Subject won't talk? Use these techniques

Recently I was instructing a group of auditors from an organization at its professional retreat. During my session on interviewing, the counsel for this group asked an excellent question: "What can you do when the person you are interviewing just doesn't want to talk with you - when their answers are short and not to the point?" It was such a good question that I'm using it as the central theme for this column. 

The first thing we need to keep in mind is that there's a reason a person isn't participating at the communication level we want. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Subjects' motivations for not communicating vary widely. On one hand, an interview subject might not be a nice person but he hasn't committed a wrongful act and has no guilty knowledge. At the other extreme, an interview subject has committed a wrongful deed and feels that the more he communicates the more vulnerable he becomes.

In the middle of these two extremes is the subject who has done nothing wrong but suspects that someone he knows may be involved in wrongful behavior. This subject is on the horns of a dilemma. He doesn't want to get the individual into trouble if he hasn't done anything wrong, but he doesn't want the situation to spiral downward because of his allegiance to the organization. A confused mind tends to shift toward "no"; that's probably the main reason in the opening case that the interview subject didn't cooperate with the legal counsel. Regardless of the subject's motivation for not cooperating, the interviewer's challenge is the same: determine the motivation and eliminate it.

TIE-DOWN OR TAG QUESTIONS
To resolve this problem, the interviewer might want to consider using "tie-down" (or sometimes called "tag") questions. They are called tie-down questions because they anchor the interview subject to "givens" or agreements that the interviewer is striving to establish. Tie-down questions help to gain the subject's agreement and identify any barriers to cooperation. (We'll address a third function - overcoming the fear of confession - later in this column.)

One form of this type of question is a standard tie-down, which places the matters you want the subject to agree with at the front of the sentence and uses the tie-down at the end. For example, let's return to our previous example of the subject (we'll call him Mike) who suspects that someone he knows is possibly involved in wrongful behavior. The interviewer (we'll call him Sam) might ask the following: "Well Mike - a loyal employee is going to do what is in the best interest of the company, isn't he?" Note that "isn't he" is the tie-down. It's difficult for Mike to disagree. However, if he does disagree he'll answer with something like, "Yes, but you don't want to get your friend in trouble if he has not done anything wrong." (Notice how the pronouns went from first person to second person but we'll save that for a future column!)

"Yes" is the affirmation to the interviewer's question. "But" is the retractor or the eraser of the stated "yes." Now the second portion of the answer takes precedent over the first part - the affirmation "yes." Within the second part of the sentence Mike has revealed his concern. He doesn't want to place his friend in harm's way if his friend hasn't done anything wrong. Now that Sam has identified the barrier - the motive for the lack of cooperation - he can move to remove the barrier. For example, Sam might respond by saying, "Look, Mike, there is no way that you can get your friend into trouble. People don't get into trouble because someone had a suspicion. They get into trouble when they have done something wrong. I will look into it and if he has done nothing wrong, I will be able to show that. If he has been involved in doing something that he shouldn't, we can stop it before it gets any worse. So you see, Mike, you cannot get your friend into trouble. Only he can do that. The only thing that you can do is keep your friend from getting in deeper than he already is, if that is the case."

Other examples of questions with standard tie-downs are:

• It can be very difficult doing the job of three people, can't it?
• Policy and procedure do not always apply, do they?
• You have pretty much had to run this operation on your own, haven't you?

The second form of this type of question is known as an inverted tie-down. When using this questioning form, the interviewer places the tie-down at the beginning of the sentence. For example:

• Isn't it true that you had to do the work that three people use to do?
• Don't you think that with these few people that something could fall through the cracks?

OVERCOMING THE FEAR OF CONFESSION
Tie-down questions also will help the interview subject to avoid the fear of confession. Confession, and in many cases, compliance, is a psychological surrender. When an individual confesses, he takes his hands off the wheel of his own fate and places it into the hands of the interviewer. Because that's a significant behavior, there's a fear attached to that action separate and apart from the consequences of the confession. With the proper application of a tie-down in the right frame, the subject doesn't have to confess; he only has to agree, which is what tie-downs are designed to make happen. Here's an illustration. Once I had arrested an individual who had broken into a residence and had stolen a significant amount of electronic equipment. As we talked, I asked him, "You know, if that stuff was back in that house it would not really be stolen, would it? "No," he replied. I asked him, "What do you want to do?" "Let's go get it." As we drove to where he had hidden the equipment, I asked him, "Why didn't you just tell me in the first place?" He said, "I just didn't want to say that I had stolen it." The subject ultimately was charged with the crime. With the tie-down he didn't have to admit that he had stolen anything; he only had to agree with my question. The application of a tie-down to someone who has done nothing wrong won't gain a false confession. Think of some ways in which tie-down questions might be of use to you in your area of inquiry and scope of responsibility.

MAKE NO MISTAKE
A word of caution - make sure that you aren't using a tie-down question when you should be using a closed question. There is a vast difference between the question, "Did you take the money?" and the question, "You didn't take the money, did you?" With the first question (closed) it's difficult for the guilty individual to answer simply "no"; however, the same individual would have no trouble at all answering "no" to the second question (tie-down). The tie-down question is designed to gain agreement. There are subtle differences to these questions, but they are the differences that make a difference.

Conversely, use tie-downs if you want the individual to try to deceive you about the facts you already know and thus expose him. For example: in deposition you already know that the individual formed a shell company that's doing business with the company with which he is employed. You might consider asking, "You don't own another company, do you?" Another example of this use of a tie-down to reveal a deceiver would be, "This list that you provided contains all of your sources of income, doesn't it?"

"Deceptive Communication," by Gerald R. Miller and James B. Stiff, is an excellent read for anyone interested in the study of deception. Published by Sage Publication, the short text - only 117 pages - is replete with applicable information and thought-provoking opportunities for future studies for those so inclined. If you read it, let me know your thoughts on Chapter 4, "Characteristics of Deceptive Behavior."

Keep those questions, comments and observations coming to dwrabon@msn.com.
Until next time, keep asking.

Don Rabon is the deputy director of the Western Campus of the North Carolina Justice Academy in the North Carolina Department of Justice and a longtime member of the ACFE faculty.