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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Interviewing and Interrogation Analysis of Bergdahl
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Interviewing and Interrogation – Reading Bergdahl

Dupe or Deserter?

Stan B. Walters

 

An Interviewing and Interrogation review and analysis of Bergdahl?  Bowe Bergdahl had just been released by his “captors” in Afghanistan in exchange for the release of 4 high value Gitmo prisoners when a major media outlet asked me to review some of Bergdahl’s writings.  In particular they wanted to get a sense of Bergdahl the man.

I decided to approach the process of reviewing the limited amount of Bergdahl’s writings from the stand point of an interrogator preparing himself to sit down and begin the interviewing and interrogation of  the man.  How does he think?  How does he perceive himself? How does he see the world around him?  What drives his behavior everyday and in particular what is his reaction to events that cause him stress and how does he handle himself in those situations? My goal during the interviewing and interrogation of Bergdahl is to determine “What was his state of mind and was his behavior intentional when his disappeared from his unit June 30, 2009?”

Immediately after reading Bergdahl, I was struck by the observation that this is a man who did little more than “dream about life” but had no effort and had no initiative or self discipline to strive to make those dreams come true.  He makes references to himself as a lone wolf in a dark world.  He sees little or nothing in the world that is for him as if he is disappointed with life and wants to find it’s beauty but would barely turn himself in that direction to go find it.  My perception is that looks at himself as a Knight without a Lord or Ronin – the Samurai without a master.

Bergdahl’s problem however with being that Knight or Samurai is that he dreams of the role BUT expects someone or something else to do the work to turn him into those romantic figures.  In a very telling passage in some of his writing Bergdahl berates the Army and the US mission in Afghanistan.  His remarks present the image of himself and his fellow warriors as nothing more than frightened cowards hiding from children behind sandbags. 

In all reality, Bergdahl has just described himself.  Bergdahl wanted to “Be all [he] could be” but the blames the Army for not “making” him into that warrior that he doesn’t have the discipline to do himself.

Starting on June 9, 2009, Bergdahl’s writings took on a significant change.  He began writing to his friends stateside in a crude code making remarks that it was not safe to talk about what was going to happen.  He hints at his plans that he knows are wrong and is concern about how others will perceive those plans.  He was fully aware that what he was going to do was wrong and could bring the world down on him.

As an interrogator, I will make an analysis of a subject’s behavior on the basis of  “plan of action continuum” that investigators use to analysis everything from serial crimes to active shooters to acts of terrorism:

Conceptualization
Planning
Preparation
Approach
Implementation

In my opinion, Bergdahl’s actions of walking away from his unit on June 30, 2009 was done with well-planned intent.  From June 9 when the dialogue of his writing’s changed until June 30, 2006 when he walked away, Bergdahl was planning and preparing.  Almost like a person ready to commit suicide, Bergdahl was saying his good byes, giving away his belongings, tying up loose ends, closing out the books.

It was not on a whim but with deliberate intent.  Bergdahl was “suiciding his current life” because it brought him no joy and no one was going to take him by the hand and lead him on the journey to find his dreams – a journey for which he had no initiative to take on his own.

In my opinion Bergdahl was not just some unfortunate soldier that due to some random set of circumstances that wandered into the hands of the enemy.  He finally developed enough initiative to take action and that was to walk away from a situation where no one would “make” him into something and find another situation and give someone else to opportunity to create his life for him.

I’m done reading…time to begin interrogating the deserter, Bergdahl.

Just my opinion…let me hear yours.

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

Connect with Stan
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
LinkedIn.com

Pick Up Your Copy of “The Pocket Guide”
Make Your Own Analysis of Subjects