Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher
Page 16
sive. Excluding inconclusive results, their average accuracy was 91 percent for truthful sus-
pects and 80 percent for deceptive suspects [1].
The FAINT interview expands on the BAI interview by introducing the MITT sketches,
adding projective questions as well as questions developed by Avinoam Sapir in his
SCAN interview [2], utilizing comparison questions to help identify truthful suspects, simplifying the assessment of nonverbal behavior, and offering a system for quantifying
observations.
Try to understand how truthful and deceptive suspects perceive the questions in the
FAINT interview and their motivation for the responses to the questions in the ways
described next.
1. “Finish this sentence for me. This investigation is about. . .?” (Projective)
Truthful: Respond quickly, telling the interviewer what the investigation is about, using strong
terminology.
Deceptive: Slow in responding, often state they do not know what the matter is about, or use vague and
evasive terms to describe the crime.
2. “Why do you think you were selected to be interviewed today?” (Projective)
Truthful: Explain why, often admitting they had the opportunity to commit the crime.
Deceptive: Often are unsure of why they were selected, or make general statements like “Everyone is.”
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
101
3. “How do you feel about being interviewed?” (Projective)
Truthful: May admit nervousness, but show a positive attitude about the investigation and their desire
to help find the truth.
Deceptive: Often express hostility toward the process, or exhibit a negative and uncooperative attitude.
4. “Please write/tell me in detail whatever you know about this and how you would
explain it.” (SCAN)
Truthful: Are talkative, informative, and seem open in their presentation. Their statement will be rich in
details, properly describing and explaining the incident under investigation. Because the incident was in the past, their statement will be in the first person past tense, thereby showing commitment to what they are
writing/saying. They will often deny doing the crime at this time, even though the question was not asked.
Deceptive: Have little or no information to offer. Will lie by omission, running from the lie by leaving out critical portions. The statement may lack pronouns, indicating a lack of commitment, or have excessive pro
nouns indicating “cutting and pasting” of the story.
5. “If you were the investigator, how would you conduct the investigation?” (SCAN)
Truthful: Give constructive information to help solve the crime, because that will clear them.
Deceptive: Offer no or very little information, because they do not want the crime solved.
6. “What are the five most important causes that created this situation?” (SCAN)
Truthful: Use strong terminology in explaining, such as “greed,” “thief,” “sick person,” etc.
Deceptive: Often give reasons that have nothing to do with crime, such as personal problems.
7. “Did you ever think about doing something like this?” (Projective)
Truthful: Usually quickly deny such thoughts.
Deceptive: Hesitant in their denial, or make statements like “Everyone thinks about it, but I’d never do it.”
8. “During the first (back 2 years from age when crime was committed) years of your life,
did you ever (steal anything; cheat anybody; hurt anyone)?” (Comparison)
Truthful: Threatened by the question. Usually hesitate, make minor admissions, or use evasive language
in denying it.
Deceptive: Not concerned with the question. It’s not what they are here about, or worried about. Usually
they will quickly deny doing anything like that.
9. “Did you (do the crime)?” (Relevant)
Truthful: Not threatened by the question, because they are innocent. Quickly deny committing the crime.
Deceptive: Threatened by the question. They also deny, but not as quickly or strongly. Often they will
answer with evasive questions (“Why would I take money? I have money in my savings account”). Ask
you to repeat the question to buy time, or challenge your question (“Are you calling me a thief?”).
10. “Whatever you tell me is strictly confidential and it does not even mean you are right,
but who do you suspect?” (Projective)
102
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
Truthful: Often reluctant, but generally help narrow the investigation by telling you whom they suspect.
Deceptive: Usually do not suspect anyone, or try to broaden the investigation by stating anyone could
have done it, or claim the act really did not take place.
11. “Other than yourself, who can you say definitely did not do it?” (Projective)
Truthful: Help narrow the investigation by naming someone.
Deceptive: Usually will not vouch for anyone, or will vouch for everyone.
12. “What do you think should happen to those who did commit this crime when we catch
them?” (Projective)
Truthful: Often describe swift and strong punishment.
Deceptive: Usually do not know, have not thought about it, or state it is not their job to make that decision.
Sometimes they will give a truthful answer, because they have accepted what their punishment should be.
13. “Would you give them a second chance?” (Projective)
Truthful: Will almost always say “No.”
Deceptive: Consider a second chance, often talking about it, depending on the circumstances.
14. “We will be doing a very thorough investigation. We will be interviewing everyone,
doing forensic tests, etc. How do you think the investigation will come out concerning
you, and whether you did this?” (Projective)
Truthful: They will quickly and emphatically state it will clear them.
Deceptive: Usually are unsure, do not understand the process, use hedge words like hope and pray, or
want to know what kind of “forensic tests” you are going to conduct.
15. “Would there be any reason evidence (eyewitness, fingerprints, footprints, blood type,
semen, etc.) will turn up indicating you might have done this?” (Projective)
Truthful: Quickly and strongly deny it, unless there is a valid reason for what you’ve suggested (“I go
into the safe, so my fingerprints would be there”), and have already admitted it earlier in the interview
when they talked about their opportunity to have committed the crime.
Deceptive: Usually give much more thought before denying it, or may come up with a vague reason it
could have been possible.
16. (In employee theft cases) “My job is to recover the loss. Would you be willing to chip in
your portion, so we could just recover what has been taken and drop the
investigation?” (Projective)
Truthful: Usually are not willing to pay for something they did not do, and want the real culprit caught.
Deceptive: Will refuse, with statements like, “I can’t afford it,” or may agree to chip in so the investiga
tion will be stopped and they will not be discovered.
17. “Did you tell anyone about what happened, and that you were going to be interviewed
about it today?” (Projective)
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
103
Truthful: It is a major event in their lives and they usually have discussed it with family or friends.
Deceptive: Often do not discuss it with anyone, because someone may
later want to know how they
made out and they already perceive they will not make out well.
18. “Why do you think someone would have done something like this?” (Projective)
Truthful: It is beyond their comprehension, or they describe the perpetrator in a negative way: drug
addict, sick person, thief.
Deceptive: Often do not know, give a “decriminalized” explanation, or will tell you the actual reason
someone would do this in a rationalized view because it is the only explanation they perceive makes sense.
19. “Do you think this was deliberate (stolen, arson, happened), or could it have been an
accident (lost, unintentional, made up)?” (Projective)
Truthful: Usually sure a crime was committed.
Deceptive: Often are unsure, or jump at the chance to end the investigation by attempting to convince
the investigator that no crime took place.
20. “Did you lie to any question concerning (this crime)?” (Relevant)
Truthful: Not threatened by the question. Quickly reply “No.”
Deceptive: Threatened by the relevancy of the question, may be hesitant or weak in their replies.
21. “In your entire life, did you ever tell a serious lie to get out of trouble?” (Comparison)
Truthful: Threatened by the comparison question, often are hesitant, use hedge words, or make
admissions.
Deceptive: Quickly deny it.
22. “Regarding (the crime), did you do it?” (Relevant)
Truthful: Not threatened by the question. Quickly reply “No.”
Deceptive: Threatened by the question, may be hesitant or weak in their reply, or give an evasive
answer.
23. “If you were the investigator, and had three questions to ask to resolve this problem,
what would they be?”
Truthful: Will name three strong relevant questions.
Deceptive: Will not name questions that would solve crime.
24. “As I told you, we’ll be conducting a very thorough investigation and I may want to
speak to you again. Do you have any problem with that?” (Projective)
Truthful: Presents no problem for them, offers total cooperation.
Deceptive: Usually agree; however, not too enthusiastically. They may even show some degree of sur
prise that you have finished the interview, because they thought they would be found out and immediately
accused of the crime and interrogated.
104
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
Keep in mind that all truthful suspects will not answer every question in what we have
termed a truthful manner, nor will every deceptive suspect answer every question in what
we have termed a deceptive manner. Therefore, the interviewer must learn to use a global
approach, to combine all of the information collected to make an accurate assessment.
SUMMARY
• The FAINT interview involves two concurrent types of assessments: verbal and
nonverbal.
• The truthful suspect wants the interviewer to be successful; the deceptive suspect does
not.
• This fundamental difference in interviewee goals accounts for observable differences in
how truthful and deceptive suspects answer questions.
• There are two things that can occur during the FAINT interview that automatically
indicate the suspect is deceptive: personal coding, or the changing of the “how and
why.”
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to recognize the work done by John Reid and Fred Inbau in behavioral symptom analy
sis and interrogation, and the excellent seminars on the topics still performed today by Reid and Associates [3].
References
[1] F. Horvath, B. Jayne, J. Buckley, Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behavior analysis interviews, Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA 39 (3) (1994) 793 807, May.
[2] A. Sapir, The LSI Course on Scientific Content Analysis, Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Phoenix, AZ, 1987.
[3] F. Inbau, J. Reid, Criminal Interrogations and Confessions, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1963.
C H A P T E R
9
Nonverbal Behavioral Assessment
The parallel line of suspect assessment is their nonverbal behavior. For the assessment to
achieve a high level of reliability, the verbal portion of the assessment needs to be correlated
with the sometimes more subtle responses of nonverbal behavior. The combined total
response record is what provides the interviewer with the information and insight neces-
sary for the determination of truth or deception.
One of the most complete modern texts written on nonverbal behavior indicative of
deception is Telling Lies [1], by Paul Eckman, * an American researcher. Eckman has developed a computerized system to evaluate micro facial expressions in an attempt to detect
deception. In his book, he concludes that nonverbal cues can be highly accurate in deter-
mining truth and deception. However, Eckman maintains that to effectively interpret them,
an individual should have a doctoral degree. In our opinion, his research, like most of the
laboratory studies on nonverbal deceptive behavior, fails to generate the requisite emo-
tional intensity present in an actual forensic field interview, and also fails to utilize a
structured interview format, as is utilized in the FAINT process.
Even without the emotional intensity created by an actual case, a study [2] conducted
with nursing students, who were instructed to either tell the truth or lie concerning films
they saw, resulted in 78% accuracy in detecting deception utilizing nonverbal behavior
alone, and the accuracy increased with Criteria Based Content Analysis and Reality Moni-
toring techniques.
Frank Horvath, Ph.D., a Reid-trained polygraph examiner, reported [3] that Reid and
Arther found the nonverbal behavior in Box 9.1 to be indicative of truth or deception.
The FAINT structure [4], which uses a simplified method of interpreting nonverbal
behavior, appears to enhance a forensic interviewer’s ability to interpret nonverbal cues.
Similar to the chart by Reid and Arther, the FAINT overview of nonverbal behavior for
the truthful versus deceptive suspect is shown in Box 9.2.
FAINT classifies nonverbal behavior into the following three categories: emblems, illus-
trators, and adaptors:
• Emblems are defined as nonverbal behaviors that speak for themselves. They are very
cultural, however extremely accurate as to a person’s true communication. For instance,
*Eckman is the model for the Fox Broadcasting Network drama series Lie to Me!, starring Tim Roth.
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
105
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
106
9. NONVERBAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
BOX 9.1
R E I D A N D A R T H E R : N O N V E R B A L B E H A V I O R
I N D I C A T I V E O F T R U T H A N D D E C E P T I O N
Truthful
Deceptive
Genuinely friendly
Overly friendly
Direct answers
Evasive answers
Good eye contact
Poor eye contact
Cooperative
Uncooperative
Lighthearted
Scared
Composed
Nervous facial movements
Relaxed
Nervous bodily movements
Talkative
Nontalkative
&nb
sp; Overall truthful appearance
Overall deceptive appearance
BOX 9.2
F A I N T : N O N V E R B A L B E H A V I O R I N D I C A T I V E
O F T R U T H A N D D E C E P T I O N
Truthful
Deceptive
Relaxed and confident
Tense and defensive
Face to face body alignment
Evasive body alignment
Increased use of illustrators
Use of adaptors
Natural and settled foot and body
Tense, repetitive, restless foot and body
positions
movements
the authors have observed, in many areas of South Africa, people showing both thumbs
up to communicate their approval of someone or something. The gesture says it all; no
words are necessary.
• Illustrators are defined as nonverbal behaviors that help the listener understand the
speaker’s verbal communication. Nonverbally touching one’s chest, saying, “Look at me.
I have nothing to hide,” as one verbally states, “I didn’t do it!” is a sample of an
illustrator. If a person is telling the truth verbally, it seems consistent that their nonverbal
behavior would assist the listener in understanding the verbal message. FAINT
maintains that as illustrators increase from the interviewee’s norm, chances of the verbal
message being truthful also increases.
• Adaptors are nonverbal gesticulations that do not help the listener understand the
speaker’s verbal message. They may even interfere with the listener’s ability to
comprehend what is being said. Someone covering their mouth as they speak is a prime
9. NONVERBAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
107
FIGURE 9.1 When a suspect is asked, “How do you feel about
being interviewed?” the “middle finger” emblem will provide a
much more accurate communication than the words the subject
provides.
example of an “adaptor” (Figure 9.2). If the verbal communication is a lie, it is in the best interest of the deceiver that the listener not be able to clearly interpret the verbal
message. FAINT teaches that as the use of adaptors increases, chances of deception
increase.
As you can see, illustrators and adaptors differ from emblems in that they parallel verbal
communication, either supporting or distracting from any given statements. They are