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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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