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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Drew Peterson

Behavioral Analysis of his Matt Lauer Interview

Stan B. Walters
“The Lie Guy®”

 

Cop Drew Peterson was interviewed by Today Show’s Matt Lauer
and I’ve already had some media asking about Peterson’s
behaviors.

Here are a few quick things I noticed.

1. Drew Peterson’s body language is pretty controlled.  That in itself
could be a sign of stress but Peterson is pretty confident and
should have plenty of experience in the hot seat as an interviewer
and testifying in court so I’m not surprised.  He does appear by his
posture to exhibit a certain amount of arrogance.  But that in itself
does not mean he is being deceptive.  I did pick up the “stress
clicking” from his tongue and cheeks being dry from stress.  This
is a physiological change but NOT and indicator of deception.  He
may be calm and controlled on the outside, BUT he may be
undergoing some severe internal stress.

2. When Drew Peterson as asked in the relationship with his wife was
violent Peterson responded with an “I don’t know” answer and also
said “I don’t believe it was ever violent.”  In my opinion that’s a
cluster of behavior consistent of someone withholding information.
He was asked if he ever hit her but there was no camera on him at
the time of his response.  He does blame her for hitting him with a
steak. (That’s gotta be a felony!)

3. When Lauer asked if she told him there was another man he
responded that she didn’t tell him there was another man but then
said “Well, maybe she did” and he quotes her as saying she found
someone else.  He has to come up with that because his whole
defense is that she has run away with someone else.

4. When Drew Peterson was asked if his wife was a good Mom he
responded very positively. In fact he called her a “great Mom.”
When asked why a great Mom would disappear and not call to
check on her young children or let them know she was okay all
Peterson could come up with was “I don’t know. I can’t explain
that.”

5. Peterson was asked about the death of his 3rd wife and the fact
he was on the scene, did it look like an accidental drowning to
him. Peterson responded “I didn’t know if she was dead or alive. I
felt her pulse and being a policeman I left things alone.”  Notice he
didn’t answer the question. 

(Just as an aside.  Savio’s death was
ruled as an accidental drowning although the bath tube was empty,
she had a one inch cut on her head and her hair was matted with
blood.  If she was drowning in the tub, wouldn’t the water soak the
blood out of her hair? Further she would already be dead if and
when the water drained out of the tub. How could she bleed more
after being dead?  I’m not a crime scene expert, BUT….)

6. I find it interesting that Peterson blames both women for the
problems they had in their relationships.  It’s amazing how often it’s
the victim’s fault.  He blames the problems with BOTH women as
being a result of their menstrual cycle.  Uh huh…

7. One REAL big telltale sign that caught my attention.  He
obviously talks about Savio in past tense – she’s dead.  BUT he
also talks about Stacy in past tense but she’s supposed to have
run away with another man! He talks about that she “would” ask for
a divorce or she “used” to do something.  In my opinion in his
mind he believes she’s dead.

8. When Lauer asks if Peterson is surprised that he is a suspect,
Peterson responds that the husband is always the suspect and
when would he not be one.  Yep, let’s all ignore the elephant in the
room but act like it’s not unusual for it to be there.  This appears to
be one of our guilt phrases we learn about in class.

9. When asked why Stacy’s sisters said she wanted to get away
from him and if she didn’t call to start looking for her, Peterson
blames the media for putting the idea in her head and then brings
up Geraldo Rivera.

10.  When he was read the email that Stacy wrote to her sisters,
he said it’s a fake, just like the rest of the stuff.  Just like the blood
was planted at OJ’s crime scene and house.  Must be a
conspiracy.  More evasion by Peterson using Anger.

11. Drew Peterson had an AMAZING response when Lauer mentioned
that if tried and convicted Peterson could get life or even the death
penalty. Peterson acts like he’s made his peace and is ready to
go!  Talks about his kids will be taken care of and everything will
be fine.  Sounds like a terminal cancer patient preparing to die!  In
my opinion this is an act on his part to show I’ve not afraid of
anything!

12. Now I find it interesting that all this happened just at the point
she was going to start or had started divorce proceedings.  I can’t
imagine why that would not be some kind of motive for him!

13.  Finally (interesting that this is the 13th point) and this one is
big to me, Peterson said “she is where she wants to be.”  Well if
she wanted to be away from him wouldn’t “dead” be a way to be
where she wants to be – “away” from him.  I find that a very telling
statement.

Now, do yourself a favor.  Google the name Sam Parker.  Parker
is a 26 year cop in Walker County Georgia whose wife has been
missing since March 2007.  Find and watch the full video interview
of him by FOX in Atlanta.  See if this story sounds familiar. He
says his wife is actually hiding somewhere.  He claims she has run
off with someone and has been caught in an affair.  They was just
getting a divorce and he was to pay her $20,000 the day she
disappeared.  He blames the media, Cops and FBI for all the
hysteria around his case.  Sounds familiar?  There must be a
common script these 2 guys used.

In terms of Matt Lauer’s interview. He did fine considering what he
had to work with.  I’m not at all a big fan of Matt Lauer but I imagine
there were some pretty strict ground rules about what Matt could
and could not ask.

Watch this case.  It would be interesting to see how the new
autopsy comes out on Savio. I’d be interested in any more
statements Peterson makes although I doubt he’ll talk anymore.

Love to hear your comments!

Stan
[email protected]
www.TheLieGuy.com
TheLieGuyAcademy.com
Upcoming Virtual Classes

Learn Effective Interview Techniques: On-Line Course
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn