INTERVIEWING
Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
ArtFamily / iQoncept / Shutterstock.com
David Thompson, CFI
Thompson is the president and partner of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, providing investigative interview and interrogation training to a global audience. He has served as a subject-matter expert in developing curriculum and providing consultation to investigators, attorneys, and the academic community. He can be reached at dthompson@w-z.com. Sturman is the CEO and senior partner of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates and has led this international training organization for over a decade. Sturman has provided training for WZ for a variety of clients over the last twenty years. He is also a member of ASIS International’s Retail Loss Prevention Council. He can be reached at 800-222-7789 or at ssturman@w-z.com. © 2021 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
How Am I Supposed to Rationalize This? S
howing empathy to a subject during an interview can sometimes be a difficult and confusing task for the interviewer. Done the wrong way, it can lead to potential justification of a subject’s actions or damage the credibility of the interviewer. If empathy is projected appropriately, however, it builds a stronger foundation of human connection and allows the subject to disclose information in a more comfortable environment.
Rationalization stories that parallel the actual crime may contaminate a confession provided by the subject.
It is imperative that an interviewer be respectful and show empathy and understanding to provide a venue for these discussions. It is also important that this is done in a way that preserves intent, does not minimize the consequences, and prevents the likelihood of contaminating a confession.
escape the room. The removal of intent through the interview process could also impact the ability to suspend, terminate, or prosecute the subject. The Struggles This is often seen in cases where the words “mistake” We have seen that or “accident” are included interviewers often struggle in a subject’s statement, with this balance of projecting which most likely came from empathy without suggesting the interviewer’s attempt to leniency. If a rationalization rationalize. Ultimately, showing is presented in a way that understanding for the subject’s suggests consequences are minimal, or the subject’s actions situation must be different than are justified, the interviewee may demonstrating justification for their actions. feel that they can confess to a It is also apparent that many crime without any punishment. interviewers have a difficult This perception of leniency time identifying an appropriate has led to several problems, story to share that resonates including false confessions with the subject for serious and wrongful terminations crimes. Interviewers struggle when a subject is incentivized when tasked with attempting to admit to something just to
May–June 2021
| 22 |
LossPreventionMedia.com
to show understanding for a subject who committed a crime that we are unable to relate to or have empathy for. In the law enforcement setting, this could be a sexual assault or child abuse case, and in the private sector, it may be a case of discrimination or sexual harassment. Attempting to have empathy for a person who has been engaging in these behaviors feels like an impossible task. An interviewer stating, “Sure, you’ve been harassing employees and making discriminatory jokes, but I understand” isn’t the most authentic or truthful statement. Rationalization stories that parallel the actual crime may contaminate a confession provided by the subject.
