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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Drew Peterson and OJ Simpson

What do they have in common?

Stan B. Walters

 

Drew Peterson and OJ Simpson have something in common?
If we review the interrogation personalities that we discuss in our

Practical Kinesic Interview & Interrogation® courses we find that
OJ and Drew share a lot of common characteristics from the Ego
Dominant Personality Interrogation type.

1. Listen to how both OJ and Drew Peterson treat anyone who challenges
them or asks them questions.  Both are very quick to put those
people in their place and dismiss them and their comments as
being insignificant.  Note that their rejection of these people
has nothing to do with facts, just the person.

2. Both OJ and Drew Peterson blame everyone else for their problems.  OJ
blames Nichol and her family and friends.  Drew blames both his
dead wife and missing wife for all his marital problems.

3. Both OJ and Drew Peterson blame their victims.  It’s as if in both cases
the situations are direct results of what the victims did or did not
do.

4. Both appear to do some very bizarre and impractical things.
OJ goes to a Las Vegas hotel room and expects none of the other
5 people to say anything about him being there or guns being
involved nor that it could be construed as kidnapping or robbery.
Drew allegedly gets his half-brother to help him move the “blue
barrel” as well as possibly gets two different truck drivers to move
the “blue barrel” for him to a dump location.

5.  Both men blame the media and their bias for their situation.
The media is to blame for all the hysteria around their cases.

6. Both men come up with some bizarre thinking and explanations.
Drew has no explanation why a “good mother” just leaves and
doesn’t call to tell her children not to worry.  OJ says “they had my
stuff.”

7. Drew contends that his wife just ran away with another man and
has no explanation why she doesn’t call.  Even though we
have the tape of OJ screaming and cursing at his victims we’re
expected to believe it wasn’t a hostile confrontation.

8.  Drew thinks lawyers will all clamor to take his case and help
him.  OJ says “I’m OJ.  I’m OJ.  Everybody loves OJ.”

9.  Drew says that the email his missing wife sent about her fear of
him is fake, a forgery and not her words.  OJ says the photos of
him wearing the shoes similar to those that found in the blood on
the scene and at his house are forgeries and fraud and the actions
of racists cops.  OJ says the pictures Nichol had in her safe
deposit box that shows her injuries are all posed, fake photos.

10. Drew Peterson says the cops instantly made him a suspect and that
they have zeroed in just on him.  OJ says the cops just wanted to frame
him and he’s the only suspect they ever had.

11.  Both OJ and Drew treat their cases as nothing more than a
tempest in a tea kettle and that everything will go away just
because of who they think they are.

Before both of these cases are done and over with we are going
to get some more bizarre and damning behavior for both men.
Eventually it will be the egos of both OJ and Drew that will do
them in. It’ll be their ego dominant behaviors when they committed
their alleged crimes OR it will be the idiotic things they both say or
do during the ongoing investigations, stupid things they will say
when interviewed or make statements to the media or during any
subsequent grand jury, hearings or trial.

Also make no mistake.  They have their loyal sycophants that are
going to hang around and loyally support each man denouncing
the horrible injustices of both these cases.

Well, at least this is just my opinion anyway!

Stan
Stan B. Walters
“The Lie Guy®”
[email protected]
www.TheLieGuy.com
TheLieGuyAcademy.com
Effective Interviewing On-Line Course
Find Upcoming Training Courses
Linkedin
Twitter
Facebook