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interviewing, interrogation strategy, deception detection, and behavioral analysis—ideas that helped challenge outdated assumptions and shape modern thinking in the field.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

White House Interrogation Unit:

A New Nightmare for Interrogators!

Stan B. Walters

The White House has created another nightmare scenario and announced the formation of a new Terrorism Interrogation Unit.  The unit will be under the umbrella of the FBI, contain members of multiple agencies but the White House will supervise the interrogations.  All the while, following the Army Manual for interrogation. (See www.us.army.mil to get a copy of the manual)

See: Obama Adminstration Sets Up New Interrogation Unit

This is another nightmare scenario by an administration that has no idea what the heck they are doing. Every criminal and intelligence interviewer and interrogator knows you should not have more than two to three people in the room during and interrogation – counting the suspect.  Well, just as important if not more so, there the interrogator can  have too many people inside his head during the interrogation! 

How can any decent interrogator focus on the task of getting critical information, forming questions, reading responses, following the subject’s line of thought, keeping in mind the level of proof they need to make a criminal or intelligence case and also worry about the judgment of a bunch of detached, ill-informed, biased, politically and career motivated self-serving bureaucrats in another room hundreds or thousands of miles away!   He or she will have too many in their head as they try to interview every witness or interrogate as suspect thereby crippling the entire process.  The interrogator must be totally focused on the case and the subject they are interviewing.

In addition, bureaucracies are notorious for treating everything with a single template.  Unique or unusual situations or conditions are not tolerated because they don’t fit the “model.”   A quick review of the Army Manual for Interrogation can see where such a concept can cripple the interrogator.  Just as no two people are alike, neither are two interrogations!  There is no “template” by which all criminal or intelligence interrogations can be conducted.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some guidelines for interrogations or that interrogators shouldn’t have standards of conduct.  By all means, spell out those guidelines but get the hell out of the way of the investigator and interrogator and let them perform the job!

It is my opinion that some of the many possible reasons we have had trouble with the interrogations are 1) there is no consistency in the techniques that are taught, 2) we are sending some very “green” people in the field who have had to conduct complex interrogations and they are over their head, 3) techniques that are being taught are loaded with a bunch of unproven, unscientific techniques and when you have that type of situation, the investigator or interrogator in the field is going to get frustrated and is going get very creative to find to something does work.

I’m reminded of a scene from the old TV show MASH.  Radar has Lt. Col. Henry Blake signing a mountain of paperwork for the second time.  Blake asks “Radar, do you understand all this stuff?”  Radar responds, “No sir, I try not to.  It slows down the process.”

Just my opinion but I’ve got 30-plus years of studying, researching, writing, teaching, AND conducting all types of interrogations. 

I’d still like to know what you think!

Stan
The Lie Guy®
TheLieGuy.com
Twitter.com/TheLieGuy
Facebook.com/TheLieGuy
How to Conduct An Effective Interview Online Course