Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asking questions is one of the first language skills a child develops. However, almost all of our question asking skills are
developed under the assumption that the person answering our question will tell the truth. Consider questions that
might be asked around a family's dinner table: "Ryan, do you need a ride home from the dance or are you getting a ride
with someone else?"; "Ben, how did your French test go?"; "Mom, Clare didn't call when I was gone, did she?" When
there is a low probability of deception, how a question is formulated is relatively unimportant as long as the other person
understands what is being asked.
This is not the case when interviewing a suspect, witness or victim who is motivated to withhold information. Under that
circumstance, the investigator needs to phrase questions in such a way that the question will not invite deception and, if
the person chooses to lie to the question, the question should stimulate behavior symptoms indicative of that fact. Too
often, however, investigators formulate interview questions relying on rules learned for asking conversational questions
and may be unaware of how important question formulation is in the role of detecting deception. As an example, each
of the questions in the preceding paragraph are improperly phrased for detection of deception purposes. This web tip,
as well as next month's, will offer basic guidelines with respect to proper formulation of interview questions.
However, had the investigator separated these two areas of inquiry, quite different behaviors may be elicited as the
following dialogue illustrates:
A: "Did I find it written down? No." [laughs, and covers eyes with hand]
Compound questions are often asked as a matter of efficiency. The investigator realizes that he needs answers to two
questions, e.g., "Did you touch your daughter's bare vagina or did she have any contact with your bare penis?" and
combines the inquiries to shorten the interview. The additional time spent in separating the two issues, however, may
provide valuable behavioral information.
Assume that a suspect is guilty of embezzling $12,500 by stealing auxiliary cash funds and writing fictitious
reimbursement checks to make the books balance. During an interview this suspect may be asked, "Did you steal any
money from the company?"and the suspect is likely to answer, "No I did not." The answer is obviously a lie but the
embezzler may exhibit minimal behavior symptoms of deception because of the broad wording of the question. A
possible reason for this is that the question is anticipated and does not stimulate an emotional connection to the crime;
the closer a question relates to a suspect's crime, the more emotional weight it will hold.
A much more productive line of questioning would be to ask the suspect a series of specifically worded questions
concerning the embezzlement scheme. Examples of these include:
"Have you ever taken money for yourself from the auxiliary cash fund?
"Have you left the company with any money that did not belong to you?"
"When we contact the people to whom the reimbursement checks were written, will they tell us that
they received the checks?
Text books addressing interviewing skills emphasize the importance of asking the right question. What is the right
question? Often we do not know until it is asked, but it is never a broadly worded question. A prime example is a
preemployment screening interview. If a job applicant is simply asked, "In the last two years have you used any illegal
drugs?" almost every applicant will respond, "No". However, if the interviewer asks more specific questions about drug
usage, often admissions or at least deceptive behavior, will result as the following dialogue illustrates:
A: "Gosh no."
I: "How about some of the social drugs like cocaine, acid or speed?"
A: "Nope"
The previously mentioned axiom warrants repetition: It is psychologically much easier for a suspect to lie to a broadly
worded question than one which specifically addresses his act of wrong-doing.
In preparing for this interview the investigator would want to elicit answers to the following questions:
However, if the questions are asked in the order presented, the investigator is setting himself up for failure. In the above
example, if the investigator starts by asking the suspect, "Did you see Bob at all on December 17th?" and the suspect
answers "No", he is committed to deny the next four questions on the list. In fact, given this denial to the first broad
question, an investigator would not even ask the remaining questions within this area of inquiry. Consequently, the
investigator is relying on a single assessment of the suspect's behavior relative to his commission of the crime; and that
assessment is to a broad question which, as previously stated, is the easiest type of question to lie to.
As previously stated, an investigator is much more likely to detect deception if multiple questions are asked relative to
the suspect's possible involvement in a crime or act of wrong-doing. The guideline to follow is that these questions
should be arranged from the most narrow inquires to the broadest inquires. With this in mind, the following question
syntax presents itself in this homicide case:
A suspect questioned about this homicide can answer "No" to each of these question without committing himself to a
denial to the subsequent questions. This greatly increases the investigator's ability to elicit significant behavior
symptoms of guilt or innocence for two reasons. First, it permits the asking of specific questions which are more
psychologically difficult to lie to than broadly worded questions. Second, there is an accumulative effect of increased
anxiety when a deceptive suspect has lied to several questions within a particular area. By the time the investigator
asks broader questions, such as "Did you see Bob at all on December 17th?" or, "Do you have access to a .22 caliber
gun?" the suspect is more likely to tell the truth. These acknowledgments, of course, provide important information
about the suspect's opportunity and access to commit the crime.
During an actual interview, these questions would not be asked in this specific sequence, but would be separated by
the asking of less threatening questions to gain general background information or clarification. The point being made
here is that the sequence in which key investigative questions are asked during the course of an interview is critical,
and requires preparation.