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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Joran Van der Sloot

An MO of Prowling Casinos for Victims?

Stan B. Walters

Joran Van der Sloot has been arrested in Chile on a charge of murdering a woman in Peru after picking her up at a casino there. This is exactly the same way he met Natalie Holloway in Aruba.  Could this be his MO?

I went back a reviewed an interview of Joran Van der sloot by ABC’s Chris Cuomo back in 2005.  One of the biggest reactions I saw from Van der sloot was the question about him picking up women in casinos and bars, getting them drunk or drugging them, and taking advantage of them.  In my opinion his response behaviors (both verbal and non-verbal) were consistent with someone who was withholding information. Now we get word he is accused of using the same tactic to pick up a woman in Peru and he has been arrested for her murder.

My question would be have we uncovered the MO of a killer and /or rapist.  We need to get the evidence on the case in front of us to be sure he is guilty of the murder.  Other cases of serial murderers / rapists have present very strong evidence of patterns of behavior that are consistent in all their cases.  This could be the same with Van der sloot.

Within one day of his arrest, we get word that US authorities was Joran for extortion.  He is alleged to have offered information regarding the whereabouts of Natalie Holloway’s body in Aruba in return for money.

In my opinion Joran is what I call an “Ego Dominant” personality and that would detect the interrogations strategy O would use on him.  He also appears to exhibit a large number of the characteristics of the “psychopath” or “anti-social” personality researched and expounded on by Dr. Robert Hare and Dr. J. Reid Malloy.

I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the same behaviors by Joran will soon be uncovered.

Interested in hearing your thoughts.

Stan

“The Lie Guy®”
thelieguy.com
LinkedIn.com
Up Coming Classes