DISC and APOD in the interview room

Some Tools for Interview and Interrogation

I was asked by a sergeant in the department to write a blurb about my use of two tools in particular in the interview and interrogation room: the DISC model and the APOD. The specifics of these techniques are the proprietary material of the men that developed them. I can’t put all of their work product out there. However, I can provide a summary of them and discuss certain ways that I have applied the material. If you are interested in any of these techniques, seek out training from the developers. 

1. Using the DISC personality model

The use of the DISC personality model in interview and interrogation comes from Steven Rhoads, PhD and his course on Subconscious Interviewing and Interrogation. He proposes a theory that everybody has a dominant personality type, this personality type can be determined for most people with just two questions, and when you know the personality type of an interviewee you can use certain words, phrases, and themes to bypass their mental defenses. The specifics of this tool are Dr. Rhoads’ work product, and you’ll have to attend his training to learn them. However, there is one broad principal related to the use of this tool that should be safe to discuss: people are predominantly rational or emotional. This concept was introduced to me by Dr. Rhoads, but I have continued on to make my own observations about the issue. 

Watch and listen for cues during your interviews to figure out if your interviewee is primarily rational or emotional. Have you ever heard an interviewee use phrases like “What proof do you have?” Or “Where’s the evidence?” Or “If you have it on video, show me!” If so, you are probably dealing with a rational personality type. On the other hand, emotional personality types will use feeling words, focus on relationships, and (sometimes) cry.  

Rational people are motivated by facts and evidence. Emotional people are motivated by feelings and guilt. If you try an emotional appeal on a rational person, your appeal will fall flat. If you try a rational appeal on an emotional person, they will tune you out. 

I once made the following appeal to a man that had raped his daughter. All kids are under pressure while they learn about life. Teenagers are under more pressure as they have the raging hormones and need to fit in. Abused teenagers are under even more pressure while they cope with the abuse. Abused teenagers whose assailants lie about abusing them are under maximum pressure with their family turning against them and supporting their abuser. A kid like that is under so much pressure that you start seeing suicidal ideations, drug use, teen pregnancies, and incarceration. When you tell the truth, you can relieve a little of that pressure and start repairing the harm you’ve done. I made this appeal and thought to myself “gotcha!” The suspect looked at me with a blank face and said, “But I didn’t do it.” Looking back on it now, I was making a very emotional appeal that completely missed that suspect. I suspect that he was a rational type. You’ll have the best success when you use the right type of appeal. 

For a rational interviewee, I would talk about the hard evidence in a case. I would show them surveillance photos, message printouts from their Snapchat account, and DNA results. If I didn’t have hard evidence (think about a 10 year delayed sexual abuse outcry), I would focus on experts, forensic interviews, and my own expertise. Rational types will tend to confess when they believe that the evidence against them is overwhelming. When they believe that, they will look to improve their position by admitting and minimizing. 

It has been my experience that emotionally motivated people shut down rather than open up when confronted with hard evidence. Emotional types have a seemingly infinite ability to twist events, project, gaslight, and generally avoid difficult situations. Whereas a rational type will see the facts and have the outlook of “it is what it is,” emotional types will have the outlook of “I wish it wasn’t so I’m going to pretend that it isn’t.” With emotional types, focus on feelings, relationships, and guilt. Ask questions like, “how does it make you feel that she is saying this about you?” “Do you think it’s fair the way you are being treated?” “What do you think you’ll need to do to fix the relationship?” Show them a nice picture of the family looking happy before the crimes were committed.  

If you can’t figure out which type a person is, make sure that you are using both rational and emotional appeals. I interrogated a guy that was a serial masturbator. I had him pegged for an emotional personality. I spent a large part of the interview asking about how he thought the women felt when they saw him. I talked to him about how he felt being lonely and away from his wife who was in another country. When I switched into an interrogation, I made emotional appeals to how he was looking for release and that he had a problem made worse by distance from his family. It wasn’t working. I adjusted to show him maps and street view shots of the areas where he had done his deeds. I spread the sheets of paper all around the desk to make it look like I had even more than I actually had (this is a technique for a rational person). Little by little he began to confess. I still don’t know for sure which personality type he is. If you can’t figure it out, make both appeals. 

Make sure to keep in mind that you are a personality type as well. Just because you think an appeal sounds good doesn’t mean that it is good for that person. I spoke to one of our robbery detectives about Dr. Rhoads’ DISC techniques. I had this detective pegged for one of the rational types and used the keywords for that type. He got excited and said, “Oh, that’s good! I’m going to use that!” I had to caution him: you think it’s good because that’s how you want people to talk to you. It’s not about you. It’s about them. Make sure that you are using the appeals that make the most sense to the interviewee. 

If you want to learn the Rhoads technique related to the DISC model, check out his courses. Here is his website: https://spottinglies.com/. I don’t work for him. An interpretations I’ve made are my own, and he might not agree with them. 

2. The APOD

APOD stands for Analysis of Patterns of Denial. It was developed by Darrel Turner, PhD. He calls this technique an “instrument.” I can be a little more specific on this one because it is a technique that he wants people to use. According to him, there are certain ways in which people deny involvement in the sexual abuse of children. Dr. Turner has identified 12 themes that people use to deny involvement. These include: Victim Denigration (blaming the victim), Hero, Legal Technicalities, Excessive Detail, and Hedge Phrases. The average guilty person uses more than 4 of these themes. It is common to see guilty people using 6,7, or 8 of them. The average innocent person uses 2 or fewer. There are no innocent people that used 5 or more. Essentially, if you find a person using 5 or more of these techniques, you can scientifically say that they are lying. He has written a peer reviewed paper that has lent credibility to his findings. 

Some disclaimers up front: his instrument is calibrated for child sex abuse offenders. I am writing this from memory so I might be off on the average numbers he presented. There is some interpretation used in identifying which statements fit the identified themes that will lead to variation in counting the themes. I don’t work for him so my summary may be off. You should attend his training if you find what is being discussed here interesting. 

I was introduced to Dr. Turner’s work about 2-3 years ago. I immediately recognized the themes that he discussed as techniques I have seen interviewees use in the room, and I began looking for them in my interviews. Once you are looking for them, you will see them all of the time. Several of us in Child Abuse regularly use this technique to analyze interviews while we are watching our partners in the room. When our partner will come out we will say things like, “I heard Victim Denigration, Excessive Detail, and Hero, what did you hear?”

As an example, let’s look at Excessive Detail and Hedge Phrases. Let’s say you asked a person, “When she says that you squeezed her breasts is she lying?” And the person responds, “Yeah. She does that. One time we were on a trip in Tennessee. We flew into the Nashville airport. The flight was delayed and we had the hardest time getting our bags. Matter of fact, one of my bags is still missing! Then we got to our AirBnB and found that it was broken into. We told the management and went downtown to get some drinks while we waited for the house to get repaired.” You would count this as excessive detail. It isn’t about her lying. It is sort of related because the victim was there, but it is a lot of detail about nothing. If, on the other hand, it was a detailed story about a specific lie that the victim told, then it wouldn’t be counted because it is responding to the matter at issue. Listen for excessive detail where people avoid talking about the issue and tell you long stories about their work or families or anything like that. 

As to Hedge Phrases, these are going to be counted when the person responds with qualifiers and squishy phrases to questions that should be simple and clear. If you asked, “Why is she saying you pointed a gun at her?” And your interviewee responds, “That pretty much never happened” or “I mostly avoid guns.” These are hedge phrases. If you asked, “What time were you downtown yesterday?” And they respond, “I hardly go downtown” or “I usually go downtown around 5 pm.” I would count those as hedge phrases. Make sure you have established a baseline before you score this. Some people just talk in hedge phrases as a way of life. 

Dr. Turner believes that the APOD will ultimately be applicable to other crimes as well, but, as of now, he has made clear that his research only supports its use in cases of child sex abuse. He is a scientist so he has to say that. I am not a scientist, and I can say that I think these themes will pop up in interviews pertaining to other crimes as well.   

The way that I use the APOD is to bolster my confidence in the suspect’s guilt or innocence as one more aid in determining whether or not to interrogate. Remember, we only want to interrogate when the guilt of the suspect is reasonably certain. When I hear four or five of these themes pop up, I am almost always going to interrogate. If I am talking to a rational personality type (see above) I might say, “Look there is a scientifically proven way to analyze interviews called the APOD. I have been analyzing your responses during the interview, and I can say with scientific certainty that you are lying.” I do not recommend doing this if you haven’t been trained in the technique.

If I did an interview where my case facts were good against the suspect, and his responses were unsatisfactory, I would move to an interrogation with or without the APOD being in my favor. My take on the APOD at this moment is that the APOD is one more tool. It isn’t everything. That might change in the future as I continue to apply the technique.

I think the instrument that Dr. Turner has created is one of the most compelling and useful that is out there. It is also relatively easy to understand and put to use right away. If you think you might be interested, email me and we can discuss it further. If you are serious about it, you’ll want to go to one of his trainings and get certified. 

Dr. Turner has a website where you can check out his work: https://www.turnerforensicpsychology.com/. He’ll be presenting at the Crimes Against Children Conference in August. He is personable and an interesting presenter.

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to buy me a coffee. No pressure.