The Process of Deception: Interviewing, Part Two

Determining deception in an interview requires the fraud examiner’s abilities to detect subtle change, limit disbelief in the subject, and suppress emotional responses.

Mike, the fraud examiner, had no preconceptions of his impending interview with Sam. He knew that Sam might have some information about the recently discovered embezzlement. But Mike also knew that any preconceived notions of Sam’s guilt could affect Sam’s level of anxiety, speech patterns, and physical movements. More than anything else, Mike was looking for one possible indication of deception: change.

To you falls the necessary task of determining if an interview subject is deceptive, identifying the nature of that deception, and changing falsehoods into truth during the interview.

We have only our own subjectivity with which to perceive and assess the presence of deception. If you become an effective persuader you’ll learn:

• the limitations of your subjectivity concerning deception;
• the impersonal nature of the subject’s attempts to deceive; and
• the necessity of suppressing emotional responses to the deceptions of others.

What we have to keep in mind is that the subject’s deceptive behavior isn’t directed at us personally.

Evaluating Symptoms of Change

Just as a physician will evaluate a patient’s symptoms to diagnose an illness, so will you evaluate a subject’s “symptoms” for signs of deception he observes and not react angrily to them.

As always, when you evaluate a subject and possible use of that subject, the key word is change. The very fact that change occurs is as significant as any particular manifestation of change. Most subjects will display some emotionally reactive response in conjunction with deception.¹ As Proverbs 6:11-13 describes such behavior, “He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers.”

Therefore you’ll:

• watch for a change in the rate of eye blinking (what can it show?);
• note changes in movement of the subject’s feet and legs (what can they tell?); and
• pay attention to changes in movement of the subject’s hands and fingers (what can they teach?).

The subject’s attempts to deceive normally will result in stress. That stress will be expressed physically – in the subject’s body. The stronger the rapport between you and your subject (see part one of this article in the March/April issue), the greater the stress the subject will experience once he becomes deceptive. The greater the subject’s stress, the more obvious are the deception indicators. (There are many unexpected benefits from your investment of time and effort in establishing rapport with a subject.)

Deception Indicators

As Sir Francis Bacon, Renaissance author and father of deductive reasoning, advised those who would endeavor to detect the physical signs of deception, “Wait upon him with whom you speak with your eye, for there be many wise men that have secret hearts and transparent countenances.”² Look for these indicators:

1. Drying of mouth
2. Restlessness
   a. Frequent changes in position
   b. Feet tapping
   c. Fidgeting
   d. Gripping arms of the chair
   e. Elbows held close to the body
   f. Running hands through the hair
   g. Chewing of fingernails, pencils, or other subjects
3. Excessive sweating
4. Pulsation of the carotid artery
5. Pallor, flushing, or change in complexion, color
6. Excessive swallowing
7. Avoiding a direct gaze³ 
8. Appearance of being disturbed and/or very tense
9. Audible turbulence in the stomach⁴ 

These physical manifestations of nervousness may or may not indicate the presence of deception. We shouldn’t base any such conclusion on the observation of just one indicator. Watch for clusters of symptoms and note when they occur in the interview.

Begin from a position of unconditional belief in the subject, and it should require some effort by the subject to make you change your mind or modify that original position. To enter the interview situation with a predetermined belief that the subject will be deceptive is counterproductive to the process of inquiry and persuasion, and is likely to influence the subject’s response adversely.

Even the innocent will feel and exhibit some degree of nervousness in the interview setting. Strive to reduce the subject’s level of anxiety. Also, look for any changes of physical response beyond those manifestations of nervousness displayed by the subject as the interview began.

If you, inadvertently or deliberately, convey disbelief to the subject you will likely observe stress-related symptoms, but in this context you’ll be unable to determine whether (a) the physical manifestations of stress are deception-generated internally by the deceptive subject, or (b) the physical manifestations of stress are fraud examiner-generated externally by disbelief in the truthful subject. If you have an automatic tendency to disbelieve every subject and require “proof” of each one’s truthfulness, remember what Seneca wrote about 2,000 years ago: “It goes far toward making a man faithful to let him understand that you think him so; and he that does suspect I will deceive him, gives me a sort of right to do it.” This observation supports the necessity of believing the subject so that whatever physical signs of stress you observe, you can assume to have been internally generated not as a result of stress imposed externally by you.

This limitation also applies to certain direct approaches which begin with an accusation. You can’t rely on the subject’s physical responses to such an approach since the deceptive individual will react because of his own attempts to deceive and the innocent will react because of your disbelief, which is a necessary feature of the direct approach. Paradoxically, once you’re ready to confront the subject with disbelief, the subject’s physical signs of stress will no longer be an issue.

Subject’s Verbal Responses as Deceptions

Listen for the presence of any of the following characteristics of deception in the subject’s responses:

• attempts to evade questions;
• vague answers;
• conflicting information;
• different answers to the same or similar questions; and
• falsehoods or inaccurate information.⁵ 

The subject’s stated falsehood can provide you with much more than a deception indicator. Because of the subject’s inevitable difficulty with remembering deceptive assertions made earlier, it becomes increasingly possible that he will inadvertently reveal the truth. As Proverbs 12:13 reminds us, the deceiver can be caught by his own words: “The wicked man is snared by the transgression of his lips.” It’s interesting to note that deception, which has the root meaning of “to ensnare,” can be in turn the snare of those who practice it. This ensnaring of the “wicked” by their words gives a significant advantage.

Often this inadvertent revelation of the truth will occur in one word or as an aside, in which the subject comments on his or her narrative. This serves once again to underscore the importance of every word uttered by the subject: each is worthy of your attention and consideration.

Following are several types of stated deception indicators:

1. Excessive assertions of truthfulness
   a. “I hope to die if I am lying”
   b. “Swearing on my mother’s grave”
2. Evasive answers
   a. “I am not sure what happened”
   b. “I don’t think it could have been that much”⁶ 
3. Broken or incomplete sentences
4. Stuttering or stammering

Example of Pre-employment Interview

Lack of pre-employment screening is one of the major reasons that entities hire repeated fraud offenders or at least questionable individuals. The following transcript of a pre-employment interview illustrates some of the elements of evasion and possibly deception.

Here we note that the subject didn’t answer the initial asked question at all but just commented on the scope of some of the questions in the pre-employment questionnaire. The interviewer would make a mental note of this evasion.

Now, the element of change comes into consideration. In the initial portion of the subject’s last response, some modification occurs: “Approximately.” Also, we note the broken sentence: “I worked ... I was doing three different jobs at once.” Lastly, the subject used many more words and sentences to make his response than were strictly necessary. While the interviewer isn’t ready to make a judgment on the symptoms he has observed, he is nevertheless aware of change.

Again, the subject provides an interesting response. We note the use “well” – a word that allows time for pausing and reflecting. An instance of stammering occurs: “I ... I worked for him.” Next, there is the sentence, “Let’s see.” We are also aware that the subject didn’t answer one of the questions: “And what type of work did you do?” Instead he responded with the number of times he had worked for his brother and the type of work that his brother did.

The interviewer continues to ask the subject about his work history and then asks why he left one particular job.

This is a revealing answer. The question concerned time and implied that the subject had used speed. The subject, in response, doesn’t deny the use of speed but, rather, indicates why he can’t use it now: he has ulcers. Instead of responding that he wouldn’t or hadn’t used speed, the subject replies that he can’t use it because of some restriction imposed on him.

So in this interview, the interviewer began from a position of unconditional belief in the subject but by evading the initial question the subject immediately gave the interviewer reason to believe that he might start using some of the classic means of deception.

The interviewer is aware that the subject is changing his way of speaking and modifying his words. He breaks his sentences, uses more words than he should when explaining, uses qualifiers such as “well” and “let’s see,” stammers, doesn’t always answer questions, and sometimes answers in a different tense.

This short excerpt from the transcript isn’t conclusive but includes several indications that the subject may not be a good risk for this company.

Detecting Deception is Fundamental

The study of deception is ancient and ongoing. The ability to detect deception in its various auditory and visual manifestations is a fundamental skill. You must look for subtle changes, limit disbelief in the subject, and suppress any emotional responses.

When there is no longer any need to detect deception, there will no longer be any need for fraud examiners. 

Don Rabon, for more than 20 years, has instructed investigators and federal, state, and local criminal justice personnel in 40 states, Puerto Rico, Belgium, and Germany. He also has provided training to NATO counter-intelligence personnel. Rabon had rural and municipal law enforcement experience and provides investigative technical assistance to entities throughout the United States. He is a longtime ACFE faculty member.

[ For further information on the interviewing process read Don Rabon’s two books, “Interviewing and Interrogation,” and “Investigative Discourse Analysis,” both available from the ACFE. – ed. ]

^{1 Interviewing ST – 305, Student Text. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center/Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC (May 1981), p. 64.
2 All quotations from the works of Francis Bacon are taken from his Essays (1625), specifically the essays, “Simulation and Dissimulation,” “Of Cunning,” and “Negotiating.”
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid, p. 65.
5 Ibid, p. 25.
6 Ibid, p. 65.}