Interviewing, Detecting Deception, Persuasion, and Discourse Analysis

I sincerely appreciate your comments and contributions. It's gratifying to know that this column is a useful resource and could be making a difference. Here I'll share feedback from three readers and explore the topics they raise: admission-seeking interviews (often labeled interrogations by law enforcement), recording, and anxiety.

This contributor hit upon an interesting point that often comes up in the ACFE's professional and advanced interviewing classes. Let's explore the differences between an interview and an admission-seeking interview. (Labeling the admission-seeking process an interrogation might not be prudent because the term can carry negative connotations.) An interview is a meeting among two or more people to talk about a specific matter and an admission-seeking interview consists of the mechanics and art of questioning for the purposes of exploring or resolving issues.

We can further simplify the matter. If there are no issues to explore or resolve with the interviewee, then we only have to meet and talk in the interview process. However, if the communication necessitates exploration and resolution, it's an admission-seeking interview by definition. We must transform the mechanical questioning process into an art by arduous practice, study, and application. (I teach this process at length in ACFE's "Interviewing for Auditors" course.)

ADAPTORS AND ANXIETY
"I conduct a significant number of disability insurance interviews and I've seen the adaptors present during more than one interview, as well as some of the other verbal and visual cues. I never thought about the stress factor present in the individual who is attempting to be deceptive, but I will keep this in mind in future interviews. The understanding of verbal and non-verbal behavior is a critical skill to be acquired by anyone doing one-on-one interviewing."

My rule of thumb is "deception generates stress within the body and that stress must be dissipated from the body." Deception by falsification generates more stress than concealment does. Falsification is active and requires more cognition than concealment. This dissipation appears as "adaptors." An adaptor is an outward manifestation of the mind's attempt to reduce or eliminate stress. They can include body shifts, crossing of arms and legs, and other movements generated by anxiety. Adaptors can also include touching the body, the clothing, or some object attached to the body such as a watch.

A subject, truthful or not, uses object-directed adaptors when she touches or manipulates something that isn't attached to her such as a pen, paper, or an item on a desk. This behavior is often referred to as the "fight or flight syndrome." The natural reaction of a subject would be to direct anxiety by fighting the interviewer or tactically withdrawing to safety by fleeing the interview. Neither is an appropriate response in the social setting of an interview. Therefore, the subject releases or manages pent-up energy via adaptors. If the adaptors increase in frequency as the interview progresses and changes, it's normally a sign of increasing anxiety because the subject can neither fight nor flee (at least in theory).

Also, pay attention to the subject's non-verbal behavior changes. Ask additional questions about the areas that the subject spoke about when she exhibited the adaptors. For example, the interviewer notices an increase in adaptors when the subject is talking about her activities between noon and 2 p.m. the previous day. At the appropriate time, the interviewer would ask a question about that time such as, "It is now 12 o'clock yesterday; what happened between then and 2 p.m.?"

Additionally, strive to make sure that you don't inadvertently generate anxiety within the mind of a truthful subject by conveying that you don't believe her. To tell the truth and not be believed is stressful. That stress generates adaptors, which appear to look like the adaptors generated by deception.

RECORDING THE INTERVIEW & INTERVIEWER'S REMORSE
"As always I enjoyed reading your article on interviewing issues. We conduct both information-gathering and interrogative interviews at our organization and it's common practice, backed up by policy, to record these interviews. We make both audio cassette and video DVD copies of the interviews, which are available to the subject at a later date. The cameras and microphones are discreetly placed but visible, and the subject is advised at the beginning of the recording and their consent is obtained.

"We are very happy with this process and feel it has many benefits. From an interviewer's perspective, it's very useful to see where your technique needs improving and where something worked well. From an evidentiary perspective, we no longer need to go through lengthy ˜voir dires' to prove to the courts that the statements were made voluntarily. Anecdotally I know that we have prevented a number of court challenges at the criminal and civil levels because we record our interviews.

"We approach the issue of recording in a ˜no big deal" manner with the subject, as you described, and I haven't, in over eight years of recording, had anyone refuse to have the interview recorded. Once you engage the subjects, they seem to soon forget that they are being recorded and rarely make reference to it during the interview. I find that recording adds to our credibility as investigators because we are clearly seen treating the subject in a fair and objective manner.

"It was also interesting to read about ˜interviewer remorse." I have to come clean and say I've never experienced it. I think I'm an empathetic listener, but I've never felt bad about fairly obtaining a confession from someone. There's a lot of value in properly ending an interview where a confession is obtained, and this includes reinforcing with the subject that they have done the right thing. I wonder if coming from a law enforcement background, rather than an auditing one, explains the difference."

I saved this submission for last because it ties together many subjects that we've recently addressed into a succinct collection.

Recording the interview - The organization for which this person works is way ahead of the curve. In a previous column, I addressed the pros and cons of recording the interview. I've said for some time that we should routinely record interviews. The comments above emphatically show the benefits of correctly doing this.

Interviewer's remorse - This reader's transition from law enforcement to the private sector more than likely gave him a unique starting point, perspective, and job experiences so that he said he has never felt "interviewer remorse." However, that perspective, which differs from many other interviewers, can work for or against an individual who's transitioning from law enforcement into the private sector. I'll address this dynamic at length in a later issue.

WORKING TOGETHER
Would you like to collaborate on an interview-related topic for a column? If so, e-mail me a paragraph about a specific subject (questions, deception, persuasion, etc.) and I might include your submission, expand upon it, and put it out there for others to agree ... or question.

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.  

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners assumes sole copyright of any article published on www.Fraud-Magazine.com or ACFE.com. Permission of the publisher is required before an article can be copied or reproduced.