The kinesic interview or interrogation is a method that has become more popular among the law enforcement community in recent years. This type of interview is different than traditional methods because the interviewer isn't necessarily looking for information nor a confession from the interview subject; instead, the interviewer is attempting to assess whether the subject is telling the truth.

In the book "The Kinesic Interview Technique," authors Frederick C. Link and D. Glen Foster define this technique as:

"[An interview technique] used for gaining information from an individual who is not willingly or intentionally disclosing it." 

Link and Foster believe that the kinesic interview technique is based entirely on the concept of stress - an event or circumstance that forces an individual's mind or body out of psychological equilibrium. When stress occurs, humans, as all other living creatures, have an emotional reaction. Link and Foster refer to this as the well-known "fight or flight syndrome," in which we either run from a stressful situation or brace to face it. Either way, they hypothesize, our animalistic tendencies dictate that we must react to stress. The kinesic interview technique is used to attempt to read the interview subject's reaction to stress.

This method relies, in a broad sense, on the interviewer's ability to observe the interview subject for signs or symptoms of deceit. The kinesic interview is conducted not just to observe what the subject says, but also how the subject says it; the subject's gestures, posturing, facial expressions, and voice inflection are just a few of the traits that an investigator looks at. This style of interviewing assumes that when most human beings lie or are deceitful to others, they will reveal this deceit through their "body language."

These reactions are generally subconscious; in most cases, the interviewee doesn't even realize that he or she is acting noticeably different. The actions or signs that an interviewer is looking for are called meaningful behavior - activities that may suggest than an interviewee is under stress.

Link and Foster identify three distinct categories into which meaningful behavior can be divided:

• self-initiated verbal statements which the interviewee initiates without prompting;
• prompted verbal responses or statements made by the interviewee in response to structured questions asked by the interviewer; and
• non-verbal behavior or body language which includes body positioning movements, lack of movement, and observable physiological changes.

Self-initiated Verbal Statements

These responses from interviewees are made without any prompting by the interviewer. Examples of these statements include changes in speech pattern, overtly respectful or friendly words directed at the interviewer, or indirect answers and statements. The subject's speech speed will tend to increase, or the subject will hesitate or stammer frequently before giving any responses. These verbal clues are a subconscious attempt by the interviewee to dodge the line of questioning or suppress the guilty feelings the subject feels.

Generally, a dishonest person is much more likely to give more self-initiated verbal signs than a person who is telling the truth.

Prompted Verbal Responses

Prompted verbal responses can be important tools for an interrogator to differentiate an honest person from a deceitful one. By utilizing a series of structured questions, we can generally get a very good indication of how truthful the subject is. These should be woven into a casual conversation so that the subject isn't aware of the significance of the questions. The structured questions mustn't appear to be interrogational in manner.

Structured Questions

The fraud examiner has several loaded question types to utilize in the kinesic interview, which may shed light on the guilt or innocence of the interview subject.

• Punishment Question - The interviewer will casually discuss the punishment of the crime's perpetrator with the subject, asking, for example, "What do you think should happen to the criminal?" When posed with this sort of question, generally the innocent person, having nothing invested in the crime, will answer that the criminal should be severely punished, saying something like, "Lock him up and throw away the key." The interview subject who is guilty of the crime, on the other hand, will generally answer that the criminal should be treated fairly, saying for example, "The person who stole the money is very sick and probably needs mental help." In essence, the guilty person is more likely to answer, "Don't hurt me."
• Physical Evidence Question - This type of question is meant to jar the suspect into making a mistake. The interviewer will suggest that there is a piece of evidence that might link the interviewee to a crime, asking, "Is there any reason that your fingerprints might have been found near the crime scene?" This question doesn't assert that there is any evidence. The innocent person, knowing that he or she had nothing to do with the crime, will simply answer "No," unconcerned about the possible evidence. The guilty party will often become concerned with this possible evidence and attempt to cover for this evidence with another lie.
• Crime Existence Question - A variation on this question would be "Do you think that this crime was even committed?" To the guilty party, this question represents a possible way out, and that person is likely to say "no," while the innocent person will likely answer "yes."

Non-verbal Behavior/Body Language

The evaluation of an interview subject's body language can provide the fraud examiner with numerous insights into the subject's true intentions. Quite often, while an interviewee says one thing, his body language tells an entirely different story. The first step in this process is to evaluate the "normal" body language of the subject.

For most people, the head is the most expressive portion of the body. Several facial traits or expressions can be read by the interviewer, such as:

• Eyes - The single most important non-verbal sign that an interviewer must look for and recognize are breaks in eye contact by the subject. The subject might close his eyes, cover his eyes, or turn or lower his head. Any of these breaks in eye contact during the interview can suggest a subject's deceit.
• Eyebrow movement - When a subject displays disbelief or concern during an interview, it's often a false or deceptive reaction to the interviewer's questioning.
• Touching the face - A subject, when under stress, may resort to repeatedly touching the tip of the nose or rubbing the chin. This is often a nervous reaction to a threatening situation.
• Blushing - A person whose face or cheeks become red is generally experiencing increased blood pressure, indicating pressure or stress.
• Adam's Apple - The subject's larynx will quite often move up and down when he is concerned or nervous.
• Carotid arteries - Often the veins in a person's neck will become exposed when that person becomes nervous.

In addition, many interviewees will attempt to cover or defend themselves through body language by crossing their arms or their legs, a common avoidance. This, obviously, is generally a defensive posture.

Several factors should be considered when applying these techniques:

• No single behavior, by itself, proves anything.
• Behaviors must be relatively consistent when the stimuli are repeated.
• The interviewer must establish what is normal or "baseline" behavior for each subject and then look for changes from the baseline. These observed changes in the subject's baseline behavior are diagnosed in "clusters" and not individually.
• Behaviors must be timely.
• Observing and interpreting behaviors is hard work.
• The subjects are watching us while we are watching them.
• Kinesic interviewing is not as reliable with some groups as with the general population.

Kinesic interviewing doesn't take the place of traditional interrogation. But it can be a helpful supplement when the fraud examiner isn't necessarily looking for new information or a confession but wants to see whether the subject might be telling the truth.