Tactical Interviewing: Verbal Content Analysis (VCA)

Because of the way events are encoded into memory and the ways in which people use language to recall memories, verbal statements – both oral and written – can be analyzed in a systematic fashion. Within the law enforcement context, such analysis can be used as an investigative tool to gain insights into an individual’s thoughts, ideas, personalities, and motivations.

Statement analysis is also used to recognize areas of veracity and to detect areas of possible deception. This course will help students develop specific linguistic tools and strategies to use in analyzing the oral and written words provided by employees, applicants, witnesses, victims and suspects.

Participants will engage in practical problems designed to use the knowledge gained during the course to gain insight into a statement, either written or oral, and in criminal cases, to enhance the prospects of gaining confessions through the amplification of the statement. In addition to practical exercises, instructional methods will include case studies, demonstrations, and group discussion.

Learning Objectives

Participants in this course will:

1. Identify specific linguistic and grammatical features of speech that have been validly associated with hidden thoughts, feelings, ideas, motivations, and intentions.
2. Engage in many practical exercises in which to make such identifications in both written and oral statements.
3. Practice how to interpret the identified linguistic and grammatical features of speech to gain additional insights into the mindsets of the interviewee.
4. Practice how to leverage the insights gained in navigating interviews and interrogations.

Scientific Background

Verbal content analysis has its roots in the work of Undeutsch (1989). While there are many different types of statement analysis techniques available, Humintell’s course focuses on an eclectic, practitioner-focused approach that combines linguistic and grammatical features of speech documented as valid indicators of mental states by multiple scientific studies (Hwang et al., 2016; Matsumoto et al., 2015a, 2015b; Porter & Yuille, 1996; Sandoval, 2003, 2008; Sandoval et al., 2015; Zaparniuk et al., 1995).

Typical Length

Three (3) days.

Topics Covered

Obtaining the Statement 

Includes general considerations for taking a statement about an incident/event, and is based on broad open-ended question to elicit the statement such as, “Tell me what happened,” or “Tell me what you did yesterday from the time you woke up until the time you went to sleep.” Specific considerations for taking a hand-written statement, including adequate time to write the statement, and basic human needs such as offering a drink or addressing emotions. Specific considerations for taking a recorded statement will also be covered, including allowing adequate time to conduct the interview, considering the number of interviewers, and specific considerations for writing/typing a statement for someone.

Analytic strategies 

A number of analytic strategies will be covered, including :

• Identifying the Incident
• Determining balance
• Elements of Time
• Equivocal Language
• Negations
• Extraneous Information
• Unique Sensory Detail
• Spatial Detail
• Recognizing Emotion
• Persons in Order of Appearance
• Unexpected Nouns
• Changes in Nouns
• Analyzing Verbs
• Present verbs used to describe past actions- is the author of the statement creating?
• Uncompleted action verbs
• Communication verbs or words that mask communication
• Passive voice
• Quality of verb
• Editing Adverbs
• Minimizing & Intensifying Adverbs
• Pronoun Considerations
• Unexpected Adjectives

Amplification of the narrative: How to use the analysis of the statement in the interview 

Includes discussion and consideration of the significance of the above subcategories from a statement analysis perspective, specific marking instructions, interview question format, priority, and interview structure.

References

Hwang, H. C., Matsumoto, D., & Sandoval, V. A. (2016). Linguistic cues of deception across multiple language groups in a mock crime context. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(1), 56-69.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Sandoval, V. A. (2015a). Cross-language applicability of linguistic features associated with veracity and deception. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30, 229-241.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Sandoval, V. A. (2015b). Ethnic similarities and differences in linguistic indicators of veracity and lying in a moderately high stakes scenario. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30(1), 15-26. 

Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceipt: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498980

Sandoval, V. A. (2003). Strategies to avoid interview contamination. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72(10), 1-13.

Sandoval, V. A. (2008). Interview clues: Words that leave an investigative trail. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 77(1), 1-9.

Sandoval, V. A., Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Skinner, L. (2015). An investigative tool for cross-cultural interviewing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Jul, 1-9.

Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility Assessment (pp. 101-119). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Zaparniuk, J., Yuille, J. C., & Taylor, S. (1995). Assessing the credibility of true and false statements. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18, 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(95)00016-B

Featured Instructor

Our featured instructor for this workshop is Lisa Skinner, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supervisory Special Agent.