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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Senator Larry Craig

Interrogation and Confession

Stan B. Walters

 

The interrogation of Senator Larry Craig was in my opinion a professional and appropriately conducted interrogation.  He was not coerced, forced or trapped into his statements.  Also in my opinion he
exhibits several verbal cues consistent with someone who is withholding information.

FOX News – The Big Story asked me to do an analysis of Craig’s interrogation by Minneapolis Airport PD Sgt. Dave Karsnia.  Here are some of my observations:

First: Karsnia conducted a “narrative based interview.”  Twice near the beginning of Craig’s interrogation, Karsnia asks Craig to tell his side of the story.  We know this type of interrogation is far more productive and in fact tends to allow the subject to produce my self-initiated deception cues.  In this case, Craig generates
plenty of them in my opinion.

During the first narrative, Craig uses what we call a “time bridge” in his statement.  Listen to the very beginning and Craig talks about having to wait a couple of minutes for a stall in his “usual” bathroom.  You know, the one he always uses at that airport.  (Is that like a regular table at your favorite restaurant?). After entering his stall, he starts drops his pants, spreads his legs so they won’t hit the floor, sits down and the next he knows are card appears under the sall that says “police.”  It’s not until after Karsnia asks more questions does Craig acknowledged his foot may have touched Karsnia’s foot.

Second: Craig responds at least a half dozen times with “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall.”  Need I say more.

Third:  Craig made some “very” interesting statements that to me are very telling.  Check these out. (I’ll try to get the exact quote) When Karsnia pointed out that Craig had put his hand under the partition ,palm up Craig responded “I don’t believe I did that.”

When Karsnia asks if he has been successful in these bathrooms before, Craig responds:
“I don’t seek activity in bathrooms.” (Remember, sometimes you’ve got to look for what’s missing.  He
doesn’t seek activities in “bathrooms.”)

Fourth: Craig states “I absolutely did not do these things” Note the denial flag expression.  Lugovoy, the former KGB
bodyguard says the same thing about the polonium poisoning of Letvenenko.  Lugovoy is now being sought by British MI 5 for this murder.

Finally: Near the end of his interview, Craig states: “I’m a respectable person. I don’t do these kinds of things.”  Now
have many of us have heard that one in an interrogation.

Now these last two cues cause me concern.  If I were investigating this case, I would be looking for more incidents by Larry Craig.  It’s just my opinion, but I predict in the future we are going to find out that Craig has had many more “encounters” not unlike this one and they all won’t be in bathrooms.

Listen for yourself and pick out Craig’s cues of behavior.
http://www./Kinesic.com/Audio/craiginterview.mp3

Prior to my appearance on FOX News – The Big Story, I was in the Green Room, watching Neil Cavuto.  Neil had Ben Stein as his guest.  Stein stated that Craig was “bludgeoned” by the cop and the interrogation and was a subject of “thuggery” by Sgt. Karsnia. Well, in my “professional opinion” Ben Stein doesn’t know the hell
he is talking about.

This was NOT an accusatory interview.  Sentor Larry Craig was not tricked, forced or coerced by the Sgt. Karsnia.  Now if legal scholars want to argue about the arrest and the incident itself and the legal nitpicking that lawyers do – fine knock yourself out but I’m saying Craig confessed voluntarily to Karsnia.

Stan B. Walters “The Lie Guy®”
http://www.TheLieGuy.com
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Get Your Free eBook Here
7 Tools for Ethical & Effective Influence Online Courses