INTERVIEWING
Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
jesadaphorn / 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.
Liar, Liar!
Why Aren’t Their Pants on Fire?
T
Behavior is an important part of communication but should not be solely used to classify the subject as innocent or guilty.
he interviewer, investigating vandalism of the company’s stockroom area, questions the primary suspect asking, “Were you involved in the damaging of company property?” The subject hesitates, averts eye contact, and panic clearly sets in as he hesitantly responds, “Um…no, I wasn’t.” The interviewer takes note of the gaze aversion, the fidgety hands, and the long pause. With these behavioral cues, the interviewer decides to push a little further in the conversation asking more direct questions of the subject. The subject’s behavior continues to escalate, now shifting his entire posture and crossing his arms. The interviewer has hit a wall of resistance, and the subject refuses to cooperate any further. Both individuals have left the conversation with a negative perception of each other as the subject leaves with frustration that he was not believed, and the interviewer maintains that the subject was lying and dishonest. This example is common—the classification of subjects as guilty or deceptive based on their physical behavior. However, there is a large problem with this classification as the average interviewer
September–October 2021
has about a 50 percent chance of being wrong in this identification. In fact, a study performed by Meissner and Kassin (2002) found that investigators who receive training in detecting deception were successful at about a 50 percent chance-level but maintained higher confidence in their (potentially incorrect) identification of truth or lie.
had a negative experience with an investigation in his past causing anxiety and uneasiness in the conversation. Perhaps he was falsely accused before, disbelieved, or just simply mistreated by the interviewer. All these experiences could cause mistrust and nervousness that then translates to the unique behavioral responses.
There are countless variables that cause the unreliability of physical behavior as an indicator of deception. Primarily, we are all different and respond to situations with our unique perspective based on our experience, our culture, and the context of the conversation. Obstacles There are countless variables that cause the unreliability of physical behavior as an indicator of deception. Primarily, we are all different and respond to situations with our unique perspective based on our experience, our culture, and the context of the conversation. Referring to our earlier vandalism case, the employee may have
| 22 |
LossPreventionMedia.com
In this same scenario, there is a chance that the subject of the interview was afraid of whatever threats were made by the actual vandal. If he feels that his safety is in jeopardy and is uncomfortable in his current environment, then it is likely we may observe these same concerning behaviors. There is also a possibility that the subject of the interview was not involved but knew who was. The behavior was then a result of fear of
