Counter Deception

CLASSIFICATION OF THE TYPOLOGY

The first four overarching strategies: (a) intimidation, (b) situational futility, (c) discomfort and relief, and (d) bluffing, all require the individual probing for deceit to exude an air of confidence about an individual's mendacity (Buckwalter, 1983; Mettler, 1977). These strategies all present a basic assumption that the person is lying. Working from this assumption they try to convince suspected deceivers to "'fess up" or to provide a more accurate picture. The success of these strategies is dependent upon suspected deceivers being aware that the person communicating with them believes they are lying (Inbau, Reid, & Buckley, 1986).

STRATEGY I: INTIMIDATION

Communicators using this strategy for detecting deception attempt to force individuals to admit to using deceit by intimidating them into telling the truth. Techniques for accomplishing this strategy range from stern, authoritative statements and questions to probes that resemble "third degree" tactics.

Tactic 1: No nonsense. This tactic uses statements and questions that straightforwardly accuse an individual of being a liar (Gorden, 1980; Inbau et al., 1986; Moston & Stephenson, 1993; Yeschke, 1987). Examples of the no-nonsense strategy would be "Don't lie to me," "You are lying," and "Do you expect me to believe that?"

Tactic 2: Criticism. This tactic employs negative evaluation to intimidate the suspected deceiver (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Belli, 1963). The delivery of a negative evaluation by a communicator not only indicates disagreement or disapproval of statements or actions but also inherent in it is the implicit claim of the prerogative to appraise (Davis, 1971). These negative evaluation ploys can become denigrating, for example: questioning the judgment and faculties of another (Churchill, 1978), telling the person that he or she is unworthy (Aubry & Caputo, 1980), and laughing at the person (Arther & Caputo, 1959).

Tactic 3: Indifference. An alternative tactic for connoting negativity and intimidation is for the communicator to feign indifference to the information presented by the suspect (Arther & Caputo, 1959). This can be supplemented with statements such as "Don't tell me any more" or "I'm not interested in anything you have to say in this matter." The indifference resembles the criticism ploy. It suggests that the person being questioned is not worth any further probes or examination. And, as with the negative evaluation techniques, the function is to motivate the person under suspicion to tell the truth so as to achieve a positive evaluation or at least discontinue the negative one.

Tactic 4: Hammering. This technique of probing is described by Aubry and Caputo (1980) as a "single-minded, relentless pursuit" (p.227). It involves repeated use of either no-nonsense statements and questions, statements criticizing the suspect, or combinations of both. These messages can be delivered in a barrage with no pauses between the statements. This rapid fire of accusations and criticisms does not allow a respondent time to analyze or censor responses to the questions (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Kestler, 1982). An example of how a communicator might use this strategy would be use of exclamations such as "You jerk" (criticism), "You are lying to me" (no nonsense), "You don't have an honest bone in your body" (criticism), and so on, allowing the suspected deceiver only brief moments to respond. This explosive series of extreme negativity can have an unnerving effect on the person questioned (Ehrlich, 1970; Mettler 1977). In legal settings, the Trial Diplomacy Journal (1981) indicates that it is useful for flustering and intimidating witnesses into providing information they originally were reluctant to disclose. This tactic may also be used to juxtapose diverse questions, in hopes of further catching a person off guard (Steller & Boychuk, 1992). In preparing expert witnesses for testimony, Brodsky (1991) indicates that this tactic can be particularly intimidating.

STRATEGY II: SITUATIONAL FUTILITY

This strategy relies less on personal assaults and focuses more heavily on emphasizing the futility and impending danger associated with continued deceit.

Tactic 5: Unkept secret. This tactic emphasizes the futility of deceiving because the truth will eventually be known. For example, a person may be told that the truth will come out one day--maybe not today or tomorrow but, eventually, the truth will be known. The assumption is that continuing prevarication may seem futile if a person is made aware that he or she will be eventually found out anyway (Inbau et al., 1986).

Tactic 6: Fait accompli. According to Aubry and Caputo (1980), the fait accompli tactic emphasizes that the respondent cannot alter history. The communicator using this tactic suggests that there is nothing that can be done to make a bad situation better and that continued deceit may only make it worse (Buckwalter, 1983). An example of this strategy would be pointing out that "What's done is done," "It can't be changed now"; "Don't dig a deeper hole for yourself by telling more lies to cover up."

Tactic 7: Wages of sin. A more intensive use of this strategy embodies the depiction of various consequences that will result from continued deception on the part of the suspected deceiver (Buckwalter, 1983; Inbau et al., 1986). The idea behind this depiction would be to motivate the person to tell the truth now, because holding out on telling the truth might not only be futile and make the situation worse, but holding out might create an entire gamut of compounded problems for the suspected deceiver (Brady, 1976).

Tactic 8: All alone. This strategy points out that a person is alone in their deception and that they are one person against everyone else. This further emphasizes the vulnerability of the individual and the futility of continued deceit (Aubry & Caputo 1980).

STRATEGY III: DISCOMFORT AND RELIEF

The belief that "confession is good for the soul" is well suited to describe the notion behind this strategy. This motivation for truthtelling is based on the idea that lying is an uncomfortable activity. Using this concept, which is similar to a Hull-Spence learning theory concept of a drive-producing state, communicators attempt to exacerbate a suspected deceiver's discomfort, hence increasing the drive state (Logan, 1959). With this increased discomfort (or drive), deceivers are thought to be more likely to attempt to reduce this discomfort by admitting that they have been lying.

Tactic 9: Discomfort and relief. The tactic for implementing this strategy is accomplished in two steps. In the first step the seriousness of the lie is magnified or outlined by the communicator (Killam, 1977). The communicator may also try to make the suspected deceiver feel guilty (Moston & Stephenson, 1993). The second step of this strategy is to not allow this discomfort to be reduced through any alternate means other than telling the truth (Royal & Schutt, 1976). For example, attempts by a suspected deceiver to offer an explanation or excuse for actions can be countered with other possibilities that imply this suspected deceiver is lying (Kaiser, 1979). In interrogation settings, the suspect may even be seated in a chair that is straight backed and immobile (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Buckwalter, 1983). This functions to further restrict a person's ability to reduce discomfort by moving the chair back, thereby making the interaction less immediate in nature. Communicators using this tactic also have the option of increasing discomfort by moving or leaning closer to their suspects (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Gudjonsson, 1992; Kestler, 1982), thereby further inhibiting any nonverbal attempt at drive reduction through less immediacy. For the second step of this strategy to be effective, the communicator must offer a way to reduce the unpleasant drive that has developed. Having blocked other methods of reducing discomfort, the communicator may suggest that telling the truth will reduce the unpleasantness of continued deception (Buckwalter, 1983; Royal & Schutt 1976).

STRATEGY IV: BLUFF

This strategy capitalizes on fear of discovery. It relies on lying to a person to engender this fear and motivating the target of the lie to be truthful.

Tactic 10: Evidence bluff. This bluff is accomplished by pointing out some fabricated evidence that the person has lied (DeLaduranty & Sullivan, 1980; Inbau et al., 1986; Killam, 1977). Statements such as "Don't tell me you didn't drive your car this week, your ashtray is filled with fresh cigarette stubs" or "Stop lying, you couldn't have been at work today, your boss said you never came in" are examples of ways of using an evidence bluff.

Tactic 11: Imminent discovery. Although many bluffs rely on using deceitful evidence to catch deceit, an alternative is to engender fear of discovery by implying the possibility of the imminent uncovering of evidence that might impeach deceivers' credibility (Buckwalter, 1983). Communicators using this tactic point out that the suspected deceiver has a chance to tell the truth before such evidence has a chance to pop up; for example, "I have an appointment to speak with your boss in a few minutes, is there anything you would like to tell me first?" In the interrogation setting, this tactic might be further augmented by indicating that an accomplice might get away with the crime by implicating the suspected deceiver as the actual criminal (Arther & Caputo 1959; Inbau et al., 1986; Killam, 1977). This particular tactic was popularized in the social sciences through the use of the prisoners' dilemma games by researchers interested in studying conflict and cooperation (cf. Bixenstine & Wilson, 1963; Miller & Simmons, 1974). Essentially, this paradigm used game points to simulate the dilemma of two prisoners individually deciding to talk to the authorities or keep quiet contingent on whether or not they believed the other prisoner would stick to the story (thereby minimizing evidence) or talk (thereby providing evidence). The consequences for the decisions made by research participants were manipulated by allotted game points; the consequences for actual crime suspects are much less ephemeral.

Tactic 12: Mum's the word. In a bluff, what is said is as important as what is not said. Dailey (1967), for example, cautions communicators not to disclose the extent of their knowledge. Specifically, suspected deceivers may actually be safer from discovery than they have been led to believe. Letting suspected deceivers know the extent of a communicator's knowledge may reduce this fear. Dailey (1957) further warns that information may be accidentally given away through the questions that are asked. The success of this bluff strategy relies on concealing the true extent of factual knowledge.

A serious drawback with bluffing is that the communicator is using deceit to ascertain whether deception is occurring on the part of another. If individuals being probed become aware of the ploy, they are unlikely to feel a need to tell the truth. One of the inherent dangers of bluffing is that the bluff may be called, and further attempts to motivate a person to be truthful may be futile, if the communicator is caught bluffing (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Kestler, 1982). Because of this danger, bluffing tactics are considered as last-resort attempts to elicit truthful information (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Dailey, 1957).

SUMMARY AND TRANSITION

The strategies and implementation tactics that have been discussed so far place the person suspected of lying under duress (McDonald, 1963). Although these strategies may be effective in determining whether or not a person is being truthful, the severity of these strategies may compel a suspected deceiver to seek positive or stress-reducing responses from the communicator. Consequently, asking questions that assume deceit may yield admissions that conform to a communicator's suspicions, even if a deception has not occurred (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Gudjonsson, 1992). These strategies may also be of negligible use when the person questioned has the option of simply discontinuing the interaction (Balinsky, 1978; Metzer, 1977).

The following strategies for detecting deceptive communication focus on gaining the confidence and respect of the person being probed for deceit. The time-worn philosophy that "honey catches more flies than vinegar" is reflected in these strategies.

The premise is that people will be more likely to disclose information when they trust and feel comfortable with the person with whom they are conversing (Balinsky, 1978; DeLaduranty & Sullivan, 1980; Kahn & Cannell, 1957; Rich, 1968; Schwartz, 1973; Stewart & Cash, 1974). This idea is recommended in all the bodies of literature that investigate strategies for discovering the truth. For example, Arther and Caputo (1959) feel that establishing rapport is so important that they implore police interrogators to find a likable quality in the person they are about to question, irrespective of the crime committed. These practitioners observe that people who wish to confide in someone do not go to enemies but, rather, to those individuals who they feel will understand and advise them (Dowling, 1979; Lipkin, 1974; Royal & Schutt, 1976; Walters, 1970).

An image of sincerity, sympathy, impartiality, empathy, and politeness, in conjunction with a friendly attitude and genuine concern about the well-being of the person suspected of deceit, is a prerequisite for fostering a sense of rapport and confidence in which potentially negative information may be exchanged (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Kaiser, 1979; Lloyd-Bostock, 1989; Morris, 1973; Mulbar, 1951; Sayles & Strauss, 1981; Weber, 1981). J. McQuaig, P. McQuaig, and D. McQuaig (1981) and Molyneaux and Lane (1982) indicate that sincerity, once established, will pay off when convincing individuals to disclose negative information. This also allows people to present their side of the story (McQuaig et al., 1981; Stoeckle, 1987).

Although many individuals probably will not disclose deceitful behavior simply because they find themselves in a warm, supportive environment, the creation of this environment is beneficial to establishing the truth in other ways. This climate may encourage these individuals to relax their defenses and provide information that may be used to secure the truth in the future (Ehrlich, 1970; Peskin, 1978). This is especially effective if the communicator does not indicate that prevarication is suspected. (Wellman, 1953). Another benefit of this approach, according to McQuaig et al. (1981), is that the greater the depth of understanding, the easier it will be to obtain truthful information from a person. Several strategies of detecting deception rely on the establishment of rapport before they can be implemented. These strategies are: (V) gentle prods, (VI) minimization, and (VII contradiction.

STRATEGY V: GENTLE PRODS

This strategy assumes that although the truth may come out simply as a result of positive rapport, individuals will probably need to be guided into providing the information necessary for the communicator to make an accurate assessment of veracity (Gorden, 1980). The tactics for implementing this strategy attempt to extend rapport and coax an individual into revealing information.

Tactic 13: Encouragement. To encourage an individual to continue discussing information that may yield fruitful cues for detecting deception, a communicator may encourage exploration of a certain point with positive exclamations such as "I hear you!" "Yes?" "Aha!" and "Now really!" (Ivey & Authier, 1978; Kaiser, 1979; Kenny & Moore, 1979; Molyneaux & Lane, 1982; Van Meter, 1973). Nonverbal noises and gestures such as nodding and smiling may also be used to encourage an individual to continue a desired story line (Gorden, 1980; Johnson, 1988).

Tactic 14: Elaboration. Encouragement may be coupled with requests for immediate elaboration (Balinsky, 1978; Kaiser, 1979). This elaboration tactic directly asks an individual to elaborate upon the topic being discussed (Edinburg, Zinberg, & Kelman, 1975; Kahn & Cannell, 1957; MacKinnon & Michels, 1971; Schwartz, 1973). For example, an individual may be asked to tell a communicator more about a certain issue or to outline other germane ideas or feelings in reference to this issue (Gorden, 1980). The elaboration tactic encourages a person to flesh out his or her perspective (Moston & Stephenson, 1992).

When a communicator must ask questions that appear to bring up unsavory or negative information, several prodding tactics may be employed to maintain rapport, even in light of these questions and their implications.

Tactic 16: Diffusion of responsibility. This tactic diffuses any personal responsibility for questions that might be asked (Brady, 1976). For example, a communicator may avoid personal responsibility for a question by cushioning the request with words, such as "people are saying that you...." Hence, the communicator is no longer asking the question, but rather an interested public is asking the question (Brady, 1976). Weber (1981) further suggests that the following ideas be conveyed to diffuse a communicator's personal responsibility: (a) the question is a requirement of the communicator's role and not a personal interest, and (b) the situation demands that this question be asked and in this manner. By reducing personal responsibility for potentially negative questions, the communicator may still retain a positive relationship with the respondent and avoid becoming a target against which the suspected deceiver can focus negative affect (Davis, 1971).

Tactic 16: Just having fun. A communicator may also ask negative questions and possibly maintain rapport by implying that a potentially threatening question is a playful one (Banaka, 1971; Brady, 1976). For example, "May I play the devil's advocate for a moment?" is a method for neutralizing the harshness of a request for information.

Tactic 17: Praise. Another tactic for asking potentially threatening questions while maintaining rapport is to begin these questions with praise for the respondent (Brady, 1976). For example, a communicator needing to determine if a horse trainer lied about the validity of some registration papers could employ the following type of question: "Hi Slim! Everyone says that you are the best in this neck of the woods, but Joe X over there says that your horses were never officially registered with the association. What are the grounds for his claim?"

Praise for the person suspected of deceit may also be employed without being followed by a negative question (Davis, 1971; Inbau et al., 1986). This praise may be used to indicate that whatever behavior or act that the communicator suspects is being covered up is actually a positive attribute or action (Aubry & Caputo, 1980). This praise may spur the suspected deceiver into expanding on the topic, perhaps providing clues to the occurrence of prevarication. An example of this application to the horse trainer situation would be "Hi Slim! I can't believe how you have been pulling this thing off. You must be a genius to be able to fool the Mountain Pleasure Horse Association with your doctored up registration papers!"

The use of positive evaluation may also develop a relationship that subtly places the communicator in the role of evaluator and the suspected deceiver in the role of the person being evaluated. By praising the person being probed, the communicator may subtly assert the prerogative to evaluate (Davis, 1971). In this situation, the suspected deceiver is placed in the role of pleasing the information seeker and hence may provide the information the communicator has sought. By using the positive evaluation, as opposed to the negative evaluation described in Strategy I, Tactic 2, the communicator may continue to keep the interaction in a positive light and further maximize the relationship (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Inbau et al., 1986).

In the tactics discussed for employing this method of gentle prods, the communicator primarily attempts to build or maintain the sense of positive rapport that has been established. Suspected deceivers are guided by simple exclamations of encouragement or requests for expansion. In none of these tactics are the suspected deceivers alerted that the communicator actually believes they are lying or could be lying. Any such suspicion is passed off as being attributable to an outside force.

As in the gentle prods, the following strategies also attempt to maintain a positive sense of rapport with the suspected deceiver. However, they differ from the gentle prods in that the communicator makes the suspected deceiver aware that prevarication is suspected. These strategies also imply greater personal responsibility for the questions that are asked and statements that are made.

STRATEGY VI: MINIMIZATION

This strategy attempts to facilitate any admission to deceptive behavior. It is composed of face-saving tactics that play down the significance of a deceptive performance and the suspected deceiver's responsibility for these actions.

Tactic 18: Excuses. One face-saving tactic is to offer excuses for an individual's motivation to deceive (Bussey, Lee, & Grimbeek, 1993; MacDonald, 1987; Schwartz, 1973). For example, a communicator may suggest a morally acceptable reason for why the suspected deceiver has been lying. Actions that may have the potential of being concealed with the lies may also be given a less reprehensible interpretation and thereby make them easier to discuss (Inbau et al., 1986). For example, a communicator could make statements excusing behavior such as "Lying about your small annual salary is understandable in these days of inflation" or "The temptation was just too great for you to not take advantage of the situation."

Tactic 19: It's not so bad. Another alternative is to reduce the significance of an action (Dailey, 1957). This softening or lessening of an action may be accomplished by playing down its seriousness, lessening the degree of the suspected deceiver's participation or involvement, or mitigating the degree of impact of the action on others (Buckwalter, 1983; Inbau et al., 1986). Statements such as "Don't worry, a few fibs are no big deal" or. "They have so much money they probably won't even miss what was taken" are examples of this tactic.

Tactic 20: Others have done worse. Minimization may also be accomplished by indicating that anyone else would have done the same thing, perhaps to a far worse and more grievous extent than whatever the suspected deceiver has done (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Buckwalter, 1983; Inbau et al., 1986; Metzer, 1977; Royal & Schutt, 1976). This tactic can be further augmented to minimize the significance of the lie or of the action concealed by indicating that other people have done things that are far worse than what the suspected deceiver has done (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Inbau et al., 1986).

Tactic 21: Blaming. A communicator may try to foster a face-saving climate for an individual by shifting the blame to someone else, sometimes even the victim of an action or lie (Arthur & Caputo, 1959; Dailey, 1957; Killam, 1977; Yeschke, 1987). This condemnation of an alternate source creates a situation in which admitting to prevarication or undesirable actions is an indictment of an external person or thing and not an admission of guilt or responsibility by the person who is responsible (Buckwalter, 1983).

SUMMARY

The two strategies discussed above share the assumption that people will be more likely to be truthful in a warm supportive climate than in a hostile one. Advocates of these strategies indicate that just as much information may be learned from a person who has a sense of security as from one who is being antagonized and harried (Blumenkopf, 1981; Ehrlich, 1970). Further, Bussey et al. (1993) report that individuals perceiving less censure will be more likely to respond truthfully than those perceiving greater censure for truthfulness. An additional notion concerning the utility of these strategies is that one can always become intimidating and negative after trying to gain information in a pleasant climate (Gorden, 1980; Schwartz, 1973; Weber, 1981). Practitioners emphasize that it is extremely difficult to attempt to probe for deceit in a supportive and positive manner after establishing a negative environment (Kessler, 1982; Royal & Schutt, 1976).

STRATEGY VII: CONTRADICTION

This strategy follows the pattern suggested by Royal and Schutt (1976) and Kestler (1982). It begins rather benignly by setting up an atmosphere of trust and rapport, allowing individuals to "tell their stories" and thereby satisfying the need to "tell their side" (Buckwalter, 1983; Kestler, 1982; Steller & Boychuk, 1992). During the suspected deceivers' presentations of their scenarios, gentle prodding tactics may be employed to encourage these individuals to continue their story or to elaborate on specific points. However, unlike the gentle prods, the communicator does not expect the speaker to reveal the truth because of positive rapport and careful guidance (Gorden, 1980; Peskin, 1978). Rather, the specific information used in this strategy is any form of inconsistencies or contradictions in the account provided by the suspected deceiver (McGough, 1992; Reiser & Schroder, 1980). Often these inconsistencies are not immediately pointed out to the speaker but, rather, are allowed to build up. The more inconsistencies and contradictions that pile up, the stronger the amount of evidence available to the communicator (Tierney, 1970). The assumption behind this method is that if the speaker is being deceptive, then a consistent presentation may not be possible, especially when one must continue to build lies as one speaks (Erlich, 1970; Royal & Schutt, 1976; Wellman, 1953).

Tactic 22: Buildup of lies. In this technique, the inconsistencies and contradictions are brought to the speaker's attention after the story is finished by pointing out contradictory statements. The suspect is asked to explain these contradictions (Bell), 1963; Gallagher, 1962; Ianuzzi, 1982; La Forge & Henderson, 1990; Morrison, 1993; Robbins, 1980; Schwartz, 1973).

Tactic 23: No explanations allowed. If several contradictions have been noted by a communicator, any explanation by the suspected deceiver for the occurrence of one set of contradictions can be followed up with the presentation of further contradictions (MacDonald, 1987; Royal & Schutt, 1976; Wellman, 1963). Built up in this fashion, the communicator may even be able to contradict the suspected deceiver's explanations with statements previously made. (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978).

Tactic 24: Repetition. If contradictions have not appeared in the initial story presented by a suspected deceiver, the communicator may attempt to draw contradictions out by repeating questions to the suspect and listening for significant differences in the speaker's response to these questions (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; M. Brennan & S. Brennan, 1989; Krieshok, 1987; Morrison, 1993; Moston & Stephenson, 1993: Royal & Schutt, 1976; Wellman, 1953).

Tactic 25: Compare and contrast. Another alternative when contradictions have not occurred in the initial story is for the communicator to ask the suspected deceiver to compare and contrast some of the issues presented (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Brennan & Brennan, 1989; Morrison, 1993; Younger, 1982). From these comparisons, inconsistencies may become apparent and these contradictions can be pointed out to the suspected deceiver by the communicator (McQuaig et al., 1981; Royal & Schutt, 1976).

Tactic 26: Provocation. Another method of seeking contradiction is for the communicator to provoke the suspected deceiver into justifying actions or statements, then follow up on the weak points of the response to provocation (Kaiser, 1979; MacDonald, 1987; Rothblatt, 1982; Tierney, 1970). Provoking suspected deceivers in this way may cause them to become flustered and "slip up" on the picture of reality that has previously been presented (Tierney, 1970; Weber, 1981).

Practitioners of law have often cited the presence of inconsistencies and contradictions in testimony as one of the most powerful ways to impeach a speaker's credibility (Blumenkopf, 1981; Carter, 1980; Younger, 1982; Wellman, 1953). In a situation where there is little evidence of innocence or guilt, inconsistent testimony may be the only clue that a less than accurate picture has been presented.

Tactic 27: Question inconsistencies as they appear. Although the contradiction strategy, in general, requires a prior rapport with the speaker, some communicators prefer not to wait until a story is complete to point out inconsistencies and contradictions (Barthold, 1975; Blumenkopf, 1981; Brennan & Brennan, 1989; Buckwalter, 1983; Callahan & Bramble, 1983; Morrison, 1993; Moston & Stephenson, 1993). However, this tactic does not allow the communicator to gather as much information about the suspected deceiver. It may be most useful when information about the suspected deceiver is already known, and this person's story is not yielding new information (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Gorden, 1980).

As with the contradiction strategy, the next four categories of strategies rely on trapping a person in a situation where, as a result of the trap, the respondent may assume the communicator obviously knows of the deceit.

STRATEGY VII: ALTERED INFORMATION

A communicator using this strategy uses altered information to either trick a suspected deceiver into revealing involvement in deceit or to signal to the communicator that the suspected deceiver is actually telling the truth.

Tactic 28: Exaggeration. With this tactic the communicator might exaggerate a suspected deceiver's level of deception, involvement in a concealed activity, or motive for deceiving (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Brady, 1976; Caesar, 1968). For example, in a situation where someone has lied about involvement in an event, a message designed to imply the communicator believes the suspected deceiver's involvement is much more extensive than it actually is that may motivate an explanation that reveals the true extent of involvement (Brady, 1976).

Exaggeration may also be used indirectly to trick a suspected deceiver into providing truthful information. For example, instead of asking a person directly if he has ever sold term papers to students, a communicator may pose the following type of question:

Probe: Is it true that some students can get an A in a class by simply paying a graduate student $400 for a prewritten term paper?

If the person questioned is actually an undergraduate or actually charges only $50 per paper, he or she may be tempted to voice one of the following responses:

Response: Oh, no, not that much; it is usually only $50 or so.

Response: Oh, no, graduate students have never been in on the term paper scam.

Tactic 29: Embedded discovery. In employing this tactic, the communicator asks a suspected deceiver a question containing incorrect information. The rationale behind this tactic is that the correction of incorrect information may signal that a person is actually telling the truth (Churchill, 1978). The following example, culled from an old western movie, illustrates how embedded discovery can be used to verify a person's statements (Churchill, 1978):

A U.S. marshall from Wyoming is visiting the sheriff of Tucson. He wants the sheriff to help him locate a band of outlaws that he has followed from Wyoming to Arizona. To decide whether or not he really is the marshall he claims to be, the sheriff asks the following questions:

Sheriff: Do you know John Smith, the U.S. Marshall next to you in Idaho?

Marshall: Yes I do.

Sheriff: Has he recovered from the bullet wound in his arm yet?

Marshall: Yes, he has, but it was in his leg, not his arm.

Sheriff: Okay, you're the marshall you say you are.

Since the sheriff knew that the bullet wound was really in Smith's leg (his question was a trap question), he accepted the man as the U.S. marshall he claimed to be. (pp. 54-55)

A communicator may also use embedded discovery to confuse a suspected deceiver by slightly altering information that was provided earlier. This altered information can be repeated back to the suspect in an attempt to see if this person will try and correct it (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Buckwalter, 1983). For example, a person who indicates that he or she returned to town on the tenth of the month may be asked if it is true that they returned to town on the eleventh.

Churchill (1978) has pointed out problems in using the embedded discovery method for deception detection. First, the presentation of incorrect information does not necessarily mean that an innocent or guilty party will correct it. Second, the respondent to whom the question is addressed may perceive that the communicator wants an answer to the question and not a correction of its content. Third, the suspected deceiver may outguess the communicator's intent and avoid being trapped.

STRATEGY IX: A CHINK IN THE DEFENSE

This is a two-staged strategy in which the communicator first gains a foothold in the account presented by a suspected deceiver, then uses this foothold to implicate an individual as having deceived (Inbau et al., 1986). The basic concept behind this strategy is that if the person has lied about one aspect of behavior, then he or she is likely to have been lying about the entire matter.

Tactic 30: A chink in the defense. In the first stage of this tactic, the communicator tries to obtain an admission that the suspected deceiver has lied about one small part of whatever the communicator believes the person to be lying about (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Inbau et al., 1986). Some wily communicators may even try to get an individual to admit to thinking about participating in a small indiscretion (Inbau et al., 1986).

The second stage of this tactic is implemented once an individual has admitted to lying or to considering lying about a small aspect of the account (Buckwalter, 1983). With this admission, the communicator then has leverage to determine if this individual has lied about the entire matter at hand. In the second stage of this tactic, the communicator asks questions and makes statements that extrapolate from the admission that has already been achieved (Kestler, 1982). For example, a pet-sitter who has confessed to slight neglect of a bird could be told that, "Since you lied about not freshening the parakeet's water, you must also be lying about how it disappeared. If you lied about one thing, what guarantee do I have that you haven't lied about others?"

STRATEGY X. SELF-DISCLOSURE

In this strategy the information seeker relies on the norm of reciprocity to gain information on whether a suspected deceiver is lying or telling the truth (Brady, 1976).

Tactic 31: Self-disclosure. In using the reciprocity norm, a communicator reveals things about him or herself to the suspected deceiver (Gorden, 1980; Johnson, 1988). The expectation of this tactic is that as a result of this self-disclosure, the suspect will, in turn, reveal personal information, some of which may indicate whether or not they have been deceptive (Brady, 1976).

STRATEGY XI: POINT OUT DECEPTION CUES The idea behind this strategy is to shake potential deceivers' confidence in their image management, and hence lead them to believe that they are not effectively concealing deception.

Tactic 32: Point out deception cues. The tactic for using this strategy is for the communicator to point out to a person that he or she is exhibiting certain physical manifestations that are indicative of deception, such as sweating or voice change (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Moston & Stephenson, 1993; Royal & Schutt, 1976). This strategy does not rely on the actual correlation of physical changes with deceptive communication but instead relies on the suspected person believing that these cues are actually associated with lying (Inbau et al., 1986; Moston & Stephenson, 1993). Therefore, any obvious physiological effect that is noted by the communicator may be used to confront an individual (Buckwalter, 1983; Killam, 1977).

The next two strategies rely on fostering the attitude that telling the truth is the best thing for the suspected deceiver to do in this situation.

STRATEGY XII: CONCERN

In the strategy of concern, telling the truth is presented as the best alternative because the communicator is concerned with the suspected deceiver's well-being (Lloyd-Bostock, 1989).

Tactic 33: You are important to me. In this tactic, concern may be shown by the communicator saying that the suspected deceiver is someone special or someone whom the communicator has come to care for and to admire. Or, if these statements do not appear to be appropriate, the suspected deceiver could be told that there is a strong resemblance between him or her and someone who is very close to the communicator, such as a brother, sister, mother, father, or friend (Inbau et al., 1986). If possible, the communicator may attempt to assume a parental role with the suspected deceiver. This may be accomplished by inferring that the individual reminds the communicator of his or her child, a younger sibling, or a relative. In this instance, care and concern is not only being shown as is in the examples above but, by assuming the parental image, deception may become more difficult for the respondent, especially if lying to one's parents is a difficult thing for this person to carry out (Royal & Schutt, 1976).

Tactic 34: Empathy. Communicators using this technique indicate that they can understand how the person feels (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Yeschke, 1987). Communicators employing this tactic might suggest that they also have felt the need to prevaricate and have done so in the past. Communicators might also indicate that they would probably be responding in a similar manner if they were suspected of lying. By using this tactic, the presence of a kindred soul who is concerned may facilitate an admission of deceit (Aubry & Caputo, 1980). A perception of empathy may also be bolstered with statements indicating general concern and sympathy, such as "I understand why you would want to hold back the facts."

STRATEGY XIII: KEEPING THE STATUS QUO

The unifying motivation underlying these two tactics is to admonish an individual to be truthful to retain his or her current status in life.

Tactic 35: What will people think ? A communicator may indicate to the suspected deceiver that his or her status is in danger if others find out about their deceit, especially if these others are people who are significant to the suspected deceiver (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Logan, 1959). The communicator in this context does not need to threaten the suspected deceiver with telling these significant people; rather, this strategy is based on making suspects see how upset and hurt others would be if they knew about the deception (Buckwalter, 1983).

Tactic 36: Appeal to pride. Another alternative for these appeals is to convince suspects that their own self-concept will be altered if the perpetration of deception continues. This may be accomplished by appealing to a suspected deceiver's pride (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Caesar, 1968). A communicator may point out that the suspect appears to be a good and decent person, or appears to be a kind and considerate person, or whatever type of person the communicator perceives the suspect might consider herself or himself to be. Then the communicator may point out the incongruity between the suspect's behavior and the person that they appear to be. The implication here is that the individual cannot continue to lie and realistically maintain a positive self-image (Buckwalter, 1983).

The final two strategies are quite straightforward. Communicators using the tactics from both of these strategies show that they doubt a suspect's veracity. The difference in these final strategies is in the nature of the directives to the suspected deceiver.

STRATEGY XIV: DIRECT APPROACH

In this strategy, the communicator directly admonishes a suspected deceiver to tell the truth (MacHovec, 1989). The suspect is not confronted with an accusation of deceit; rather, the person is simply asked to provide an accurate picture (Goldstein, 1989).

Tactic 37: Direct approach. This tactic eschews any attempts to motivate the disclosure of the truth other than by the underlying moral motivation that telling the truth is a desirable thing (Buckwalter, 1983; Gorden, 1980). This tactic can be accomplished with a number of statements such as "Simply tell me the truth" or "Let's be honest here." The communicator may also employ this tactic by stating, "Surely you have no objection to discussing the truth about this occurrence . . . with me?" (Buckwalter, 1983, p. 106). The intent of the direct approach is that the suspected deceiver should see how obvious his or her lies are and should therefore take responsibility for them (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Kaiser, 1979; Royal & Schutt, 1976).

STRATEGY XV: SILENCE

This strategy is also straightforward in nature. The motivating concept behind this strategy is the creation of a verbal vacuum that an individual will find uncomfortable and will attempt to fill (Kelner, 1981). Optimally, the individual will fill this vacuum with information that will help in determining veracity, or with an actual admission of responsibility for deceptive communication (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Gorden, 1980; Kestler, 1982).

Tactic 38: Silence. In using this tactic, the communicator maintains silence after a person has said or done something that the communicator believes is indicative of deceit (Ivey & Authier, 1978). Aubry and Caputo (1980) suggest that an effective way to maximize this strategy is for the communicator to look directly in the suspect's eyes while maintaining this uncomfortable silence. Finally, Moston and Stephenson (1993) suggest pausing after asking an important question, which may cause the person being questioned to change an answer or elaborate on the answer provided.

DISCUSSION

This classification of interactive strategies and language tactics represents an initial attempt to develop a template for analyzing deception detection in ongoing interactions. Practitioners who attempt to detect deception as part of their professions have given exhaustive consideration to the issue of detecting deceit in ongoing interactions. These practitioners are not hesitant to point out that a suspicion of deceit may not be confirmed or disconfirmed with the first message tactic, or even the first set of tactics (DeLaduranty & Sullivan, 1980, Hatherill, 1971; Mettler, 1977; Reiser & Schroder, 1980; Roblee & McKechnie, 1981). Bingham, Moore and Gustad (1959) suggest that lie detection may always be part of a gradual process of accumulating information from which to make a decision. Additionally, Buckwalter (1983) notes that part of the reason for the proliferation of deception detection tactics is the difficulty in applying the same strategy across different types of individuals, lies, and situations.

Additionally, these practitioners suggest that nonverbal behavior may be used to facilitate or emphasize the messages tactics used while detecting deceit. Specific references to the use of nonverbal behaviors are readily apparent in the descriptions of violating personal space as a method of intimidation (Brodsky, 1991) or increasing discomfort (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Buckwalter, 1983). Additionally, vocalic cues, nods, and smiles are suggested as techniques to accompany the verbal encouragement provided to prompt the suspected deceiver into talking to the communicator (Gorden, 1980; Johnson, 1988). In reviewing the tactics presented in this typology, it is easy to see how other techniques might be augmented through skillful use of nonverbal cues. For example, a difficult question might be mitigated with a warm smile, or the use of silence might be all the more discomforting when accompanied by an unwavering stare.

One must keep in mind, when considering these strategies and tactics, that they are primarily the result of techniques that practitioners have learned from experience or that have been passed down to them from others working in their field. These techniques are not the result of scientific study, but are rather the result of gut feelings, anecdote, myth, and tradition.

Nevertheless, their existence is clear from scholars who have studied the use of these tactics in police interrogations (Irving, 1980; Irving & McKenzie, 1989), and who have studied issues such as facework and politeness in legal settings (Penman, 1990). However, with the exception of examinations of the effectiveness of intimidation tactics and use of evidence in eliciting confessions to crimes (e.g., Moston & Stephenson, 1992), the actual effectiveness of these strategies in detecting deception is unknown.

Nevertheless, the strategies and tactics used by these practitioners may provide a template for beginning to explore interactive attempts to detect deception. Clearly, much more research is needed to truly understand the language of detecting deceit. Laboratory experiments in research settings may be one of the best ways to actually determine if these strategies are effective in detecting deceit. One of the difficulties in scientifically studying deception detection in the realm of the practitioner is that researchers are limited to assessing only the strategies that result in catching liars who fail in their prevarication. In pragmatic settings, it is impossible to determine how many lies are successfully perpetrated, or how many "innocents" may actually confess to crimes or unwittingly fall into veracity traps.

Laboratory studies of these interactive deception detection techniques should allow more controlled assessments to take place. An initial investigation of this strategy usage in my research program suggests that the average "naive" communicator can draw upon these strategies when asked to determine if he or she is being told lies or the truth by another conversational participant. Of 356 college students who were asked to determine if the person they were talking to was lying or telling the truth, 326 used several different combinations of these pragmatic techniques to assist them in detecting deception. These communicators were not coached in strategy usage; instead, they were simply given 15 minutes to determine if their conversational partner was lying or telling the truth. These participants achieved an overall accuracy rate of 61%, with accuracy varying with condition and types of strategies employed.

Strategies and tactics used by communicators in this introductory laboratory inquiry were coded by research assistants from tapes of these ongoing conversations. Coders memorized the typology of strategies and enactment tactics and were individually tested on their ability to provide examples of each of these strategies and tactics, and to identify the usage of these interactive techniques. These research assistants then coded the videotapes together, so they could reach agreement on the strategies and tactics that they were observing. The interactive techniques were coded by a communicator speaking throughout the length of the conversations (15 minutes or less). At the conclusion of coding all the speaking turns for each communicator, the coders made an overall assessment of the primary strategy used in the conversation (if such a judgment could be rendered).

For example, in this initial study, communicators who were accurate in their interactive attempts to detect deceit most frequently used the strategy of contradiction as their overall strategy for detecting deception. Of the accurate communicators in this study, 42% used this strategy as their overall deception detection technique. Additionally, although the contradiction strategy was judged by coders to be the overall strategy used by these accurate communicators, other strategies and tactics were also used by communicators throughout the course of their conversations. These strategies and tactics were recorded by the coders at the points in the conversation in which they occurred.

Obviously, the discussion of this laboratory study is only a thumbnail sketch of this initial research effort to study the language of detecting deceit. The data described are still under analysis. The brief report of this study will hopefully illustrate how this typology may be used in understanding interactive deception detection. Because most prior research limits and restricts research participants in detecting deception, scholars interested in studying deception detection in interactions need to explore more interactive environments. The typology presented in this article is offered as a template for beginning to learn about how communicators use language strategies to detect deceptive communication.

At first blush, some of these strategies may seem foreign to interpersonal communication; however, a closer examination may uncover interpersonal analogues to these pragmatic situations. The intensity of a spouse's attempts to determine if there is another woman or man in a loved one's life may rival a police detective's attempts to determine if a crime suspect has something to hide. A college student trying to determine if a potential roommate has "stiffed" other roommates in the past may be similar in tactic usage to an employment interviewer's attempts to discern a prospective employee's past work history. Although differences in pragmatic and interpersonal deception detection certainly may exist, the strategies of the language of detecting deceit may be similar. After all, the naive communicators in the study described in this discussion were able to employ a variety of interactive deception detection strategies without coaching from a pragmatic mentor, or years of formal training and practice. It is possible that life itself presents the average communicator with more than enough opportunities and incentives for learning how to identify the truth and uncover deceit.

Table 1 Typology of Overarching Strategies Together With Interaction Tactics

I. Intimidation	Communicators using this strategy for detecting deception attempt to force individuals to admit to using deceit by intimidating them into telling the truth. Techniques for accomplishing this strategy range from stern, authoritative statements and questions to probes that resemble "third degree" tactics.
1. No nonsense	Tactic 1: No nonsense. This tactic uses statements and questions that straightforwardly accuse an individual of being a liar (Gorden, 1980; Inbau et al., 1986; Moston & Stephenson, 1993; Yeschke, 1987). Examples of the no-nonsense strategy would be "Don't lie to me," "You are lying," and "Do you expect me to believe that?"
2. Criticism	Tactic 2: Criticism. This tactic employs negative evaluation to intimidate the suspected deceiver (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Belli, 1963). The delivery of a negative evaluation by a communicator not only indicates disagreement or disapproval of statements or actions but also inherent in it is the implicit claim of the prerogative to appraise (Davis, 1971). These negative evaluation ploys can become denigrating, for example: questioning the judgment and faculties of another (Churchill, 1978), telling the person that he or she is unworthy (Aubry & Caputo, 1980), and laughing at the person (Arther & Caputo, 1959).
3. Indifference	Tactic 3: Indifference. An alternative tactic for connoting negativity and intimidation is for the communicator to feign indifference to the information presented by the suspect (Arther & Caputo, 1959). This can be supplemented with statements such as "Don't tell me any more" or "I'm not interested in anything you have to say in this matter." The indifference resembles the criticism ploy. It suggests that the person being questioned is not worth any further probes or examination. And, as with the negative evaluation techniques, the function is to motivate the person under suspicion to tell the truth so as to achieve a positive evaluation or at least discontinue the negative one.
4. Hammering	Tactic 4: Hammering. This technique of probing is described by Aubry and Caputo (1980) as a "single-minded, relentless pursuit" (p.227). It involves repeated use of either no-nonsense statements and questions, statements criticizing the suspect, or combinations of both. These messages can be delivered in a barrage with no pauses between the statements. This rapid fire of accusations and criticisms does not allow a respondent time to analyze or censor responses to the questions (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Kestler, 1982). An example of how a communicator might use this strategy would be use of exclamations such as "You jerk" (criticism), "You are lying to me" (no nonsense), "You don't have an honest bone in your body" (criticism), and so on, allowing the suspected deceiver only brief moments to respond. This explosive series of extreme negativity can have an unnerving effect on the person questioned (Ehrlich, 1970; Mettler 1977). In legal settings, the Trial Diplomacy Journal (1981) indicates that it is useful for flustering and intimidating witnesses into providing information they originally were reluctant to disclose. This tactic may also be used to juxtapose diverse questions, in hopes of further catching a person off guard (Steller & Boychuk, 1992). In preparing expert witnesses for testimony, Brodsky (1991) indicates that this tactic can be particularly intimidating.
II. Situational futility	This strategy relies less on personal assaults and focuses more heavily on emphasizing the futility and impending danger associated with continued deceit.
5. Unkept secret	Tactic 5: Unkept secret. This tactic emphasizes the futility of deceiving because the truth will eventually be known. For example, a person may be told that the truth will come out one day--maybe not today or tomorrow but, eventually, the truth will be known. The assumption is that continuing prevarication may seem futile if a person is made aware that he or she will be eventually found out anyway (Inbau et al., 1986).
6. Fait accompli	Tactic 6: Fait accompli: According to Aubry and Caputo (1980), the fait accompli tactic emphasizes that the respondent cannot alter history. The communicator using this tactic suggests that there is nothing that can be done to make a bad situation better and that continued deceit may only make it worse (Buckwalter, 1983). An example of this strategy would be pointing out that "What's done is done," "It can't be changed now"; "Don't dig a deeper hole for yourself by telling more lies to cover up."
7. Wages alone	Tactic 7: Wages of sin. A more intensive use of this strategy embodies the depiction of various consequences that will result from continued deception on the part of the suspected deceiver (Buckwalter, 1983; Inbau et al., 1986). The idea behind this depiction would be to motivate the person to tell the truth now, because holding out on telling the truth might not only be futile and make the situation worse, but holding out might create an entire gamut of compounded problems for the suspected deceiver (Brady, 1976).
8. All alone	Tactic 8: All alone. This strategy points out that a person is alone in their deception and that they are one person against everyone else. This further emphasizes the vulnerability of the individual and the futility of continued deceit (Aubry & Caputo 1980).
III. Discomfort and relief	The belief that "confession is good for the soul" is well suited to describe the notion behind this strategy. This motivation for truthtelling is based on the idea that lying is an uncomfortable activity. Using this concept, which is similar to a Hull-Spence learning theory concept of a drive-producing state, communicators attempt to exacerbate a suspected deceiver's discomfort, hence increasing the drive state (Logan, 1959). With this increased discomfort (or drive), deceivers are thought to be more likely to attempt to reduce this discomfort by admitting that they have been lying.
9. Discomfort and relief	Tactic 9: Discomfort and relief. The tactic for implementing this strategy is accomplished in two steps. In the first step the seriousness of the lie is magnified or outlined by the communicator (Killam, 1977). The communicator may also try to make the suspected deceiver feel guilty (Moston & Stephenson, 1993). The second step of this strategy is to not allow this discomfort to be reduced through any alternate means other than telling the truth (Royal & Schutt, 1976). For example, attempts by a suspected deceiver to offer an explanation or excuse for actions can be countered with other possibilities that imply this suspected deceiver is lying (Kaiser, 1979). In interrogation settings, the suspect may even be seated in a chair that is straight backed and immobile (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Buckwalter, 1983). This functions to further restrict a person's ability to reduce discomfort by moving the chair back, thereby making the interaction less immediate in nature. Communicators using this tactic also have the option of increasing discomfort by moving or leaning closer to their suspects (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Gudjonsson, 1992; Kestler, 1982), thereby further inhibiting any nonverbal attempt at drive reduction through less immediacy. For the second step of this strategy to be effective, the communicator must offer a way to reduce the unpleasant drive that has developed. Having blocked other methods of reducing discomfort, the communicator may suggest that telling the truth will reduce the unpleasantness of continued deception (Buckwalter, 1983; Royal & Schutt 1976).
IV. Bluff	This strategy capitalizes on fear of discovery. It relies on lying to a person to engender this fear and motivating the target of the lie to be truthful.
10. Evidence bluff	Tactic 10: Evidence bluff. This bluff is accomplished by pointing out some fabricated evidence that the person has lied (DeLaduranty & Sullivan, 1980; Inbau et al., 1986; Killam, 1977). Statements such as "Don't tell me you didn't drive your car this week, your ashtray is filled with fresh cigarette stubs" or "Stop lying, you couldn't have been at work today, your boss said you never came in" are examples of ways of using an evidence bluff.
11. Imminent discovery	Tactic 11: Imminent discovery. Although many bluffs rely on using deceitful evidence to catch deceit, an alternative is to engender fear of discovery by implying the possibility of the imminent uncovering of evidence that might impeach deceivers' credibility (Buckwalter, 1983). Communicators using this tactic point out that the suspected deceiver has a chance to tell the truth before such evidence has a chance to pop up; for example, "I have an appointment to speak with your boss in a few minutes, is there anything you would like to tell me first?" In the interrogation setting, this tactic might be further augmented by indicating that an accomplice might get away with the crime by implicating the suspected deceiver as the actual criminal (Arther & Caputo 1959; Inbau et al., 1986; Killam, 1977). This particular tactic was popularized in the social sciences through the use of the prisoners' dilemma games by researchers interested in studying conflict and cooperation (cf. Bixenstine & Wilson, 1963; Miller & Simmons, 1974). Essentially, this paradigm used game points to simulate the dilemma of two prisoners individually deciding to talk to the authorities or keep quiet contingent on whether or not they believed the other prisoner would stick to the story (thereby minimizing evidence) or talk (thereby providing evidence). The consequences for the decisions made by research participants were manipulated by allotted game points; the consequences for actual crime suspects are much less ephemeral.
12. Mum's the word	Tactic 12: Mum's the word. In a bluff, what is said is as important as what is not said. Dailey (1967), for example, cautions communicators not to disclose the extent of their knowledge. Specifically, suspected deceivers may actually be safer from discovery than they have been led to believe. Letting suspected deceivers know the extent of a communicator's knowledge may reduce this fear. Dailey (1957) further warns that information may be accidentally given away through the questions that are asked. The success of this bluff strategy relies on concealing the true extent of factual knowledge.
V. Gentle prods	This strategy assumes that although the truth may come out simply as a result of positive rapport, individuals will probably need to be guided into providing the information necessary for the communicator to make an accurate assessment of veracity (Gorden, 1980). The tactics for implementing this strategy attempt to extend rapport and coax an individual into revealing information.
13. Encouragement	Tactic 13: Encouragement. To encourage an individual to continue discussing information that may yield fruitful cues for detecting deception, a communicator may encourage exploration of a certain point with positive exclamations such as "I hear you!" "Yes?" "Aha!" and "Now really!" (Ivey & Authier, 1978; Kaiser, 1979; Kenny & Moore, 1979; Molyneaux & Lane, 1982; Van Meter, 1973). Nonverbal noises and gestures such as nodding and smiling may also be used to encourage an individual to continue a desired story line (Gorden, 1980; Johnson, 1988).
14. Elaboration	Tactic 14: Elaboration. Encouragement may be coupled with requests for immediate elaboration (Balinsky, 1978; Kaiser, 1979). This elaboration tactic directly asks an individual to elaborate upon the topic being discussed (Edinburg, Zinberg, & Kelman, 1975; Kahn & Cannell, 1957; MacKinnon & Michels, 1971; Schwartz, 1973). For example, an individual may be asked to tell a communicator more about a certain issue or to outline other germane ideas or feelings in reference to this issue (Gorden, 1980). The elaboration tactic encourages a person to flesh out his or her perspective (Moston & Stephenson, 1992).
15. Diffusion of responsibility	Tactic 16: Diffusion of responsibility. This tactic diffuses any personal responsibility for questions that might be asked (Brady, 1976). For example, a communicator may avoid personal responsibility for a question by cushioning the request with words, such as "people are saying that you...." Hence, the communicator is no longer asking the question, but rather an interested public is asking the question (Brady, 1976). Weber (1981) further suggests that the following ideas be conveyed to diffuse a communicator's personal responsibility: (a) the question is a requirement of the communicator's role and not a personal interest, and (b) the situation demands that this question be asked and in this manner. By reducing personal responsibility for potentially negative questions, the communicator may still retain a positive relationship with the respondent and avoid becoming a target against which the suspected deceiver can focus negative affect (Davis, 1971).
16. Just having fun	Tactic 16: Just having fun. A communicator may also ask negative questions and possibly maintain rapport by implying that a potentially threatening question is a playful one (Banaka, 1971; Brady, 1976). For example, "May I play the devil's advocate for a moment?" is a method for neutralizing the harshness of a request for information.
17. Praise	Tactic 17: Praise. Another tactic for asking potentially threatening questions while maintaining rapport is to begin these questions with praise for the respondent (Brady, 1976). For example, a communicator needing to determine if a horse trainer lied about the validity of some registration papers could employ the following type of question: "Hi Slim! Everyone says that you are the best in this neck of the woods, but Joe X over there says that your horses were never officially registered with the association. What are the grounds for his claim?"
VI. Minimization	This strategy attempts to facilitate any admission to deceptive behavior. It is composed of face-saving tactics that play down the significance of a deceptive performance and the suspected deceiver's responsibility for these actions.
18. Excuses	Tactic 18: Excuses. One face-saving tactic is to offer excuses for an individual's motivation to deceive (Bussey, Lee, & Grimbeek, 1993; MacDonald, 1987; Schwartz, 1973). For example, a communicator may suggest a morally acceptable reason for why the suspected deceiver has been lying. Actions that may have the potential of being concealed with the lies may also be given a less reprehensible interpretation and thereby make them easier to discuss (Inbau et al., 1986). For example, a communicator could make statements excusing behavior such as "Lying about your small annual salary is understandable in these days of inflation" or "The temptation was just too great for you to not take advantage of the situation."
19. It's not so bad	Tactic 19: It's not so bad. Another alternative is to reduce the significance of an action (Dailey, 1957). This softening or lessening of an action may be accomplished by playing down its seriousness, lessening the degree of the suspected deceiver's participation or involvement, or mitigating the degree of impact of the action on others (Buckwalter, 1983; Inbau et al., 1986). Statements such as "Don't worry, a few fibs are no big deal" or. "They have so much money they probably won't even miss what was taken" are examples of this tactic.
20. Others have done worse	Tactic 20: Others have done worse. Minimization may also be accomplished by indicating that anyone else would have done the same thing, perhaps to a far worse and more grievous extent than whatever the suspected deceiver has done (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Buckwalter, 1983; Inbau et al., 1986; Metzer, 1977; Royal & Schutt, 1976). This tactic can be further augmented to minimize the significance of the lie or of the action concealed by indicating that other people have done things that are far worse than what the suspected deceiver has done (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Inbau et al., 1986).
21. Blaming	Tactic 21: Blaming. A communicator may try to foster a face-saving climate for an individual by shifting the blame to someone else, sometimes even the victim of an action or lie (Arthur & Caputo, 1959; Dailey, 1957; Killam, 1977; Yeschke, 1987). This condemnation of an alternate source creates a situation in which admitting to prevarication or undesirable actions is an indictment of an external person or thing and not an admission of guilt or responsibility by the person who is responsible (Buckwalter, 1983).
VII. Contradiction	This strategy follows the pattern suggested by Royal and Schutt (1976) and Kestler (1982). It begins rather benignly by setting up an atmosphere of trust and rapport, allowing individuals to "tell their stories" and thereby satisfying the need to "tell their side" (Buckwalter, 1983; Kestler, 1982; Steller & Boychuk, 1992). During the suspected deceivers' presentations of their scenarios, gentle prodding tactics may be employed to encourage these individuals to continue their story or to elaborate on specific points. However, unlike the gentle prods, the communicator does not expect the speaker to reveal the truth because of positive rapport and careful guidance (Gorden, 1980; Peskin, 1978). Rather, the specific information used in this strategy is any form of inconsistencies or contradictions in the account provided by the suspected deceiver (McGough, 1992; Reiser & Schroder, 1980). Often these inconsistencies are not immediately pointed out to the speaker but, rather, are allowed to build up. The more inconsistencies and contradictions that pile up, the stronger the amount of evidence available to the communicator (Tierney, 1970). The assumption behind this method is that if the speaker is being deceptive, then a consistent presentation may not be possible, especially when one must continue to build lies as one speaks (Erlich, 1970; Royal & Schutt, 1976; Wellman, 1953).
22. Buildup of lies	Tactic 22: Buildup of lies. In this technique, the inconsistencies and contradictions are brought to the speaker's attention after the story is finished by pointing out contradictory statements. The suspect is asked to explain these contradictions (Bell), 1963; Gallagher, 1962; Ianuzzi, 1982; La Forge & Henderson, 1990; Morrison, 1993; Robbins, 1980; Schwartz, 1973).
23. No explanations allowed	Tactic 23: No explanations allowed. If several contradictions have been noted by a communicator, any explanation by the suspected deceiver for the occurrence of one set of contradictions can be followed up with the presentation of further contradictions (MacDonald, 1987; Royal & Schutt, 1976; Wellman, 1963). Built up in this fashion, the communicator may even be able to contradict the suspected deceiver's explanations with statements previously made. (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978).
24. Repetition	Tactic 24: Repetition. If contradictions have not appeared in the initial story presented by a suspected deceiver, the communicator may attempt to draw contradictions out by repeating questions to the suspect and listening for significant differences in the speaker's response to these questions (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; M. Brennan & S. Brennan, 1989; Krieshok, 1987; Morrison, 1993; Moston & Stephenson, 1993: Royal & Schutt, 1976; Wellman, 1953).
25. Compare and contrast	Tactic 25: Compare and contrast. Another alternative when contradictions have not occurred in the initial story is for the communicator to ask the suspected deceiver to compare and contrast some of the issues presented (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Brennan & Brennan, 1989; Morrison, 1993; Younger, 1982). From these comparisons, inconsistencies may become apparent and these contradictions can be pointed out to the suspected deceiver by the communicator (McQuaig et al., 1981; Royal & Schutt, 1976).
26. Provocation	Tactic 26: Provocation. Another method of seeking contradiction is for the communicator to provoke the suspected deceiver into justifying actions or statements, then follow up on the weak points of the response to provocation (Kaiser, 1979; MacDonald, 1987; Rothblatt, 1982; Tierney, 1970). Provoking suspected deceivers in this way may cause them to become flustered and "slip up" on the picture of reality that has previously been presented (Tierney, 1970; Weber, 1981).
27. Question inconsistencies as they appear	Tactic 27: Question inconsistencies as they appear. Although the contradiction strategy, in general, requires a prior rapport with the speaker, some communicators prefer not to wait until a story is complete to point out inconsistencies and contradictions (Barthold, 1975; Blumenkopf, 1981; Brennan & Brennan, 1989; Buckwalter, 1983; Callahan & Bramble, 1983; Morrison, 1993; Moston & Stephenson, 1993). However, this tactic does not allow the communicator to gather as much information about the suspected deceiver. It may be most useful when information about the suspected deceiver is already known, and this person's story is not yielding new information (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Gorden, 1980).
VIII. Altered information	A communicator using this strategy uses altered information to either trick a suspected deceiver into revealing involvement in deceit or to signal to the communicator that the suspected deceiver is actually telling the truth.
28. Exaggeration	Tactic 28: Exaggeration. With this tactic the communicator might exaggerate a suspected deceiver's level of deception, involvement in a concealed activity, or motive for deceiving (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Brady, 1976; Caesar, 1968). For example, in a situation where someone has lied about involvement in an event, a message designed to imply the communicator believes the suspected deceiver's involvement is much more extensive than it actually is that may motivate an explanation that reveals the true extent of involvement (Brady, 1976).
29. Embedded discovery	Exaggeration may also be used indirectly to trick a suspected deceiver into providing truthful information. For example, instead of asking a person directly if he has ever sold term papers to students, a communicator may pose the following type of question:
IX. A chink in the defense	This is a two-staged strategy in which the communicator first gains a foothold in the account presented by a suspected deceiver, then uses this foothold to implicate an individual as having deceived (Inbau et al., 1986). The basic concept behind this strategy is that if the person has lied about one aspect of behavior, then he or she is likely to have been lying about the entire matter.
30. A chink in the defense	Tactic 30: A chink in the defense. In the first stage of this tactic, the communicator tries to obtain an admission that the suspected deceiver has lied about one small part of whatever the communicator believes the person to be lying about (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Inbau et al., 1986). Some wily communicators may even try to get an individual to admit to thinking about participating in a small indiscretion (Inbau et al., 1986).
X. Self-disclosure	In this strategy the information seeker relies on the norm of reciprocity to gain information on whether a suspected deceiver is lying or telling the truth (Brady, 1976).
31. Self-disclosure	Tactic 31: Self-disclosure. In using the reciprocity norm, a communicator reveals things about him or herself to the suspected deceiver (Gorden, 1980; Johnson, 1988). The expectation of this tactic is that as a result of this self-disclosure, the suspect will, in turn, reveal personal information, some of which may indicate whether or not they have been deceptive (Brady, 1976).
XI. Point out deception cues	The idea behind this strategy is to shake potential deceivers' confidence in their image management, and hence lead them to believe that they are not effectively concealing deception.
32. Point of deception cues	Tactic 32: Point out deception cues. The tactic for using this strategy is for the communicator to point out to a person that he or she is exhibiting certain physical manifestations that are indicative of deception, such as sweating or voice change (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Moston & Stephenson, 1993; Royal & Schutt, 1976). This strategy does not rely on the actual correlation of physical changes with deceptive communication but instead relies on the suspected person believing that these cues are actually associated with lying (Inbau et al., 1986; Moston & Stephenson, 1993). Therefore, any obvious physiological effect that is noted by the communicator may be used to confront an individual (Buckwalter, 1983; Killam, 1977).
XII. Concern	In the strategy of concern, telling the truth is presented as the best alternative because the communicator is concerned with the suspected deceiver's well-being (Lloyd-Bostock, 1989).
33. You are important to me	Tactic 33: You are important to me. In this tactic, concern may be shown by the communicator saying that the suspected deceiver is someone special or someone whom the communicator has come to care for and to admire. Or, if these statements do not appear to be appropriate, the suspected deceiver could be told that there is a strong resemblance between him or her and someone who is very close to the communicator, such as a brother, sister, mother, father, or friend (Inbau et al., 1986). If possible, the communicator may attempt to assume a parental role with the suspected deceiver. This may be accomplished by inferring that the individual reminds the communicator of his or her child, a younger sibling, or a relative. In this instance, care and concern is not only being shown as is in the examples above but, by assuming the parental image, deception may become more difficult for the respondent, especially if lying to one's parents is a difficult thing for this person to carry out (Royal & Schutt, 1976).
34. Empathy	Tactic 34: Empathy. Communicators using this technique indicate that they can understand how the person feels (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Yeschke, 1987). Communicators employing this tactic might suggest that they also have felt the need to prevaricate and have done so in the past. Communicators might also indicate that they would probably be responding in a similar manner if they were suspected of lying. By using this tactic, the presence of a kindred soul who is concerned may facilitate an admission of deceit (Aubry & Caputo, 1980). A perception of empathy may also be bolstered with statements indicating general concern and sympathy, such as "I understand why you would want to hold back the facts."
XIII. Keeping the status quo	The unifying motivation underlying these two tactics is to admonish an individual to be truthful to retain his or her current status in life.
35. What will people think?	Tactic 35: What will people think ? A communicator may indicate to the suspected deceiver that his or her status is in danger if others find out about their deceit, especially if these others are people who are significant to the suspected deceiver (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Logan, 1959). The communicator in this context does not need to threaten the suspected deceiver with telling these significant people; rather, this strategy is based on making suspects see how upset and hurt others would be if they knew about the deception (Buckwalter, 1983).
36. Appeal to pride	Tactic 36: Appeal to pride. Another alternative for these appeals is to convince suspects that their own self-concept will be altered if the perpetration of deception continues. This may be accomplished by appealing to a suspected deceiver's pride (Arther & Caputo, 1959; Caesar, 1968). A communicator may point out that the suspect appears to be a good and decent person, or appears to be a kind and considerate person, or whatever type of person the communicator perceives the suspect might consider herself or himself to be. Then the communicator may point out the incongruity between the suspect's behavior and the person that they appear to be. The implication here is that the individual cannot continue to lie and realistically maintain a positive self-image (Buckwalter, 1983).
XIV. Direct approach	In this strategy, the communicator directly admonishes a suspected deceiver to tell the truth (MacHovec, 1989). The suspect is not confronted with an accusation of deceit; rather, the person is simply asked to provide an accurate picture (Goldstein, 1989).
37. Direct approach	Tactic 37: Direct approach. This tactic eschews any attempts to motivate the disclosure of the truth other than by the underlying moral motivation that telling the truth is a desirable thing (Buckwalter, 1983; Gorden, 1980). This tactic can be accomplished with a number of statements such as "Simply tell me the truth" or "Let's be honest here." The communicator may also employ this tactic by stating, "Surely you have no objection to discussing the truth about this occurrence . . . with me?" (Buckwalter, 1983, p. 106). The intent of the direct approach is that the suspected deceiver should see how obvious his or her lies are and should therefore take responsibility for them (Aubry & Caputo, 1980; Kaiser, 1979; Royal & Schutt, 1976).
XV. Silence	This strategy is also straightforward in nature. The motivating concept behind this strategy is the creation of a verbal vacuum that an individual will find uncomfortable and will attempt to fill (Kelner, 1981). Optimally, the individual will fill this vacuum with information that will help in determining veracity, or with an actual admission of responsibility for deceptive communication (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1978; Gorden, 1980; Kestler, 1982).
38. Silence	Tactic 38: Silence. In using this tactic, the communicator maintains silence after a person has said or done something that the communicator believes is indicative of deceit (Ivey & Authier, 1978). Aubry and Caputo (1980) suggest that an effective way to maximize this strategy is for the communicator to look directly in the suspect's eyes while maintaining this uncomfortable silence. Finally, Moston and Stephenson (1993) suggest pausing after asking an important question, which may cause the person being questioned to change an answer or elaborate on the answer provided.