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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Did Ryan Lochte Lie?

If he did, then why?

Table of Contents

If Ryan Lochte,  Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger, Jimmy Feigen did in fact lie to Brazilian authorities and US Olympic security about being robbed at gun point last week, then a important question remains unanswered.  “Why?”

“The Robbery?”

US Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte along with three other US Swimmers reported last week that they had been robbed at gunpoint.  Ryan Lochte and the other swimmers allegedly reported that they were all in a taxi that was pulled over by bandits posing as police officers.  Lochte reported that they were all shown badges, that the bad guys were wearing police uniforms, pointed weapons at them ordering them to the ground.  The group reported that their wallets and money was stolen by the robbers.

The Story Unravels

Brazilian authorities are questioning the statements provided by Lochte and the other victims.  Investigators indicate that Lochte and the other victims identified as US swimmers Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger, Jimmy Feigen were unable to provide “key details” about the robbery and that in fact there was “little evidence” that the robbery did indeed occur.  To complicate matter even more, although the victims claimed all their money and wallets were stolen, they were spotted later at the Olympic facility going through security checkpoint.  At that time apparently all four were seen placing their wallets and money into plastic bins going through X-ray.  Brazilian authorities have since order passports confiscated trying to prevent the athletes from leaving the country until the mater is resolved.

Why Victims May Lie

It is not unheard of for victims to withhold information or even outright lie about being victims.  The big questions is “why would they do so?”  There can be a multitude of reasons.  To get attention, for money, for revenge, to punish someone else in some way, to cover up their own inappropriate behavior or activities and many, many more.

“But why would someone lie about such an event and risk getting caught,” you may ask?  Liars tend to believe that they have worked out all the lies in their head and that they can successfully convince others to buy into the fabricated story.  “Just give me a chance to talk and I’ll convince you to believe me.”  Unfortunately for the liar, even the simplest and most rudimentary interviewing processes can uncover deception.

The Selfish Act of Lying

Remember lying ALWAYS benefits the liar first and foremost. 

Reading Lochte’s comments, I am struck by the remark he makes in light of the robbery report included the report

“I definitely want a family of my own, and I love kids. “There’s no doubt in my mind that’s the route I want to take.”

What Could Be Ryan Lochte’s Motive?

My thoughts are that one of possible reasons Lochte MAY have choosen to lie, is to cover some activity that he thinks may endanger his image or goal of having a family.  The comment he makes seems to be a little out of context with these events.  Of course there could many, many other possible reasons.  I suspicions are that Lochte’s cryptic remark” may be at the heart of the alleged ruse.

A Break in the Case

Time may tell about what REALLY happened during this reported robbery.  In any case and for whatever the reason, at this point it appears that Lochte,

Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger, and  Jimmy Feigen.  It is just a matter of time before someone comes forward or somebody tells the truth.

Just my opinion… BUT we may never know the real answer. Maybe not for many years.

Stan B. Walters
“The Lie Guy®”