The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.
There may be a variety of reasons for an individual to become angry.
First might be legitimate anger because of what was being said, an intentional
or unintentional slight by the interrogator. Sometimes anger might be
aroused because of the individual's perception of the direction or focus
of the investigation.
The guilty suspect uses anger to try and control the interrogator and
his plan for the confrontation. Most often mock anger is missing appropriate
anger behavioral clues or a logical point of origin. Many times, the guilty
suspect will focus anger directly at the interrogator attempting to bring
an end to the conversation. The suspect may use his anger to elicit negative
emotions or statements from the interrogator to further inflame the situation.
Some suspects will react with anger to move the interrogator further away
from them. The interrogator's response to a guilty party's use of anger
has several options.
1) The
interrogator returns the aggression overwhelming the suspect's attempt
to control the encounter. There are several problems with this tactic.
This action burns the bridge of rapport the interrogator had initially
sought to build with the suspect. Rapport is a one-way street and it
is very difficult to go back and reestablish it after using aggression.
Responding with aggression also reduces the interrogator to the suspect's
level of nonprofessional behavior. Rarely will this type of response
be appropriate in an interview or interrogation setting. Further, the
use of this aggressive response by the interrogator encourages the suspect
to try to move to the next level of aggression so there is a serious
concern of the encounter getting out of control. Finally, this type
of response could potentially coerce a confession from a suspect making
it involuntary and unreliable.
2) The interrogator moves his chair closer to the suspect.
This action is unwise because the suspect already feels confined and
is looking for a way out of the situation. Moving the chair closer may
drive the suspect to more aggressive behavior, potentially leading to
a physical confrontation.
3)
The interrogator moves his chair back and shifts from interrogation
to an interview. This may momentarily defuse the situation, but
tell the suspect that the interrogator is uncertain of his guilt, which
will generally increase the suspect's level of resistance. Once the
suspect sees that he can control the interrogator with anger, he will
return to this strategy whenever necessary to achieve his goals.
4) The interrogator uses a chair shift, gestures, and verbal
redirection to diffuse the suspect's anger. We recognize the suspect's
anger attempting to control the encounter. The interrogator shifts his
chair to the 9 o'clock position maintaining the same distance from the
suspect. This chair movement causes the suspect to feel physically different
because the interrogator's personal space is not directly invading the
suspect's space any longer. The position change is different from the
positions most people take to argue. The interrogator feels protected
having turned away from the suspect, yet to the suspect, he appears
to have taken the position of a mediator between the suspect and some
unseen adversary. The interrogator then gestures away from him toward
some distant place where the adversaries await while talking about others
who might feel negatively toward the suspect. The position change allows
the interrogator to remain as a neutral party not an opponent. These
changes make it more difficult for the suspect to direct and sustain
anger at an interrogator
® 2007 Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. - 800-222-7789 - info@w-z.com