3 Psychological Tools That Will Help You Elicit Confessions

GUEST BLOGGER

Sarah Hofmann
ACFE Public Information Officer

On a Thursday evening your doorbell rings. You open the door to find a 9 year-old child on your threshold who says, “Hi. I’m selling candy bars for my school. Do you want to buy one?” Would you buy one? Or would you politely decline? What if the child instead said to you, “Hello. Do you think children should be reading more?” If you respond affirmatively, they follow up with, “Do you mind buying a candy bar to support our library?” Chances are that you are much more likely to buy that candy bar after agreeing with the child that children should read because you now feel compelled to back up your previous affirmative statement. That scenario is more than a clever sales pitch for a child — it is a perfect example of the social contract compelling you to act.

In his session, “Social-Psychological Behaviors: An Underused Tool for Fraud Investigators,” Bret Hood, CFE, will share that story and more at the upcoming 2017 ACFE Law Enforcement and Government Summit in Washington, D.C., October 30. The child in question was his daughter and after slumping candy fundraising numbers, he taught her to use a two-prong question method to increase the likelihood of people buying the bars. He says that fraud examiners can use a number of psychological tactics like two-prong questioning to interview and elicit confessions from suspected fraudsters. A few other tools Hood will discuss are:

Social Contract. If you force someone into a situation where they use cognitive dissonance to lie to themselves, they are more easily exposed. He says that if you lie to a stranger, you won’t have as much trouble changing your story later, or denying what you said previously. However, if you lie to someone you know, or if you write down the lie, you’re more likely to stick to that story, no matter how outlandish it might be. 

Reciprocity. Humans are naturally inclined to reciprocate what they perceive to be kind gestures from others. Hood suggests some seemingly minor tricks to use in an in-person interview with a suspect — like offering them a can of soda or a more comfortable chair. The same concept can even be applied to interviews over the phone. Starting a thought with an implication of camaraderie or collusion — like saying, “I normally don’t share this with people, but…” — can make the target of the interview feel that they must give you a piece of information equally special.

Priming. Simply softening an interrogation about embezzling to a line of questions about “misplaced” money can elicit more honest responses from suspects, or even unwitting pawns. When people feel like they are safe and understood, they’re more likely to share information. Priming your words to make them feel understood is an easy way to achieve that truth.

There are many ways that anti-fraud professionals can build a case against fraudsters, but much of the work that requests for documents, subpoenas and audits do can also be accomplished by tapping into the most basic aspects of the human psyche. 

You can hear Hood speak about this topic, and hear about the latest fraud techniques unique to law enforcement and government professionals in Washington, D.C. next month. Visit ACFE.com/fraudsummit and register by September 29 to save an extra $95!

Uncovering the True Cost of Fraud

FROM THE RESOURCE GUIDE

John Warren, J.D., CFE
ACFE General Counsel

A common and persistent challenge for anti-fraud practitioners who deal with occupational fraud is how to measure the impact of these crimes. At a basic level, any organization needs to understand what its revenues and expenses are in order to operate efficiently. Yet occupational fraud is an expense that many organizations are either unwilling or unable to account for. This puts the anti-fraud professional in a bind. How can we justify funding for anti-fraud programs or explain the value of our services if the organizations we serve do not understand the threat?

Ultimately, it is the job of the anti-fraud community to educate our clients and employers about the impact of occupational fraud. If we as a profession cannot make a compelling case for our own services, then who can? But as it turns out, there are challenges to putting a number on the damage caused by occupational fraud.

First, it is extremely difficult to determine the full extent of occupational fraud losses because so many schemes go undetected. If somebody walks into a bank with a gun and steals $100,000 from the vault, the bank knows it has been robbed. But if a bank manager embezzles $100,000 through phony invoices or payroll fraud, it is possible no one will even realize there’s been a crime.

Plus, even when an organization detects the fraud, it may not be able to calculate the true cost of the crime. Did we find every phony invoice from the bank manager, or just the ones he admitted to? Were there other schemes we weren’t aware of? And once the bank has caught the fraud, it may decide not to report it for fear of bad publicity or lost customer confidence, which means that the true cost of fraud ends up underreported.

The second major challenge anti-fraud professionals face is measuring the value of fraud prevention. We know, both intuitively and from experience, that it is much better to prevent a fraud than to catch one after it has happened. But how can we quantify that value? If we spend $50,000 on enhancing anti-fraud controls, what was the return on that investment? How much money did we save in terms of frauds that never happened? 

When the ACFE published the first Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse 20 years ago, it was with the goal of helping our members answer these questions. We surveyed our members to gather information from cases of occupational fraud they had investigated, and we used that information to compile the first report, which offered quantifiable data on the frequency of various schemes, the costs associated with those schemes, the characteristics of the perpetrators and the qualities of the victims. This was statistical information our members could use to demonstrate the significant threat of occupational fraud and the value of implementing anti-fraud programs.

In March of 2016, the ACFE published its ninth edition of the Report to the Nations, our most complete study yet. In addition to information on costs, schemes, perpetrators and victims, readers can find data on the most effective ways to detect occupational fraud, benchmark their own anti-fraud efforts against those of other companies or agencies, see the relative risk of different types of occupational fraud within the various parts of their organization or within their industry as a whole, and find information measuring the effectiveness of various anti-fraud controls. We encourage all members to read the report, and to share it with their colleagues, clients, employers and anyone else who has an interest in learning about occupational fraud.

The ACFE has received a great deal of praise for the research contained in the Report to the Nations. It is perhaps the most widely quoted study on occupational fraud anywhere in the world, and it has contributed greatly to the general body of knowledge in the anti-fraud field. We are proud of the report and the positive impact it has had for ACFE members throughout the world.

What is often overlooked in the praise for the work our research team does is the generosity of the CFEs who supply the case information that goes into the report. Our study only succeeds because thousands of CFEs from allover the world take the time to submit detailed information about cases they’ve investigated. These CFEs are not compensated for their submissions and they are not required to provide them. Those who provide case information for our study do so out of a desire to serve the greater good and advance the common body of knowledge for everyone in our profession. It says something important about the quality of our association when so many of its members are willing to share their time and knowledge in order to support a project like the Report to the Nations. Speaking on behalf of the ACFE staff, we are all deeply grateful to all of the CFEs who contributed to our study and we consider ourselves very lucky to work for, and be a part of, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 

You can read more about ACFE courses, events and products can help you uncover fraud in our latest Resource Guide.

Take Your Training to the Next Level

FROM THE RESOURCE GUIDE

Charles Piper, CFE, CRT
Owner, Charles Piper's Professional Services

Several years ago, before retiring from federal service, I attended an interviewing course for law enforcement officers. I had completed a few interviewing courses before that one, but this particular instructor’s approach was different. The trainer began his introduction by asking our group several basic questions:

Instructor: “How often do you train with your firearms?” Most of the responses were, “Once per quarter.”

Instructor: “How many times have you shot your weapon in the line of duty?” Nobody said a word. The instructor eventually dragged out of us that no one in the room had ever shot their weapon in the line of duty.

Instructor: “How often do you train using your handcuffs?” Most of the students again responded, “Once per quarter.”

Instructor: “How many arrests do you make per day?” The responses varied from one or two per day to one per week and one per month.

Instructor: “How many of you conduct interviews?” Everyone in the class raised their hands.

Instructor: “How many interviews do you conduct a day?” The responses varied from a few to a couple of dozen every single day.

Instructor: “How many of you have previously completed interview training?” Surprisingly, only about half of the students raised their hands.

Instructor: “How many of you would you agree that interviewing is a tool?” All of the students raised their hands.

Instructor: “Isn't that interesting? You all agree that interviewing is a tool. You practice with some of your tools. You practice using your firearm on a quarterly basis, but you never shoot it while on duty. You practice using your handcuffs on a quarterly basis, but you might only use them once a week on average. But you conduct lots of interviews every day and some of you have never received any training on how to use that tool or last received such training when you went through the police academy years ago.”

The instructor made me realize that the training needs of all investigators, fraud examiners and law enforcement officers are not being met, even after they’ve completed all required training. Is that because of a lack of training opportunities, or is it because of a lack of pursuit of training opportunities?

With a brand new year upon us, wouldn’t it be wise for us all to strive to improve our existing professional skills? Even seasoned professionals like me (who just happen to be members of AARP) can still learn a thing or two by taking advantage of training opportunities.

For example, new technology and anti-fraud software keeps getting better (and for me more complicated). Those of us who are fortunate enough to be members of the ACFE have access to some of the world’s best formal anti-fraud training, webinars, podcasts, books and annual conferences. The bi-monthly Fraud Magazine provides great insight from professionals who investigate and examine industries that sometimes I didn’t even know existed.

As you know, those of us who are Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) also have requirements to earn a certain number of Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credits on an annual basis. Unlike some professional organizations, the ACFE provides us with a smorgasbord of training opportunities year-round, held at various locations around the world. You know the type of training that you enjoy — why not stretch it a little? Ask some other fraud fighters what they thought of a course you’re considering taking.

Prior to opening my own private investigation and consulting company, I developed somewhat of an expertise in the investigation of health care fraud, bribery and corruption, and contract and procurement fraud. The ACFE offers training courses in all three.

The schemes used by fraudsters in those areas are fascinating, and the ways to launder money to pay bribes, kickbacks and hide assets are ever-changing. In my opinion, you can never get enough interview training (which the ACFE also offers).

Are you taking advantage of training opportunities so that you can, to quote an old Army slogan, “Be All You Can Be” — or are you doing just enough to get by?

This is a new year, a year to progress, and by improving our professional skills this will be a year that even more fraudsters pay the price for their misdeeds.

Knock out your CPE at one of our upcoming live events: Bribery and Corruption in Phoenix, Jan. 26-27; Auditing for Internal Fraud in San Antonio, Jan. 29-30; and, Using Data Analytics to Detect Fraud in Orlando, Feb. 12-13. View a full list of our upcoming events and products in the latest ACFE Resource Guide.

Nonverbal Communication Expert to Keynote ACFE Canadian Fraud Conference

AN INTERVIEW WITH

Christine Gagnon
Nonverbal Communication Expert and keynote speaker at the upcoming 2014 ACFE Canadian Fraud Conference in Toronto, September 7-10

How have you seen the study of nonverbal communication change over the past five years? Is it something that continues to evolve or do you see it as something that will always hold the same tenets?
Synergology, the study of nonverbal communication, has evolved quite a lot in the last few years. The discipline goes beyond recognition of facial expressions, the face representing a mere one-eighth of the body. Synergology now studies the whole body, scrutinizing it thoroughly. Each body part is analysed individually, as if it were a piece of a robot. Synergology uses the corporal lexicon, based on a classification of gestures.

Currently the synergology database contains tens of thousands of video sequences in support of the research. It is through this massive collection of real-life situational videos that synergologists have understood and underlined the importance of contextual embedding – in other words, the meaning of the same movement may be different in different situations. It should, therefore, be made perfectly clear that it is never enough to make a judgment based on one isolated gesture. Analysing only one gesture without considering other indicators can lead an observer to an unjustified conclusion. Seeing gestures as a coordinated system of signals is what sets synergology apart from other nonverbal communication assessment techniques.

This video database allows us to structure the nonverbal information it provides, to compare the same gesture done in different contexts, to control the nonverbal information by analysing the logical chain of events and finally, to witness the same gesture over and over again while cross-referencing it with other videos in order to reinforce its significance. Videos are added daily on our server, allowing us to validate or reject the connotation or sense given to a gesture.

Our students undertake preliminary work for dozens of research projects every year. Those results are taken to the next level of research if the findings are relevant and interesting. Investigators, psychologists, doctors and other specialists studying synergology conduct that research. Here are a few examples of preliminary research done by our students: Is it possible to detect whether or not a person is carrying a concealed weapon by analysing their body language? What are the main differences in the body language of guilty and non-guilty suspects when left alone during an interrogation? Are there nonverbal gestures indicating an upcoming confession. Is it possible to detect a particular body language according to the drug used? Etc.

One of our faculty members, Don Rabon, spoke at our recent U.S. conference about an upcoming trend that may affect the investigative interviewing process: the use of video interviews via Skype and other technologies. He warned that video interviews may cost interviewers valuable information gleaned from nonverbal cues and communication. How do you see technology like this playing a role in interviewing in the future?
To me, there are positive as well as negative aspects in using this technology. The communication is altered by the presence of a camera in a negative way. The answer to the question, “Are you comfortable in front of a camera?” is generally, “No.” Imagine a person being interrogated on top of it! The first part of an interrogation, called the small talk, is very important. It is where the interrogator creates a bond with the suspect and also where the suspect's basic body language is analysed. It is the starting point, the base on which it will be possible to detect changes when the suspect doesn't want to talk about a particular subject. The added stress of the camera will make the changes in the body language that much harder to detect. Also, the investigator will not see the whole gesture, body or environment, which may influence the interpretation of the gestures. However, if the interview is filmed for other reasons, such as being filed, it is then possible to review it in further detail to analyse it more carefully.

What do you most hope attendees will take away from your address?
My address is entitled “How to Manage Interviews and Question According to Gestures.” The most difficult part in synergology is to observe while holding a conversation -- see a gesture, analyse it and then find the right question to introduce the subject without being intrusive, thus jeopardizing the communication. My first goal with the attendees will be to reach the first step and detect the gesture, then find the right question to ask, and finally, to get them to act quickly in order to confirm or deny their impression. It will then be up to them to practice and improve their interview techniques though experience.

Read more about Gagnon and other keynote speakers at ACFE.com/Canadian. Register by August 15 to save CAD 100.