We hear of their own people being killed in many terror attacks but that this is a justifiable loss for the cause.  Innocents are being beheaded and their bodies desecrated as method of terrorizing those who would oppose them.

In the US we value each and every life.  We have soldiers, police, fire, doctors, nurses, and numerous other professionals who sacrifice their time, their families and even their lives to protect the sanctity of life.  Oh! But I am such an ignorant, intolerant man!

6. Terrorists – Advancing their belief system.  It is only advanced by violence against innocents, warring open those who disagree, annihilate by any and all brutal means possible – especially by targeting civilians and pledging to wipe a race and other religions off the face of the earth.

Sorry, but I am pretty damn intolerant when it comes to that, too!

In the modern world, civil discourse is a sign of a stable and advanced society.  One that debates with reasoning and understanding. A society that allows others to express their opinions. Where ethical influence, persuasion and logic are used to move people and change hearts and minds. Not by violence, manipulation or coercion and deception.

So what have we learned about the differences between them and us?  Have we empathized enough yet to learn about them?  Has their behavior / actions world-wide lead us to any conclusions?

Finally. Goal of terrorism – world domination and annihilation of nonbelievers.

Us. Goal of democracy – a world free of tyranny.  I’ll choose this one!

Unfortunately we “think” or “believe”  we can “change them” or get them to “like us.”  Just send them money and they will be grateful.  Sit down at the table and negotiate with them.

BULL!!!  To borrow a phrase from a friend (Vernon Geberth NYPD – retired.  Homicide Commander), we are dealing with “a psychology of evil.”  We are up against a group whose leaders are psychopaths (or sociopaths or anti-social.  Pick the term of the day) and are heavily infiltrated by psychopaths or by blind followers who are at least if not more obedient that the followers of a cult group and have been “indoctrinated” for years – from birth until death.

They have NO EMPATHY for us or US!  They have NO EMPATHY for their victims!  They have “NO REMORSE” for their actions.  They despise all who are not like them. Congratulations!  You’re a psychopath! You are not going to cure them with love and understanding.   You’re an uninformed fool and nothing more than a useful idiot at best.

We have been allowing ourselves and our policies to be dictated by psychopaths who will use our weaknesses against us until we collapse on ourselves. Our policy about dealing with these people is fool hardy at best and totally incompetent and ignorant at worst.  We DO NOT understand our enemy and we will lose.

How do you get a psychopath to change his or her behavior?  You have to get sick with them and think evil just like them.  You will have to fight evil with every horrific means possible.  Until a psychopath realizes that their behavior will bring 10 times the pain of hell they have exacted on others they will not change.

Yeah!  You BETTER empathize with the enemy because they are about to destroy you!  Time you got your head out of the Kool-Aide bucket and look around before your enemy holds your head under and laughs at you as you drown.

Okay…just my opinion!

Feel free to comment below!

Stan B. Walters “The Lie Guy®”
TheLieGuy.com

Visit Stan’s YouTube Channel

Pick up your Free eBook