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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Balloon Boy:

Reading the Signs of Deception

Stan B. Walters
“The Lie Guy®”

When was all said and done about the “Balloon Boy” case in Larimer County, Colorado, it all came down to the verbal and nonverbal cues of deception generated by the Heenes.  Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden and Commander Ern Hudson’s investigators played the case perfectly.  They let the Heenes talk and the more they talked the more cues of deception both verbal and nonverbal the Heenes generated.

The best rule of thumb for getting enormous amounts of good investigative information is a narrative-based interview.  That tactic alone has proven to recover nearly 60 percent more information than accusatory style tactic.  It is a technique that is least likely to contaminate and alienate any witnesses or victims during their interviews.  It also assists cooperative victims and witnesses in recalling more critical details.  At the same time if the Heenes and their Ballon Boy adventure decide to lie during their statement, there are generally many more lies disclosed making it easier for the interrogator to develop leads as well as impeach any false statements made by the subject. 

A narrative-based interview of suspects such as those in the Balloon Boy Case, also dramatically reduces the possibility of a false confession because of it’s non-coercive nature.  Also by using a narrative-based interview, the interrogator doesn’t have to reveal much of his case information if in fact, he does reveal anything at all.

There is one thing consistent with almost everyone who proposes to mislead or lie to the people who are their intended victims.  They’ve got to keep talking to them to keep them on their side. More importantly, the liar has to keep talking to convince those who are on the fence or still doubt the story. 

An additional problem for the liar is their need to see and hear the reactions from their lie target.  If they don’t get feedback that is satisfying or rewarding, they tend to keep pitching the lie until they get the reaction they want.  At the same time, the liar has got to be aware of their own verbal and nonverbal cues that the lie target may identify as signs of possible deception.  When talking to the investigators for Larimer County, they would be their undoing.

An additional problem for the Heenes – there were too many people involved to keep the lie going!  Not only Heene and his wife but also their 6 year old son who was at the center of this staged media event.  His comment that they did it “for the show” will be devastating.

Finally … there are remaining problems for the liar.  Creating the lie, defending the lie if challenged and biggest of all – remembering all the different versions of the truth they have created and told.

Despite their education, experience and media savvy background, the Heenes still couldn’t get away with their big lie.  The nemesis of any liar is their own belief that they are good liars, have created a good lie and therefore can get away with their deception.

For the Heenes – they had already lost the game with the first lie they told to the media.

Waiting to hear more of the inside story of this case.

Stan
“The Lie Guy®”
www.TheLieGuy.com
www.TheLieGuyAcademy.com

Twitter.com/thelieguy
Facebook
Check out TheLieGuy® Academy – OnDemand Training
Get the Free eBook