5. Why strive to appear curious rather than suspicious?
6. What is the role of imagination in an interview?
7. What is intuition?
8. How can intuition be valuable to the interview process?
9. What role does psychology play in the interview?
10. Why should you do research before conducting the interview?
4
CHAPTER
Deception and the Interview
THE INTERVIEWER’S GOAL
Success in influencing the behavior of interviewees lies in convincing them
to answer questions honestly—and that begins with your attempt to under-
stand and, to some extent, satisfy the needs underlying their behavior. The
anticipation and satisfaction of needs are central to successful interviewing.
When we think of our basic, universal needs as humans, we are most often
talking about security, freedom, understanding, and affection. If you fail to
anticipate the interviewee’s needs, tension will develop, and unless the inter-
viewee’s basic needs are fulfilled, the interview will be little more than a
waste of time. Building a relationship with the person you are interviewing
will determine your success. There are many skills that a seasoned investi-
gator uses to exhibit understanding and acceptance of the interviewee’s
needs. By attempting to gain a deeper understanding of those needs, the
investigator uncovers possible evasiveness and distress. Keep in mind that
our ultimate goal is to obtain truthful statements that will ultimately lead
to successful resolution of a case.
Pressures, loyalties, obligations, needs, and restrictions frequently cause
interviewees to be uncomfortable and not relaxed mentally. Gaining their
cooperation requires active listening, kindness, consideration, and respect.
These traits are not easy to portray in many instances.
There are many different interview models, but two common ones that
are used in the United States are the Reid model, a confrontational method,
and the Wicklander-Zulawski model, which is a nonconfrontational method
but teaches both. Both methods allow the interviewer to leverage the inter-
viewee’s physical and verbal behavior while avoiding denials in order to
reach a truthful confession. Interviewers develop their own style after years
of practicing, learning a variety of styles, and putting their personality into
the interview.
Another interview model that is used in the United Kingdom and
encouraged in Canada is known as the PEACE model. 1 PEACE is composed of five distinct parts:
1 http://sg.jobsdb.com/investigative-interview-training-course-using-peace-model. Researched on March 17, 2013.
29
30
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
P: Planning and Preparation
E: Engage and explain
A: Account, clarification, and challenge
C: Closure
E: Evaluation
This came about after a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice in the
United Kingdom during the 1970s and 1980s, where it was determined that
the interviewing techniques used to elicit confessions were overly manipu-
lative and employed coercion. Due to all the attention to these cases (e.g.,
the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six), there was a call for close scrutiny of
the police investigation process, particularly the interviewing process. In
1991, a steering group on investigative interviewing was set up, resulting
in the PEACE model, now used for interviewing witnesses, victims, and sus-
pects. The PEACE model is an inquisitorial, nonaccusatory interview model
that is designed to gather information and behavioral data from an
interviewee.
The Interviewer’s Needs
Experienced interviewers learn to keep their own biases and feelings in
check during an investigation. Investigators who try to fulfill egocentric,
personal, or childish needs during an interview may become frustrated,
which may lead them to act out personal tensions and misuse their authority.
The potential for destructiveness goes with a position of authority. Given
authority, some individuals become destructive in ways and at times that
When the self-image and self-esteem of interview participants are at
stake, pressure can be overwhelming. Overstimulation of the body’s auto-
nomic nervous system, which governs involuntary actions, routinely adds to
distress, particularly when there is no way to vent built-up pressure. When
the investigation becomes intense—stressful enough to cause emotional
involvement—proficient interviewers try to remain detached.
DECEPTION
Deception and lying have many different meanings once you cross cultural
borders. These cultural differences determine whether deception or some
level of truth telling is acceptable. Because of these differences, it is not possible to establish a universal motive for one’s deceptive behavior. Here, for
Deception and the Interview
31
the purpose of the investigative interview, we review deceptive behavior in
North America and how to identify verbal and nonverbal signs of deception.
Before we explore deception, let’s establish some criteria for credibility.
The credibility of interviewees is based on their truthfulness and believabil-
ity, and it is related to their observation skills and accuracy in reporting. Here are some possible tests of interviewee credibility:
1. Was the interviewee present and aware during the incident? Presence
includes more than being there physically.
2. If questions relate to a timeline, are their statements consistent? By asking the interviewee to repeat or recall the order of events at different times
during the interview, you can observe and watch for inconsistencies.
3. How well developed are the interviewee’s powers of observation?
4. Can the interviewee relate the facts briefly, correctly, and clearly, with-
out showing signs of emotional disturbance?
5. Does the interviewer’s nonverbal behavior signal deception? There are
some common physical signs that might indicate deception, but these
same physical gestures may be stress related.
In an interview, the interviewee is deceptive when he or she makes a false
statement with the intention to deceive the interviewer. Deception is gen-
erally thought to be the intentional act of concealing or distorting the truth
for the purpose of misleading.
As investigators, we need to watch for inconsistencies in a story, but we
also need to pay close attention to how the story is told. If the person is
deceptive, there will be a variety of signals, both physically and in the words
spoken. You will need to remember that the liar is also trying to read the
investigator, telling her story in the way she thinks will get the best result
for her. She is also trying to manage her body language, voice tone, and style.
Trained investigators will have to assess all the indicators, both verbal and
nonverbal.
Convincing liars are often self-assured and cunning. They can be difficult
to identify because their comments are never too strong, too defensive, or
ou
t of context. Their motivation to lie is rarely based on anger or hostility;
that would weaken the basis of their confidence. If they are trying to help
someone by lying, they will be at ease, and their comments will sound nat-
ural. Because they have rationalized their lying, they maintain both confi-
dence and peace of mind, suffering no question of conscience.
Conscience is the internal sense of what is right and wrong that governs a
person’s thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do the right thing. Con-
science is expressed through behavior.
32
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
Verbal Signs
Listening is one of the most important skills you will need to develop. I use
the term develop because almost everyone can improve their listening skills.
Listening is critical if you want to determine whether an interviewee is being
truthful or deceptive. The interviewee might not be showing signs of stress
through nonverbal signs. You will have to determine whether the informa-
tion you are getting is, in fact, the truth or a lie. Sometimes the deceptive
interviewee will provide too many details, or sometimes not enough.
A lack of clear thinking can signal deception and evasiveness. When inter-
viewees express themselves in a calculated, dissociated, or awkward manner
rather than in a smooth, flowing way, something, somewhere, is not altogether
right. The deceptive tend to assert that they don’t remember, whereas truthful
interviewees tend not to say this. A person who wants to hide relevant informa-
tion must make a conscious effort to keep the truth submerged. That effort
requires contemplation, intention, and planning, all of which may happen in a
brief moment, followed by a “memory lapse.” The deceptive answer is more eva-
sive than the truthful. The interviewee may attempt to distract the interviewer
with inappropriate friendliness, compliments, or seductive behavior. They
may present a complex, tangled, or confused explanation in response to your
question, or they may try to dodge the question altogether. Their answers are general in nature andbroadin content. Their apparent desire is to say as little as possible while hiding in their self-made emotional shelter. They may think that if they are silent and motionless, no one will guess they are hiding the truth. They seem to take comfort in their lack of spontaneity, and they think they are safe and secure as they try not to be noticed. If interviewees have to invent an answer that is a lie, they might spend more time searching for the right phrase to fit into their story.
Remember that the higher the consequences, the more pressure the per-
son will be under.
With this kind of pressure, there are likely to be physical cues. For most
people, lying is stressful, so you might try taking a break in between ques-
tions, which causes some discomfort, or changing the subject, which may
cause the person to adjust or change his nonverbal cues.
When interviewees begin with the words “To be honest,” “To tell the
truth,” “Frankly,” or “Honestly,” they most likely do not intend to be frank
or honest. Interviewees who express objections rather than denials when
questioned are probably not being completely truthful. Interviewees who
were later shown to be lying have said the following:
•
“I have plenty of money in the bank. I would have no reason to take that
money.”
Deception and the Interview
33
•
“I’m not the kind of person who would think of doing that.”
•
“I don’t go around doing those kinds of things.”
•
“I couldn’t do something like that.”
The objections tend to be true, at least in part. The suspect who utters the
first objection may indeed have money in the bank, but that response is not a
clear denial of having stolen. Honest denials are straightforward and crystal
clear: “No, I didn’t steal the money.”
After answering a question dishonestly, some interviewees immediately
look searchingly at your eyes and face for any nonverbal signs of your skep-
ticism. This subconscious, questioning, wide-open look lasts only a fraction
of a moment. While deceptive interviewees pretend to ponder questions,
they may engage in some physical action that betrays their desire to escape
from the interview, mentally if not physically. This uneasiness may manifest
itself as they shuffle their feet, cross their legs, or cover their eyes. They often avoid eye contact by looking around the room or at the floor, frequently
picking real or imagined lint from their clothes. In addition, they blink more
often than truthful interviewees.
Experienced investigators know that they can’t rely on false clues or signs
of deception such as eye behavior. Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed
studies published in scientific journals reporting on experiments on eye
behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. 2 No scientific evidence exists to suggest that eye behavior or gaze aversion can reliably
gauge truthfulness. Some people say that gaze aversion is a sure sign of lying,
others that fidgety feet or hands are the key indicators. Still others believe
that analysis of voice stress or body posture provides benchmarks. Research
has tested all of these indicators and found them only weakly associated with
deception.3
They may appear calm, but in a forced way. Although they smile and
look composed, the deceptive often seem physically restrained. Their move-
ments are often overly controlled and repetitive, lacking complexity and
variety, not spontaneous and free moving. Interviewees who engage in
rehearsed gestures, without putting their bodies into motion in a smooth,
convincing manner, signal their intent to deceive. They present a false image
of themselves and hope that you will accept it without question.
2 C. F. Bond, A. Omar, A. Mahmoud, and R. N. Bonser, “Lie Detection Across Cultures,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 14 (1990): 189–204.
3 B. M. DePaulo, J. J. Lindsay, B. E. Malone, L. Muhlenbruck, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper, “Cues to Deception,” Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 1 (2003): 74–118.
34
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
Nonverbal Signs
Investigators can improve their ability to detect deception by becoming
more aware of nonverbal cues. Gestures, mannerisms, facial expressions,
and other forms of nonverbal communication are learned throughout life;
they reveal underlying personality traits, subconscious attitudes, intentions,
and conflicts. The more you know about nonverbal communication, the
better an interviewer you will be. Your observation of the interviewee’s
unintentional nonverbal cues can help you make decisions about his or
her truthfulness. When interviewees twist the truth, they leave clues in their
facial expressions and bodily movements. Their expressions and body lan-
guage may convey internal struggles as they try to cover the outward signs
of lying. A mere twitch or an effort to control such a barely perceptible
movement is described as a microexpression. Also described as a slight, unique
little expression, a microexpression happens in one-fifth of a second4—s
o
fast that the person can’t modify or conceal it.
Microexpressions express one of the seven universal emotions,5 which are:
•
Happiness
•
Surprise
•
Contempt
•
Sadness
•
Fear
•
Disgust
•
Anger
Something more than a nonverbal cue indicates deception. If you look at the
behavioral cues when a person is truthful and determine a baseline, you can
more clearly see nonverbal cues when that person is lying. Establishing a base-
line will help you observe when the person’s behavior, mannerisms, and phys-
ical signs change as he moves between truthful statements and false ones. The
key to detecting false statements is to look for these deviations in behavior.
Body Language and Body Physical Signs
Table 4.1 presents some potential meanings of body movements that could indicate an interviewee’s state of mind. 6
4 “The Effects of the Duration of Expressions on the Recognition of Micro Expressions,” Journal of Zhejiang University, Science B, Vol. 13, Issue 3, pp 221–230, March 1, 2012.
5 Daniel Benjamin Smith, “Dr. Cal Lightman’s Seven Universal Micro-Expressions,” March 12, 2010.
6 Louis A. Tyska, CPP, and Lawrence J. Fennelly, Investigations: 150 Things You Should Know, Chapter 8.
Deception and the Interview
35
Table 4.1 The use of Micro Expressions, Body Movements vs State of Mind
Body movement
Possible meaning
Lowering the eyebrows
Concentrating or anger
Raised eyebrows
Surprise or anticipation
Widening eyes
High interest or fear
Removing glasses
Withdrawal
Closing nostrils with fingers
Contempt
Index finger alongside nose
Suspicion
Lowering chin and looking up
Coy or shy
Picking face or biting nails
Unsure, negative feelings
Fingering collar of shirt
Nervous, desire to escape
Hand over heart or middle of chest
Honesty
Playing unconsciously with ring
Possible conflict