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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

The Police Acted Stupidly?

President and Media Show Their Bias.

Stan B. Walters

The police acted stupidly President says about the arrest of friend Dr. Henry Gates.

The police acted stupidly! Really!!  How interesting that the President, the “lawyer”  makes a judgment without any facts.  Anyone of the rest of us would have been buried in a lawyer’s tirade had we made that statement about their client!

He admits he is biased because Dr. Gates is his “friend.”  Really!  You think you might be “biased” “Counselor-in-Chief?”  Oh, I’m sorry!  Lawyers and even judges like you don’t have bias!  I forgot, they should have “empathy!”

The police acted stupidly? What about the witnesses stating that Dr. Gates was belligerent and out of control?  Oh, I’m sorry!  we have to claim racism and blame the cop first.  Doesn’t that “bias” the case and any chance for a fair hearing for both Dr. Gates AND the cop(s) involved in the arrest??  We wouldn’t want to “try” anyone in the media would we?  Unless of course that person is NOT on the media “approved” list of per-determined victims!

The police acted stupidly? Perhaps your friend Mr. President, is not being totally truthful about his side of the story.  Have you ever taken that in account? Like a 72 year old grandmother who gets tazered said she was not yelling or belligerent with the Tyler, TX cop when the in car camera shows a totally different story.

If you believe the arrest is not lawful, the time to protest is NOT with the cop.  Take it to court!
You fight the cop … you gonna lose!

How about the permanent “taint” you have placed on ALL arrests of any minorities as being the result of profiling and racism.  Someday when you finish with making the US in your own image, spend some time and look at crime numbers, look at the number of minorities who are crime victims, look at the “facts” in every case where a cop was killed or injured while making an arrest. 

If you want to display real “empathy” don’t make biased statements and learn the “truth” about crime, the overwhelming pressure put on the criminal justice system and our courts in the US fueled by “biased”, uninformed statements just like the one you made from the point of view of a “community organizer!” 

Mr. President, I suggest you get ALL the facts before you publicly
defame the cop(s) who make the arrest.  However, I have noticed for
you, if the facts don’t fit your agenda, they are easily sacrificed!

Shame on you Mr. President!

Stan
“The Lie Guy®”
www.TheLieGuy.com
Twitter.com
Facebook.com
See Interviewing the Angry Subject course
List to the Level 1 Course Audio Series