<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Behavior Interpretation Archives - Wicklander-Zulawski</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.w-z.com/category/behavior-interpretation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.w-z.com/category/behavior-interpretation/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:47:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.6</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t Tell Me How to Feel!</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2020/07/27/dont-tell-me-how-to-feel/</link>
					<comments>https://www.w-z.com/2020/07/27/dont-tell-me-how-to-feel/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom McGreal, CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interview Strategies]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=10103</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>When an individual begins to relate an emotional experience, it is important that the listener remains non-judgmental.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2020/07/27/dont-tell-me-how-to-feel/">Don&#8217;t Tell Me How to Feel!</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wpb-content-wrapper"><section class="vc_row wpb_row vc_row-fluid"></section><div class="wpb_column vc_column_container  col-xs-mobile-fullwidth"><div class="vc_column-inner "><div class="wpb_wrapper"></div></div></div><div class="last-paragraph-no-margin"></div>

<p>Do you listen effectively? Some will acknowledge their listening skills need improvement, while others believe their abilities are adequate to handle their daily tasks. It is the opinion of this author that listening effectively is a skill that needs constant attention. Effective listening often requires emotional intelligence.</p>



<p>As individuals, we listen selectively. Since we are constantly besieged by information from multiple sources, we are forced to sort out which information is necessary to complete our tasks, and which can be ignored.  </p>



<p>An example of this may occur when an investigator asks a victim to describe the events that occurred during a robbery. The victim may begin describing the events, but deviates, starting to complain about his or her feelings of being personally violated. Some investigators will tactfully steer the person back to the requested information, although this may not always lead to the best outcome. As humans, especially in emotional situations, we feel the need to vent our feelings and frustrations. </p>



<p>Regarding the above scenario, if the victim’s feelings of being violated, abused, or disrespected are not addressed, other relevant information may be suppressed. </p>



<p>In some cases, people just need to talk. The speaker may be reacting emotionally to a hurtful situation and needs to share their feelings with another person. In these instances, the listener is only required to listen, not to fix the situation.  </p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">
<p><strong>When an individual begins to relate an emotional experience, it is important that the listener remains non-judgmental<em>.</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>



<p>The ability to listen and allow the speaker to verbalize his or her feelings, without interruption, is key to showing empathy and <a href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/05/13/top-5-ways-to-build-rapport-whether-its-an-interview-or-a-first-date/">building rapport</a> with victims, witnesses, offenders, friends, family members, and others. The speaker needs to share their experience with someone who will understand and confirm that their feelings, under the circumstances, are justified. The listener does not have to agree with the speaker regarding their assessment of the situation. Empathy will be achieved when the listener, without interrupting, allows the speaker to verbalize their emotion without directly challenging the emotion as invalid. The listener should pay special attention to the speaker, attempting to identify the emotion(s) felt. </p>



<p><strong>If the speaker, because of their emotional state, is unclear in the summary of the situation, the listener may, without interrupting, paraphrase what has been previously said by the speaker.</strong> </p>



<p><strong><em><span class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color">“John, from what you have said, it sounds like you were angry and hurt. Tell me if I understand you correctly. Your supervisor had a meeting with staff members, and you were not invited. In the past, all of the staff employees were invited, and you feel as if it may be a personal issue between you and your supervisor.”</span></em></strong></p>



<p>Now the speaker is listening to see if the message has been sent correctly. If not, he or she will add additional information, which will further explain their perspective. The speaker will also confirm or reject their emotional state. Many times, for personal reasons, emotional persons may deny being angry, fearful, sad, happy, surprised, full of contempt, or disgusted. </p>



<p>If a speaker denies having any of these emotions, the listener may tactfully acknowledge the speaker’s denial, adding that most people under the circumstances would feel (identify the emotion). This may make it easier for the speaker to admit the emotion if felt. </p>



<p><strong><em><span class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color">“John, I know that you said you are not angry and hurt, but most people, under the same circumstances, would feel angry and hurt for not being included in a staff meeting.”</span></em></strong></p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">
<p><strong>The listener must be sincere, not patronizing.</strong></p>
</blockquote>



<p>Even the most emotional speaker can detect insincerity when the listener mechanically agrees with everything the speaker says. This comes off as uncaring, pretentious, insincere, and patronizing. It will also destroy any rapport previously gained. </p>



<p>Every situation is different, although in many cases, the listener is not required to fix anything. The speaker is just seeking a sounding board to validate their feelings as legitimate. In these situations, when the speaker begins to discuss their emotional experience,<strong> do not interrupt, offering a similar incident that you experienced.</strong> </p>



<p>This usually occurs after the speaker introduces the topic of discussion. The listener will interrupt the speaker interjecting their own experience. </p>



<p><strong><em><span class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color">“When I was away at college, I had the exact same thing happen to me. A teacher excluded me from a tutorial program because I challenged his political opinion. The teacher was offering her own opinion regarding……….”</span></em></strong></p>



<p>By doing so, the listener is changing the subject of the speaker’s emotional experience, shifting the topic to himself or herself, not allowing the speaker to share his or her own experience. </p>



<p><strong>Do not play “devil’s advocate” by directly offering opposing viewpoints to the speaker’s view of the situation.</strong></p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“I’m sure your supervisor is very busy and just forgot to invite you.”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“You’re overreacting, maybe the meeting had nothing to do with you.”</em></strong></pre>



<p>By doing so, you are not allowing the speaker to express their thoughts and feelings. You are also saying their feelings are not legitimate. A more productive way to offer opposing viewpoints may be in the form of asking non-judgmental questions rather than making direct statements. These should not be asked in a way that redirects blame towards the victim, but rather offering a different perspective of the situation.</p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse">“<strong><em>I can see you are upset John. </em></strong>
<strong><em>What possible reasons would make your supervisor act like that?”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse">“<strong>John, I know you feel angry. <em>Why would he do that to you?”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong>“I know you feel hurt John. </strong>
<strong>Is anything going on in your company that would explain his actions?”</strong></pre>



<p>Asking questions in a non-judgmental manner may allow the speaker to rationally think of alternative reasons for the actions of others. If alternative reasons are obtained, these reasons are being discovered by the speaker, not the listener. Rapport will be maintained. </p>



<p><strong><span class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color">Do not say:</span></strong></p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse">“<strong><em>You’re crazy for thinking that way!”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“You shouldn’t feel that way!” </em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“You’re better than that!”</em></strong></pre>



<p>By voicing any of the above statements, the speaker is likely to emotionally shout,</p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“Don’t tell me how to feel!!!” </em></strong></pre>



<p><em>This may terminate the conversation.</em> Also, by making any of the above statements, the listener is not allowing the speaker to vent their frustrations. The listener is directly telling the speaker that their feelings are not valid. </p>



<p><strong><em>Effective listeners will focus carefully on the speaker’s emotional reactions and try to identify the specific emotion they are feeling. Sometimes, speakers will be very open about their emotional feelings.</em></strong></p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“I feel angry about being left out of the meeting.”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“My supervisor ignoring me is very hurtful.”</em></strong></pre>



<p>Other times, the speaker may have to probe for the emotion felt. Once discovered, the emotion(s) can be used to validate the person&#8217;s feelings.</p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“That must have made you angry.”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“That must make you feel sad.”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“I know you feel hurt by what was done to you.”</em></strong></pre>



<p><strong>Do not ask the speaker, directly, if they did anything to cause the actions of others. </strong></p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“What did you do to cause them to do this to you?”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“You must have done something! What are you leaving out?”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“There must be some reason for your supervisor to act this way.”</em></strong></pre>



<p>The above statements are judgmental and confrontational. The question shifts the blame to the speaker and invalidates their emotional feelings. </p>



<p><strong>If the speaker asks you a direct question regarding their experience,</strong></p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“Why would someone do that to me?”</em></strong></pre>



<p>The listener should respond tactfully to the speaker’s question, considering the speaker’s emotional state. The best scenario may be to redirect your response as a question to the speaker. </p>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“John, I know this is hurtful. </em></strong>
<strong><em>Can you think of any reason why anyone would want to do that to you?”</em></strong></pre>



<pre class="wp-block-verse"><strong><em>“John, I know you are angry. Have you ever had any problems with anyone in that group?” </em></strong></pre>



<p>Asking direct questions to the speaker may encourage the speaker to begin thinking rationally, not emotionally.  </p>



<p>In conclusion, listening skills need constant attention. Sometimes people just need to vent an emotional feeling. Nothing needs to be fixed. It is not necessary to agree with the situation. The speaker wants to share an emotional experience with another person. The only requirement is to listen. During these situations, <span class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color"><strong>remember</strong></span>:</p>



<ul>
<li>Allow the speaker to vent.</li>
<li>Nothing is required to fix, just listen.</li>
<li>Do not interrupt with a similar experience. </li>
<li>Do not reject the speaker’s feelings.</li>
<li>Be sincere, not patronizing.</li>
<li>Do not play “devil’s advocate.”</li>
<li>Ask non-judgmental questions.</li>
<li>Skillfully redirect the speaker&#8217;s questions back to them, allowing them to come to their own conclusion.</li>
<li>Identify and validate the speaker’s emotional feeling(s).</li>
<li>Do not place blame for the situation on the speaker.</li>
</ul>



<p>Persons reacting in an emotional state are not thinking rationally. The emotional part of their brain has limited their ability to think logically, resulting in a very difficult conversation for an investigator, friend, or colleague. Extreme care should be taken by those engaged in these difficult situations. If the listener speaks without thinking, it is not uncommon for the speaker to turn their anger, fear, sadness, surprise, contempt, or disgust upon the well-intentioned investigator, friend, family member, colleague, or other individual trying to diffuse a difficult conversation.</p>
<h6><strong><a href="https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/gaQyilu" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Liked this article? Grab a FREE Emotional Intelligence Cheat Sheet to Learn More!</a></strong></h6>

<p>&nbsp;</p></div><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2020/07/27/dont-tell-me-how-to-feel/">Don&#8217;t Tell Me How to Feel!</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2020/07/27/dont-tell-me-how-to-feel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Q&#038;A Webinar &#8220;Isn&#8217;t it Obvious? The Truth in &#8216;He Said, She Said&#8217; Investigations&#8221;</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2018/12/12/qa-webinar-isnt-it-obvious-the-truth-in-he-said-she-said-investigations/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interview Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interview Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faqs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interview Tips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[q & a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[webinar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=8380</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In our recent training session, “Isn’t in Obvious? The Truth in ‘He Said, She Said’ Investigations” hosted by our friends at HRCI – we discussed the importance of the investigative interview in identifying the truth. With a few thousand HR Professionals attending our session, we didn’t get the chance to answer all of the questions that came in.  We’ve compiled the top questions submitted and provided some insight below.  If you have further questions or want to discuss these investigations you can connect with Dave Thompson, CFI at dthompson@w-z.com. What are the best techniques for phone interviews when you can’t read body language? It seems that remote interviewing is becoming a more widely accepted practice with the increased availability of technology as well as the reduction of staff that now are responsible for large geographic areas.  There are several key strategies when conducting an interview over the phone, many of which are advantageous to the interviewer.  For example, there is no limit to the amount or type or resources available to the interviewer during the conversation.  Additionally, although some may consider it more difficult that they can’t see their subject, this could also be an advantage.  Interviewers do not have...</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2018/12/12/qa-webinar-isnt-it-obvious-the-truth-in-he-said-she-said-investigations/">Q&#038;A Webinar &#8220;Isn&#8217;t it Obvious? The Truth in &#8216;He Said, She Said&#8217; Investigations&#8221;</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In our recent training session, <strong>“Isn’t in Obvious? The Truth in ‘He Said, She Said’ Investigations”</strong> hosted by our friends at HRCI – we discussed the importance of the investigative interview in identifying the truth. With a few thousand HR Professionals attending our session, we didn’t get the chance to answer all of the questions that came in.  We’ve compiled the top questions submitted and provided some insight below.  If you have further questions or want to discuss these investigations you can connect with Dave Thompson, CFI at <a href="mailto:dthompson@w-z.com">dthompson@w-z.com</a>.</p>
<h6><strong>What are the best techniques for phone interviews when you can’t read body language?</strong></h6>
<p>It seems that remote interviewing is becoming a more widely accepted practice with the increased availability of technology as well as the reduction of staff that now are responsible for large geographic areas.  There are several key strategies when conducting an interview over the phone, many of which are advantageous to the interviewer.  For example, there is no limit to the amount or type or resources available to the interviewer during the conversation.  Additionally, although some may consider it more difficult that they can’t see their subject, this could also be an advantage.  Interviewers do not have to worry about note-taking, facial reactions or their own body language that may interrupt the conversation.  Since “detecting deception” is a near impossibility based off of non-verbal behavior, the interviewer shouldn’t be concerned about the lack of those indicators in a phone interview.  One of the most important keys for a phone interview is to keep the subject engaged in the conversation.  A one-sided monologue will create distance, increase resistance and make it difficult to establish rapport over the phone.</p>
<h6><strong>Can you give some tips for taking notes</strong><strong>?</strong></h6>
<p>An important part of the investigative interview is being able to ask open-ended questions, allowing the subject to provide an uninterrupted answer.  This requires the interviewer to be patient, while being an active-listener, prior to asking follow-up questions.  One option for note-taking is the use of another interviewer or witness as the “note-taker”.  This becomes their primary responsibility within the interview, allowing the primary interviewer to focus on developing rapport and showing sincerity in the conversation.  If this isn’t an option, the interviewer can take notes themselves.  This should be conveyed to the subject as part of the instructions at the onset of the interviewer, letting them know that the interviewer is going to take notes to ensure they don’t forget anything and preserve all the details with accuracy.  Notes should contain all relevant details, especially using quotes around any specific descriptive words used by the subject (aggressive, struck, drunk, hostile, etc.)</p>
<h6><strong>How do you answer the questions of &#8220;Who will be told?</strong></h6>
<p>This is a question that normally precedes a disclosure of additional information from the interviewee.  The question may also be asked occasionally after any “admissions” are made.  An interviewer’s response to this inquiry could have a major impact on the subject’s willingness to discuss their concerns.  Most importantly, any direction provided by specific company procedure or guidance from legal counsel should be followed when answering this question.  In general, the subject is informing you of their fears, which could be retaliation, embarrassment or shame.  I recommend being truthful with the subject, but not being too specific which may result in increased fear.  For example, an answer of <em>“we have to inform our legal counsel, HR business partners and your supervisor” </em>immediately results in increased fears of embarrassment, termination or other repercussions.  The interviewee should be informed that the information will be kept on a “need to know” basis meaning we will only share the information with those involved in the investigation, without having to name specific departments.  We will do our best to protect the confidentiality of the conversation, and to protect the reputation of everyone involved.</p>
<h6><strong>How do you present having the interviewee tell their story in reverse order</strong><strong>?</strong></h6>
<p>This strategy is designed to increase the cognitive load of the subject, making it more difficult to lie and also increases the likelihood of remembering additional details from the truthful subject.  However, when asking the subject to tell the story “again”, but in reverse order, it may appear that the interviewer does not believe the subject.  This could be damaging to the established rapport and level of confidence the subject has in the investigator.  It’s important to give instructions early in the interview to dismiss this fear</p>
<p><em>“I will be asking about the event in several different ways; this does not mean I don’t believe you.  Rather, I am trying to help you remember details and sometimes looking at things from a different perspective helps.  For example, if I ever misplace my keys, the first thing I do is retrace my steps to try to remember where I put them”</em></p>
<h6><strong>Do you ever ask them to write it in their own words, or provide a statement, after the interview</strong><strong>?</strong></h6>
<p>Yes, almost always.  There are several benefits to having the subject record their statement in their own words.  Often, the complainant may provide further details or more specific explanations in the statement if they were uncomfortable discussing verbally.  This platform gives them the opportunity to disclose more information while minimizing any perceived embarrassment.  This also provides the interviewer the opportunity to review their notes, while verifying any inconsistencies between what they’ve transcribed and what the subject is documenting within their statement.  Another benefit to having the subject write their statement is by preserving their story at the time of the interview.  Whether their statement is true or contains elements of deception, this statement provides a documented version of their story at the time of the interview which may serve as evidence and a supplemental record in the investigation report.  To ensure the statement is accurate, it’s important the subject is able to write it using their own words, grammar and spelling without any contamination by the interviewer.</p>
<h6><strong>How many interviewers should there be for one interviewee</strong><strong>?</strong></h6>
<p>Typically, we will have one primary interviewer conducting the conversation with a note-taker or witness in the room to transcribe the conversation and other logistical details.  There are times where a second interviewer may be appropriate and also serves as a note-taker, but there are some cautions I would be aware of.  First, ensure the room is set up in a way that clearly shows who the primary interviewer is (we set our chairs up about 4 feet apart without any desk or barrier in between us).  Without blocking the exit, the second interviewer should be positioned slightly off to the side and behind the subject, so that they don’t feel that this is a “2 vs 1” situation.  Secondly, the subject should be introduced to both interviewers in the room, but letting them know who is there to lead the conversation and that the other interviewer is there to ensure accurate notes are taken.  Lastly, there may be a time that the second interviewer becomes the primary because of a variety of reasons; breakdown of rapport, subject matter expertise, etc.  This transition of leadership in the room should be a clear hand-off, rather than two interviewers both trying to ask questions.  A simple statement such as “Dave, did you have anything further you wanted to ask Cameron?” will indicate to both the subject and secondary interviewer that they are now in charge of the conversation.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2018/12/12/qa-webinar-isnt-it-obvious-the-truth-in-he-said-she-said-investigations/">Q&#038;A Webinar &#8220;Isn&#8217;t it Obvious? The Truth in &#8216;He Said, She Said&#8217; Investigations&#8221;</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Senate Hearing, But Nobody is Listening.</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2018/10/01/a-senate-hearing-but-nobody-is-listening/</link>
					<comments>https://www.w-z.com/2018/10/01/a-senate-hearing-but-nobody-is-listening/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2018 18:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harassment]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=8242</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Watching the Kavanaugh hearings and subsequent “expert” opinions has me really concerned about the inability of people, from Senators to the average citizen, to be able to independently look at a situation without extreme bias or prejudice. First, I should explicitly state that I have no idea what the “truth” is and also do not care what political party the complainants, witnesses or accused associate with.&#160; My singular focus of this blog is to bring attention to the problem of biases or assumptions and their significant impact on our justice system, and ultimately people’s lives.&#160; My other motive is, I needed a break from reading any more comments on social media before I either deleted my account or engaged in a twitter war. Wait…What party do they belong to? This is one of the most alarming things to witness in this whole fiasco.&#160; It can’t be any more obvious that people who tend to sway Republican are more supporting of Judge Kavanaugh and those that are in the Democratic Party have a stronger presence in Dr. Ford’s camp.&#160; Before you send me a response disputing that theory, I’m not stating this is an absolute as many people are uncertain what...</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2018/10/01/a-senate-hearing-but-nobody-is-listening/">A Senate Hearing, But Nobody is Listening.</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Watching the Kavanaugh hearings and subsequent “expert” opinions has me really concerned about the inability of people, from Senators to the average citizen, to be able to independently look at a situation without extreme bias or prejudice.</p>
<p>First, I should explicitly state that I have no idea what the “truth” is and also do not care what political party the complainants, witnesses or accused associate with.&nbsp; My singular focus of this blog is to bring attention to the problem of biases or assumptions and their significant impact on our justice system, and ultimately people’s lives.&nbsp; My other motive is, I needed a break from reading any more comments on social media before I either deleted my account or engaged in a twitter war.</p>
<p><strong>Wait…What party do they belong to?</strong></p>
<p>This is one of the most alarming things to witness in this whole fiasco.&nbsp; It can’t be any more obvious that people who tend to sway Republican are more supporting of Judge Kavanaugh and those that are in the Democratic Party have a stronger presence in Dr. Ford’s camp.&nbsp; Before you send me a response disputing that theory, I’m not stating this is an absolute as many people are uncertain what to believe, but it only takes a quick review of the partisan statements made by the committee and those who are outwardly stating their opinions, to determine on what side of the fence they reside.&nbsp; If you are one of the few that don’t allow your political view to sway your goal of finding the truth, congratulations – you should be just as concerned as I am.</p>
<p>Besides the issue in question, let’s think about this same issue playing out in everyday America.&nbsp; The same people that are posting opinionated tweets, arguing on Facebook or making extreme assumptions about Ford and Kavanaugh – are those that fill the seats of a jury every day across this country.&nbsp; With most people stating their opinions that seem to correlate with a political opinion it makes you wonder how objective they could be on a criminal jury deciding the fate of a defendant or the credibility of a victim who doesn’t agree with their political philosophy.</p>
<p>Can you imagine?</p>
<p><em>“Mr/Mrs. Foreman, have you reached a verdict?”</em></p>
<p><em>“Well, your Honor, first we’d like to know the defendants stance on gun rights, abortion and his voting record so we can decide if we like him or not.&nbsp; Same goes for all the witnesses that testified.&nbsp; Other than that, we don’t need to see any more evidence”</em></p>
<p><strong>“But there’s no evidence”</strong></p>
<p>Welcome to the difficult world of “he said, she said” cases that investigators and Human Resource professionals live in every day.&nbsp; I continue to see arguments that there is not enough evidence that supports the allegations or no evidence that contradicts it.&nbsp; The lack of evidence is common in these cases, especially when they date back decades.&nbsp; The simple fact that more evidence doesn’t exist may be frustrating, but it’s not indicative of innocence or guilt.</p>
<p>There seem to be a lot of concerns regarding Dr. Ford’s memory of the event as well as conflicting stories from witnesses and Judge Kavanaugh.&nbsp; Uninformed people, potential jurors, take these gaps in memory or lack of evidence as a concrete reason to label either party as a liar.&nbsp; However, there is extensive research regarding our ability to remember events and accurately describe them, specifically surrounding traumatic events.&nbsp; Our memory can be altered in a variety of ways that conflict with the actual event without our intent to “lie” about it.&nbsp; Psychologist Joan Cook wrote about this very topic today in an informational article (<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/408940-sexual-trauma-and-memory-we-remember-pieces-as-opposed-to-complete">https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/408940-sexual-trauma-and-memory-we-remember-pieces-as-opposed-to-complete</a>)</p>
<p>“<strong>He’s too defensive and emotional”</strong></p>
<p>It seemed that everybody became experts overnight on what would be the appropriate, normal way for a person to respond to allegations of sexual assault.&nbsp; Yes, Judge Kavanaugh became emotional and lost his temper during the hearings.&nbsp; I can understand if the concern about his temperament is directly related to the opinion of how he would operate in his professional duties; but to associate his reaction with truth or deception is not just wrong, it’s dangerous.</p>
<p>If we start to classify people’s guilt based off of their level of emotion, regardless of the context of the situation, can you imagine how many of us would be perceived guilty?&nbsp; I’m sure as you’re reading this you can think of a time you’ve been accused of something – whether you were guilty or not – when people don’t believe you, emotions immediately follow.</p>
<p>None of us know what actually happened all those years ago, except for the people involved.&nbsp; If Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, then imagine how traumatic this experience is and the emotional rollercoaster he and his family have been through.&nbsp; He teared up while discussing his family and his daughter.&nbsp; If the Judge is guilty, his emotion could be associated with a feeling of guilt or the realization his past has caught up to him.</p>
<p>Regardless of the reason, all we have identified is that he answered questions with a high level of emotion; what we don’t know is the actual reason why.</p>
<p><strong>“She waited too long”</strong></p>
<p>Haven’t we learned?&nbsp; It’s almost as if everyone has forgotten all of the issues surfacing over the last few years ranging from Larry Nassar to Bill Cosby and every other celebrity in between.&nbsp; Many of these cases were years old, and the reasons that victims didn’t come forward are many.&nbsp; Fear of embarrassment, disbelief, bystander effect are only a few of the common reasons that psychologists have pointed to for the lack of reporting by victims of sexual harassment or assault.</p>
<p>To the common person, it does seem odd that somebody wouldn’t report an assault immediately after it happened.&nbsp; To the person who has been assaulted, it makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>An incredible story told by T. Christian Miller and Ken Armstrong of a serial rapist in <a href="https://www.afalsereport.com/">“A False Report: A True Story of Rape in America”</a> discusses these misconceptions of how a victim “should” react.&nbsp; Similar to the opinions on Judge Kavanaughs reaction to the allegations; there is no appropriate or “normal” way that a trauma victim should react.&nbsp; Any special victim detective can tell you that each victim is unique and handles their recovery in a different way.</p>
<p>Classifying the complainant’s accusation as true or false based on the way in which they handled the assault afterwards is equally traumatic.</p>
<p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p>
<p><strong>What should we do?</strong></p>
<p>Stop assuming, start listening.&nbsp; “Believe the victim” is starkly different from “Listen to the victim”.&nbsp; Hopefully, most people observing this situation can have empathy for all parties involved and understand that no matter what comes out of this – we will never fully understand what happened.&nbsp; It’s entirely possible that both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are telling the truth.&nbsp; We all have our own versions of the “truth” impacted by time passing, the significance of the event, our perspectives, suggestibility and, of course, alcohol.</p>
<p>Instead of making assumptions, we need to ask better questions.&nbsp; We need to stop with political statements and start with an actual investigative mindset.&nbsp; In any case, we need to allow parties to be heard and sort out the available evidence.&nbsp; Ultimately, we need to restore trust in the “system” that those who are asking the questions are doing so with the intent of identifying the truth.</p>
<p>Those that are responsible for investigating cases like this, or anyone who has the chance to sit as a juror and determine the credibility of a witness; I can only hope the focus is on the truth regardless of the many variables affecting our perspectives.</p>
<p>Our judicial system is built around evaluating the credibility of evidence, due process and fairness to all parties without prejudice.&nbsp; If what we are witnessing right now is considered “justice”, we’re in trouble.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2018/10/01/a-senate-hearing-but-nobody-is-listening/">A Senate Hearing, But Nobody is Listening.</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2018/10/01/a-senate-hearing-but-nobody-is-listening/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Think They&#8217;re Lying? Think Again.</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2018/09/24/think-theyre-lying-think-again/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[body language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mistakes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reading Physical Behavior]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=8207</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>“Her eyes darted back and forth as if she was thinking of a response…” “Based on her answers and body language it was apparent that she was lying…” “He was closed off and withdrawn, it was clear he wasn’t truthful” “His body language indicated that he was involved” These are descriptions of: Victims and suspects after being interviewed by investigators. Rape victims and homicide suspects. Innocent victims and innocent suspects. In the process of an investigation, especially with circumstantial evidence, the truth is not clearly known and investigators often rely on interviews to gain more information.  Throughout these conversations, we observe the people we are talking to and will see multiple changes in behavior, both verbal and non-verbal.  Understanding when somebody may be apprehensive, concerned or anxious is important in any conversation whether it be with a family member, friend, counselor or during an investigative interview.  However, classifying that behavior in absolute terms as truthful or deceptive may lead down a dangerous path. But, it works! I’m sure you have had success where you caught your kids lying, maybe a friend or co-worker and it was obvious because of their “tell”.  It’s absolutely possible that you have identified that nose...</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2018/09/24/think-theyre-lying-think-again/">Think They&#8217;re Lying? Think Again.</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><em>“Her eyes darted back and forth as if she was thinking of a response…”</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>“Based on her answers and body language it was apparent that she was lying…”</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>“He was closed off and withdrawn, it was clear he wasn’t truthful”</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>“His body language indicated that he was involved”</em></strong></p>
<p>These are descriptions of:</p>
<p>Victims and suspects after being interviewed by investigators.</p>
<p>Rape victims and homicide suspects.</p>
<p><strong>Innocent</strong> victims and <strong>innocent</strong> suspects.</p>
<p>In the process of an investigation, especially with circumstantial evidence, the truth is not clearly known and investigators often rely on interviews to gain more information.  Throughout these conversations, we observe the people we are talking to and will see multiple changes in behavior, both verbal and non-verbal.  Understanding when somebody may be apprehensive, concerned or anxious is important in any conversation whether it be with a family member, friend, counselor or during an investigative interview.  However, classifying that behavior in absolute terms as truthful or deceptive may lead down a dangerous path.</p>
<h6><strong>But, it works!</strong></h6>
<p>I’m sure you have had success where you caught your kids lying, maybe a friend or co-worker and it was obvious because of their “tell”.  It’s absolutely possible that you have identified that nose twitch, the lip quiver or the fake cough that seems to correlate with a fib being told by somebody in your life.  However, that interpretation of behavior is built over years of observing and understanding this person’s tendencies and baseline behavior.  Even with all of the experience you have in establishing this norm – there are still times that you have misclassified the “twitch” that you observed.  We’ve all been in that situation where we thought somebody was lying or hiding information, when in fact they were completely truthful but just had something else on their mind.  We have all misclassified behavior by internally defining it as a lie.</p>
<h6><strong>What’s the problem?</strong></h6>
<p>The obvious issue, and the one that carries some of the heaviest consequences, is in the interview or interrogation.  Even unintentionally, investigators may pursue a suspect in an investigation due to a “gut feeling” based on the behaviors displayed during a conversation.  Yes, I said “<em>unintentionally</em>”.  Investigators often fall victim to confirmation bias which triggers a sequence of events that results in tunnel vision and the dismissal of contradictory information.   An easy example of this is when we look at the clock and see a unique time, such as “3:33”.  That sticks out to us, and if we happen to look at the clock sometime in the following week and it is “3:33” again we start to think that we “always” look at the time when it is 3:33.  We probably have looked at our watches or phones hundreds of times over the week, but we ignore all of the other occurrences and focus on any time that it supports our theory.  This same circumstance can be applied to an investigation.  There may be circumstantial evidence pointing to a specific subject, or the primary suspect has an extensive criminal background.  It’s also possible that a witness has pointed to this suspect as the person responsible.  Now, the investigator may enter that conversation with a bias that this person committed the crime.  Any “nervous” looking behavior only supports that theory and is perceived as guilt or deception.  Whereas, that behavior may be attributed to a variety of reasons – such as the fear that the investigator won’t believe the subjects story.</p>
<p>Outside of the interview room, the misclassification of behavior may also result in consequences as the average juror becomes an “expert” on this topic.  The juror is consistently evaluating the testimony of each witness, the defendant’s posture and the attorney’s presence in the courtroom.  These subtle behaviors may result in the jurors biased opinion and classification as truthful or deceptive regardless of the facts presented.  The same can apply to voters evaluating politicians, hiring managers assessing candidates or first dates evaluating each other.</p>
<h6><strong>I’ve got an itch…</strong></h6>
<p>We know that people may react differently when lying and that it could come across in a variety of ways both verbally and non-verbally.  Part of this discussion is not to completely avoid the observation of these behaviors but to understand that they may be caused by issues outside of deception.</p>
<p>A victim or complainant discussing with an investigator the traumatic experience of a sexual assault or workplace violence may be a highly emotional or sensitive conversation.  We know that everyone responds to trauma differently, and an investigator should not have any assumption of how a “normal” victim acts. The victim may display behavioral cues that appear deceptive, but it could be a result of anxiety, fear of disbelief or embarrassment.</p>
<p>The context of the situation can also naturally make people uncomfortable.  Think about how your behavior or demeanor may change from talking to a peer to when the boss walks into your office.  How about going out to dinner with life-long friends, versus your in-laws?  Imagine talking to an investigator from the perspective of a subject; even if innocent there is a heightened anxiety, fear of the unknown and discomfort.</p>
<p>Culture, age, mental capacity, drug-use or even the temperature of the interview room can all be contributing variables to the behavior displayed by the subject.  A behavioral reaction due to any of these issues may very well have absolutely nothing to do with deception.   The subject’s eyes darted up to the right – maybe to recall an answer or maybe because they were looking at the clock hanging on the wall.</p>
<h6><strong>So, now what?</strong></h6>
<p>I’m not suggesting that we ignore physical behavior because we can all learn a lot from observing the people we are talking to.  Public speakers are consistently evaluating the behavior of their audience to determine a level of engagement and interest.  When having a conversation with your boss, a potential client or even a date, it’s helpful to understand your partner’s level of interest, boredom or resistance to different topics.  Behavior is useful, it can be instrumental in exploring areas of concern, but if misclassified it can be equally dangerous.</p>
<p>Being aware of the potential biases that misclassification may fuel and not allowing those emotions to dictate your conclusions is just step one.  Investigators need to be aware that there are many variables that may affect the behavior of their interviewee including culture, gender, education level, and drug-use to name a few.  Utilizing our observation skills to determine areas of concern in which we should explore further would be a more appropriate use of this information.</p>
<p>Our goal in an interview should be to obtain as much information as possible and then be able to corroborate or disprove those details.  Listening for verifiable facts and structuring an interview which elicits that type of information is essential.  The observation of behavioral changes throughout the conversation may give the investigator targets of areas to explore further – but the result should be more information rather than classification.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2018/09/24/think-theyre-lying-think-again/">Think They&#8217;re Lying? Think Again.</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>He Said. She Said. Now What?</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2017/07/20/he-said-she-said-now-what/</link>
					<comments>https://www.w-z.com/2017/07/20/he-said-she-said-now-what/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interview Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=7184</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The daunting task of investigating a harassment claim is one that is faced by many human resources and employee relations professionals on a daily basis.  The difficulties with these types of investigations are countless and include the lack of evidence, reliance on hearsay and emotional impact on all of those involved.  However, as highlighted by the former Fox News Anchor Gretchen Carlson in her interview with Amy Robach on ABC’s “20/20”, the issues surrounding these investigations are much more complicated than those listed above. Is it being reported? One of the major issues called out by Carlson, that unfortunately is echoed by many employees is the difficulty for an employee to report any type of uncomfortable behavior or hostile work environment.  A study published by Huffington Post in 2015 stated that 71% of female employees did not report some form of sexual harassment at work.  This troubling figure means almost 3 out of every 4 incidents of harassment go unreported and thereby uninvestigated. There are a variety of potential reasons to explain the significant under-reporting, all of which should be taken into consideration when developing a reporting protocol and investigative strategy.  One common reason for an incident to go unreported...</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2017/07/20/he-said-she-said-now-what/">He Said. She Said. Now What?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The daunting task of investigating a harassment claim is one that is faced by many human resources and employee relations professionals on a daily basis.  The difficulties with these types of investigations are countless and include the lack of evidence, reliance on hearsay and emotional impact on all of those involved.  However, as highlighted by the former Fox News Anchor Gretchen Carlson in her interview with Amy Robach on ABC’s “20/20”, the issues surrounding these investigations are much more complicated than those listed above.</p>
<h6><strong>Is it being reported?</strong></h6>
<p>One of the major issues called out by Carlson, that unfortunately is echoed by many employees is the difficulty for an employee to report any type of uncomfortable behavior or hostile work environment.  A study published by Huffington Post in 2015 stated that 71% of female employees did not report some form of sexual harassment at work.  This troubling figure means almost 3 out of every 4 incidents of harassment go unreported and thereby uninvestigated.</p>
<p>There are a variety of potential reasons to explain the significant under-reporting, all of which should be taken into consideration when developing a reporting protocol and investigative strategy.  One common reason for an incident to go unreported is the victim’s fear of being disbelieved or blamed for the occurrence taking place.  The initial reaction by the investigator, or the ensuing conversation, may give the victim the perception that what occurred is their fault.  Another common fear for the victim is retaliation, which could range from further harassment, loss of employment, personal embarrassment to loss of promotion ability and reputation.  As the investigator it’s also important to understand the victim may not want to report the incident because they are embarrassed both personally and professionally.  Imagine the situation from their perspective; discussing unpleasant, personal details in a professional environment.  This is not an easy conversation or disclosure to make as a victim, and therefore it is essential for the investigator to be empathic and provide a secure environment.</p>
<p>Lastly, an ever increasing problem is the bystander effect in which multiple people are exposed to an incident but each individual assumes the other colleague will report what has happened.  In actuality, when all witnesses or victims rely on somebody else to stand up and report what happened, nobody does and the situation progresses.</p>
<h6><strong>How are you investigating?</strong></h6>
<p>If we’ve made it to this step, thankfully the incident has been reported, however a difficult task for any investigator is preparing for what to do next.  Often times a mishandled investigation only increases the reasons for future victims not to report incidents of harassment.  Violating confidentiality, lack of due diligence, ignoring retaliation claims or showing disbelief towards the victim are not only detrimental to the current investigation but will have long lasting effects on the culture within the organization.</p>
<p>In most cases there should be an interview with the victim to gather all necessary facts.  A cognitive interview approach is typically most appropriate in this conversation allowing the subject to provide an untainted version of their story.  This allows the victim to discuss their perspective without a reaction from the investigator that would indicate any bias or doubt, as well as provide them an uninterrupted stream of memory recall of the incident.  If conducting a thorough fact-finding or cognitive interview, the investigator should then ask clarifying expansion and echo questions to obtain as many details as possible.  Echo questions are essential as each individual may define words differently.  For example, if the subject stated “John hit me in the arm”, the word “hit” may be understood differently.  A proper use of the echo question, “He ‘hit’ you?” will allow the subject to define their interpretation.  This interview should be closed out per company protocol but, in general, topics related to confidentiality, retaliation and allowing the subject to understand the investigative process should also occur.  Promises shouldn’t be made, other than the indication that claims are investigated fully.</p>
<p>Based on the specifics of the case, a strategic flow of the investigation should be prepared.  Taking in appropriate partners from human resources, legal, operations or other divisions to ensure the organization is prepared for any potential outcomes of the case.  Interviewing witnesses should typically be conducted in a similar manner to the victim interview utilizing the cognitive approach and gathering as much information as possible.  It is important for investigators to understand that each person may view a situation differently which does not necessarily mean they are being deceptive.  Each individual may have a different threshold or tolerance for their definition of harassment or inappropriate behavior.</p>
<p>Once all the facts are gathered, investigators should attempt to obtain any evidence that corroborates or even disproves allegations that were made.  Emails, transcripts, video surveillance or any other evidence to support the facts will be a significant help to the interviewer and ultimately the decision maker.</p>
<p>With a more thorough understanding of the scope of the investigation, interviewers should partner with their team prior to interviewing the accused.  Understanding the potential outcomes of the conversation, creating a contingency plan and knowing what specific allegations need to be addressed is part of this strategic process.  Typically, a non-confrontational, rapport-based interview approach is the most efficient and ethical way to obtain the truth from the accused subject.  The WZ Non-Confrontational Method is an approach often used by investigators to afford subjects the opportunity to disclose their involvement in these acts.  Oftentimes this approach may be combined with the cognitive interview or the participatory interview if the goal is to obtain more information from the subject.</p>
<p>Lastly, it is essential that any confession from the alleged is investigated and corroborated.  These types of investigations are often fueled with emotion and sometimes unintentionally create a confirmation bias in the interviewer who is attempting to seek closure on behalf of the victim.</p>
<h6><strong>Can you make a difference?</strong></h6>
<p>First and foremost, we need to reflect on the how many investigations go unfounded or unreported and then attempt to understand the reasons why this is occurring.  Review of your organization’s reporting policy and structure is a good initial step in addressing the problem.  Ensure there is an environment where victims or witnesses can report incidents with limited exposure or embarrassment while allowing them to be understood and heard is essential.  Attempting to break through the bystander effect by creating awareness programs which allow for ease of reporting may afford more individuals the opportunity to disclose sensitive information.</p>
<p>If the reporting procedure seems to be operating efficiently, the next step is to review the investigation protocol.  Having a standard operating procedure for employee relations investigations will promote consistency and thoroughness in each case while also providing the investigators a step-by-step guide on what to do.</p>
<p>Showing empathy and understanding from the reporting process through the investigation and afterwards is essential to maintain a positive culture and provides courage and support to employees that may find themselves in an uncomfortable situation.  Although these investigations may go unfounded due to the lack of evidence, employees need to be able to rely on their partners to thoroughly and ethically examine each claim.</p>
<p>Although an investigation may start with a “he said” or “she said” ambiguous complaint, taking the proper steps will allow the interviewer to clarify the hearsay and identify the truth.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2017/07/20/he-said-she-said-now-what/">He Said. She Said. Now What?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2017/07/20/he-said-she-said-now-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lies, lies and more lies &#8230;the clever brain that lets liars get away easily!</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2017/02/03/lies-lies-and-more-lies-the-clever-brain-that-lets-liars-get-away-easily/</link>
					<comments>https://www.w-z.com/2017/02/03/lies-lies-and-more-lies-the-clever-brain-that-lets-liars-get-away-easily/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne Hoover CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 19:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=6567</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Study shows lying gets easier for those who lie repeatedly! &#160;A new brain study recently published in Nature Neuroscience focuses on the effects of lying on the amygdala, a small tucked-away part of the brain that processes negative emotions. Using live human volunteers who were incentivized to lie repeatedly, the study was able to show that amygdala activity decreased after the first lie and continued to decrease before and after subsequent lies. This study is reported to be “the first empirical evidence that lying escalates as a result of emotional adaption.” The study’s findings offer scientific-based evidence of why lying comes so easily to some people while others struggle to tell even a “little white lie.” It seems habitual liars are being let off easy by their amygdala! As a person tells more lies, the brain, in an effort to lessen emotional stress, becomes more and more desensitized to the discomfort initially caused by the act of lying. The study reports that as a result of this lessening of emotional angst, telling more lies becomes easier over time. Study author and director of the Affective Brain Lab, Dr. Tali Sharot, says that the study shows that small lies easily “snowball...</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2017/02/03/lies-lies-and-more-lies-the-clever-brain-that-lets-liars-get-away-easily/">Lies, lies and more lies &#8230;the clever brain that lets liars get away easily!</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Study shows lying gets easier for those who lie repeatedly!</em></p>
<p><em>&nbsp;</em>A new brain study recently published in <em>Nature Neuroscience</em> focuses on the effects of lying on the amygdala, a small tucked-away part of the brain that processes negative emotions. Using live human volunteers who were incentivized to lie repeatedly, <a href="http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v19/n12/full/nn.4426.html">the study</a> was able to show that amygdala activity decreased after the first lie and continued to decrease before and after subsequent lies. This study is reported to be “the first empirical evidence that lying escalates as a result of emotional adaption.”</p>
<p>The study’s findings offer scientific-based evidence of why lying comes so easily to some people while others struggle to tell even a “little white lie.” It seems habitual liars are being let off easy by their amygdala! As a person tells more lies, the brain, in an effort to lessen emotional stress, becomes more and more desensitized to the discomfort initially caused by the act of lying. The study reports that as a result of this lessening of emotional angst, telling more lies becomes easier over time. Study author and director of the Affective Brain Lab, Dr. Tali Sharot, says that the study shows that small lies easily “snowball over time” and that subsequent lies create less negative emotional discomfort.</p>
<p><strong>Small lies lead to bigger lies more easily told.</strong></p>
<p>This study has implications beyond the science of the brain. It can help criminal investigators understand why people being interrogated can lie so believably and with such aplomb. People who regularly operate in the world of crime and navigate illegality with habitual lies have become inured to the emotional discomfort most people feel when they engage in lying. Seasoned liars may have felt badly when they engaged in their initial lie, but over time and through subsequent lies, they no longer feel badly at all. The negative discomfort, usually a natural brain response to lying, is no longer being processed by the amygdala. The study further reports that constant lying can affect brain health and make an individual more susceptible to pathological lying.</p>
<p>As the brain becomes more accepting of lying, the individual’s body reacts less and less to the act of lying and the liar becomes more adept at not exhibiting the usual and observable emotional and behavioral cues normally associated with lying. He no longer turns pale when beginning to lie; she no longer blinks rapidly when fabricating a falsehood. Criminal investigators acknowledge that some people can just “lie through their teeth” without a clue to their uncomfortable feelings about telling that lie, while others may exhibit more obviously their level of concern when lying.</p>
<p><strong>When lying gets easier as the number and intensity of the lies increase, how can interrogators effectively read behavioral cues or facial expressions to extract reliable information?</strong></p>
<p>As people get more comfortable with lying, their brain experiences less discomfort, but emotional cues, though they may be severely diminished, may still leak out in the form of facial expressions or other reactions. Modern science and advanced technology have led to the development of some very effective tools to help “read” the expressions of those who are so very good at lying. Expert training in interpreting subtle, split-second facial expressions can help case investigators and interrogators detect the clues they seek in their goal of obtaining the truth.</p>
<p>Wicklander-Zulawski (WZ) is partnering with renowned psychologist, Dr. David Matsumoto, and Humintell, a research training lab specializing in microexpression, subtle expression and emotion recognition. Humintell was popularized by the hit show on television, <em>Lie to Me</em>, and has been featured in The <em>Washington Post</em>, The <em>New York Times</em> and <em>TIME </em>magazine. Its training programs have been used by TSA, the Association for Justice, Google, Publix, and other Fortune 500 companies.&nbsp; Humintell combines state-of-the-art behavioral science with real-world practical experience to train investigators to recognize micro and subtle expressions which often conceal true human emotions.</p>
<p>WZ has partnered with Humintell to support <a href="https://www.w-z.com/microexpression-training/">learning modules</a> that train interrogators to detect microexpressions, facial expressions of emotion that occur when someone tries to conceal or repress how they are feeling, even though these expressions may last only a fraction of a second. Sessions range from basic courses for those on tight budgets to advanced, comprehensive courses: MIX<sup>TM </sup>Lite, MIX<sup>TM </sup>Original, MIX<sup>TM</sup> Professional, MIX<sup>TM </sup>2, and MIX<sup>TM </sup>Elite. Humintell also offers training modules under the SubX title that address the detection of subtle facial expressions, expressions of emotion of lower intensity that can occur in a fraction of a second.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2017/02/03/lies-lies-and-more-lies-the-clever-brain-that-lets-liars-get-away-easily/">Lies, lies and more lies &#8230;the clever brain that lets liars get away easily!</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2017/02/03/lies-lies-and-more-lies-the-clever-brain-that-lets-liars-get-away-easily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Burke Ramsey: A Lesson in Behavior Interpretation</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2016/10/27/burke-ramsey-a-lesson-in-behavior-interpretation/</link>
					<comments>https://www.w-z.com/2016/10/27/burke-ramsey-a-lesson-in-behavior-interpretation/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 06:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[awkward smirk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behavior interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behavioral indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brendan Dassey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burke Ramsey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burke's interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CFI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dave Thompson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Phil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forensic evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homicide of his sister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interpretation of interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JonBenet Ramsey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[making a murderer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nervous tick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netflix Documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[normal behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off-putting smile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychological profiles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ransom note]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[true crime series]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=5635</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>If you have turned on your TV in the last couple of weeks or logged in to any form of social media, you would have seen that there are several “experts” suggesting different theories of what happened twenty years ago in the case of JonBenét Ramsey. There are a variety of opportunities for analysts to discuss their expertise including statement analysis of the ransom note, forensic evidence, psychological profiles and interpretation of interviews of the key players. Over the last week, it seems that some of the docuseries have pointed at Burke Ramsey, JonBenét’s older brother, as the main suspect of the crime. There are some pieces of evidence that lead to Burke as a possible suspect, but it seems that the most talked about topic is Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil that aired recently. The theory that Burke Ramsey, 9 years old at the time of the homicide, was involved in the killing of his sister is plausible. However, it is important that we are able to review the case facts from an impartial perspective. Most people and even some “experts” fall victim to a confirmation bias when watching a true crime series. Often, the filmmakers will steer the...</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2016/10/27/burke-ramsey-a-lesson-in-behavior-interpretation/">Burke Ramsey: A Lesson in Behavior Interpretation</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you have turned on your TV in the last couple of weeks or logged in to any form of social media, you would have seen that there are several “experts” suggesting different theories of what happened twenty years ago in the case of JonBenét Ramsey.</p>
<p>There are a variety of opportunities for analysts to discuss their expertise including statement analysis of the ransom note, forensic evidence, psychological profiles and interpretation of interviews of the key players. Over the last week, it seems that some of the docuseries have pointed at Burke Ramsey, JonBenét’s older brother, as the main suspect of the crime. There are some pieces of evidence that lead to Burke as a possible suspect, but it seems that the most talked about topic is Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil that aired recently.</p>
<p>The theory that Burke Ramsey, 9 years old at the time of the homicide, was involved in the killing of his sister is plausible. However, it is important that we are able to review the case facts from an impartial perspective. Most people and even some “experts” fall victim to a confirmation bias when watching a true crime series. Often, the filmmakers will steer the viewers down a dramatic path of theories while suggesting a specific suspect. As the notion of Burke being the primary suspect seems to become more popular, so does the bias of an observer that hopes to fill that narrative.</p>
<p>In the recent interview of Burke Ramsey conducted by Dr. Phil, there are a lot of behavioral indicators that viewers are suggesting indicate Burke has something to hide or is lying about his involvement. Most common seems to be the fact that Burke displays an awkward smirk throughout most of the interview discussing the unsolved homicide of his sister. Burke also appears uncomfortable and nervous, while fidgeting and maintaining an off-putting smile. Many observers have commented on this behavior, utilizing it to further their narrative that Burke must be responsible for JonBenet’s death.</p>
<p>When reading many of these comments it became clear that there are some misconceptions about behavior interpretation. One of the most important things to be aware of is that a change in behavior does not always equate to deception. Often times a person may perform a manipulator, or a nervous tick, by scratching or re-adjusting their posture. This change in behavior could be due to deception, nervousness, anxiety or in its simplest form – they have an itch.</p>
<p>The analyzing of Burke Ramsey is eerily similar to the misconception of Brendan Dassey’s behavior seen in the “Making a Murderer” Netflix Documentary. Dassey was described by investigators as being withdrawn and appeared to be hiding something; however it was determined that this was actually Dassey’s normal behavior or his baseline. In comparison to Burke Ramsey, both individuals are introverts with a socially awkward disposition. Ramsey is a computer consultant, who works primarily out of his house – not somebody who necessarily shines in the outspoken spotlight. It is more than possible that Ramsey’s awkward and misleading behavior could be due to his anxiety in front of a camera or his discomfort being interviewed on national television. It’s also possible that Burke was involved in the death of his sister, but his behavior during an interview should not be the leading cause of that theory.</p>
<p>Behavior interpretation is an extremely useful tool, yet a dangerous one if utilized incorrectly or as the sole part of an investigation. After all, we all display anxiety or nervousness – standing at the altar when giving your vows, being asked to speak at a meeting, or even during the last few minutes of a football game. No single behavior is indicative of truth or deception, it’s important to look at the behavioral norm of a subject, the context of the situation and many other precautions before jumping to conclusions.</p>
<p>As we continue to revisit this case and ultimately hope for closure to honor JonBenét, short of a confession or the addition of new evidence, it appears we are at a standstill. Ultimately, the truth will emerge and confirm or deny the many theories that exist. However, next time you’re watching an interview of a subject and attempting to analyze their behavior – caution yourself from coming to an absolute conclusion.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2016/10/27/burke-ramsey-a-lesson-in-behavior-interpretation/">Burke Ramsey: A Lesson in Behavior Interpretation</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2016/10/27/burke-ramsey-a-lesson-in-behavior-interpretation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Know When to Hold&#8217;em or Fold&#8217;em Poker:  Through the Eyes of an Interrogator</title>
		<link>https://www.w-z.com/2015/02/08/know-when-to-holdem-or-foldem-poker-through-the-eyes-of-an-interrogator/</link>
					<comments>https://www.w-z.com/2015/02/08/know-when-to-holdem-or-foldem-poker-through-the-eyes-of-an-interrogator/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Behavior Interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Certified Forensic Interviewer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CFI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Detecting Deception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loss Prevention Interviewing]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/blog/?p=1445</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!&#160; Spotting and properly interpreting “tells” at the poker table is more of an art than an exact science, and it’s a talent that most players acquire only after years. But who has that kind of time?&#160; Dave Thompson, CFI takes his interrogation skills to the poker table and illustrates the similarities of an interview/interrogation to a game of poker through the eyes of an interrogator. Click here to download your copy of &#8220;Know When to Hold &#8217;em or Fold &#8217;em, Poker:&#160; Though the Eyes of an Interrogator.&#8221; &#160;</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/02/08/know-when-to-holdem-or-foldem-poker-through-the-eyes-of-an-interrogator/">Know When to Hold&#8217;em or Fold&#8217;em Poker:  Through the Eyes of an Interrogator</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!&nbsp; Spotting and properly interpreting “tells” at the poker table is more of an art than an exact science, and it’s a talent that most players acquire only after years. But who has that kind of time?&nbsp; Dave Thompson, CFI takes his interrogation skills to the poker table and illustrates the similarities of an interview/interrogation to a game of poker through the eyes of an interrogator.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://files.ctctcdn.com/480724ae101/9b8d122a-feeb-4a6c-91cc-ed164b28854f.pdf"><strong>Click here</strong></a></span> to download your copy of <strong>&#8220;Know When to Hold &#8217;em or Fold &#8217;em, Poker:&nbsp; Though the Eyes of an Interrogator.&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/02/08/know-when-to-holdem-or-foldem-poker-through-the-eyes-of-an-interrogator/">Know When to Hold&#8217;em or Fold&#8217;em Poker:  Through the Eyes of an Interrogator</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2015/02/08/know-when-to-holdem-or-foldem-poker-through-the-eyes-of-an-interrogator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>