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:

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.