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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

Victims Who Lie

What do we do with them?

Interview and Interrogation

Stan B. Walters

Victims who lie. What do we do with them? Strauss-Kahn has been released because the rape charges filed against him in New York may be at least partially untrue. His accuser may in fact have committed perjury. What should we do about victims who lie?

Granted Staruss-Kahn is obviously no saint and in the past exhibited some pretty boorish behavior and may have taken some big risks for someone in the public eye, but should he be prosecuted on false charges? By the same token, no matter your background, personal life style, economic status or high risk behavior, you do not deserve to be a crime victim.

With all that said, what should we do with “victims” who lie? Ask the Duke Lacrosse players about their lives after being falsely accused of rape. What about an entire community and multiple families affected by a false kidnapping report by the “Runaway Bride” from Georgia. These are but three high profile cases of lying done by victims. What about the hundreds and hundreds of other similar false reports or false statements made by victims and witnesses?

My suggestions

1. We’ve got to do much, much better narrative interviews of all victims. Perhaps questionable cases can be discovered a lot sooner and progress no further unless truly warranted.

2. Let’s not forget, we also must do a much better job of interviewing witnesses.

Regarding these first two issues, criminal justice agencies rarely give their full attention to training investigators how to adequately interview victims. More importantly, victim assistance groups also fail when comes to victim interviews. Some victims support groups operate under the dangerous and myopic philosophy that victims would never lie. (Right. Nobody lies to their dentist about flossing or to their doctor about their “regular” exercise routine and obeying their diet!)

3. Start prosecuting and charging cases of false reports by alleged victims. In these financially strapped economic times, why should the public put up with such a waste of federal, state and local resources. How do we explain to genuine victims why there are limited or no resources to handle their case?

Victim’s deserve our full attention and so do criminal subjects. What happens though when the full force of the criminal justice system is turned loose on the falsely accused? Of even greater concern, what happens when the media, chasing the next sensational criminal case thoroughly destroys the falsely accused’s reputation. To this day you can still hear comments about the falsely accused Duke LaCrosse players, “well, they had to be doing something wrong.”

Time to start filing highly publicized charges against “victims” who make false reports. Let them serve time, or at least fine them treble damages for the cost of chasing down their case. The falsely accused should also be allowed to recover damages.

I don’t care how “distraught” the person was when they falsely reported. I shouldn’t take into account the past or personal history of a genuine victim. Those things should have no bearing when we consider filing charges on those would set into motion criminal investigations that can devastate the falsely accused suspect.

Victims who lie. What is the final solution? Prosecute? Fines? Jail? Let them walk? Should we handle each case based on the merits, lack of merit, seriousness of the charge?  What if the individual is a repetitive lying victim who wreaks havoc on the criminal justice system and innocent people falsely accused?  There may not be an easy answer.

Just my two cents worth.

Stan B. Walters, CSP “The Lie Guy®”
TheLieGuy.com
StanTheLieGuy.com
Interview-Interrogation.com