jim.shamlin.com

Chapter 3 - Question Types

The author suggests that there are good and bad questions, but does not indicate what the difference is between the two.

He notes that "bad" questions have their place, but it is often in hostile situations where someone is withholding information or being dishonest and the interrogator wishes to destabilize them or put them off-guard, to make them vulnerable to more probing. However, there's a difference between intentionally using a bad question to elicit better information, and merely asking a bad question because you don't know the difference.

Good Questions

The author lists six types of good question in brief, meaning to explain them in detail afterward:

1. Direct - A simple question with a basic interrogative, used to gather information
2. Control - A question to which you know the answer, to test truthfulness
3. Repeat - A question that is rephrased to gather more accurate information
4. Persistent - A question that means to explore an additional facet of the same information
5. Summary - A question that repeats information to get the other party to confirm your understanding
6. Non-Pertinent - A question that is not related to the topic you are investigating

Direct

The author does not define a direct question, but provides a number of examples and suggest that they are "the best" and are often very short. He then provides an example of an interrogation in which direct answers are primarily used to gather information.

Control

Control questions are those for which you already know the answer - you are not attempting to discover information, but to assess the level of the other person's truthfulness. A control question may be repeated from earlier in the same interrogation, an earlier discussion, or something you learned about from a third party.

A control question may put the interrogator at ease about whether they can trust the respondent, or it may simply be asked to get a sense of how the other party behaves when telling the truth or lying.

Control questions can also be used to steer a conversation by putting the other person at ease and get them talking about a given subject, so you can later maneuver the conversation to more precise or delicate matters.

Repeat

Repeat questions are used for clarification, particularly when the interrogator recognizes that he is drawing a conclusion based on his assumptions. For example, if asked how many soldiers are in a given platoon, the interrogator may assume that there are an equal number of rifles, based on his assumption that each soldier has a rifle (and that there are no rifles that are not in use, nor any soldier who is presently without a rifle).

(EN: It strikes me that this may be the result of an interrogator who is not sure what he wishes to discover at the onset: if he cared about the number of rifles, he should have asked about it; or if he cared about whether there was a deficit or surplus, he should have asked about that. Having said that, there may be a reason the interrogator would choose this course, if he suspected that the respondent was attempting to cover up the fact that the unit had extra equipment or was underequipped.)

Persistent

By persistent questions, the author means a series of questions that inquire into the same subject in different ways, as a means to cross-check information.

An example is given of a police detective who claimed that footprints at a crime scene was undisturbed - by asking questions about the nature of footprints, the attorney drew out details that footprints are not visible to the naked eye, so that there was no way the detective could have been sure that they were not disturbed (they would not have been visible until forensics arrived on the scene to dust them).

Summary

Summary questions are used to gather feedback about an interpretation of a previous answer - as it is entirely possible a subject may have misspoken (particularly under pressure) or the interrogator may have misunderstood (particularly when he suspects what the answer should be).

It is useful to periodically review a conversation - to frame the question with "if I understand you correctly," repeat back the answer, and ask for confirmation. While they are intended to simply confirm a mutual understanding of what was said, it is often the case that considering a summary question may lead a subject to change their answer or disclose additional information.

The author then suggests that people are often uncomfortable asking summary questions because it makes them seem stupid or inattentive to need to have things repeated - and in some instances others may come to this conclusion - but more often a summary question serves to give an impression of intense interest and a desire for clarity, and the subject is pleased that their answers are getting attention.

Non-Pertinent

Non-pertinent questions are those that have nothing at all to do with the topic that is being investigated, but are used for pacing. A respondent who is stressed by the interrogation may relaxed if asked an innocuous question that is entirely unrelated, and this may also give the interrogator a little time to reconsider his approach.

People react differently to non-pertinent questions: some subjects are relaxed by them (and many interviewers start with a series of completely non-pertinent questions before getting down to business), others are suspicious of them (they recognize they are not related and wonder if the interrogator is trying to trick them), and still others are annoyed at the waste of time in talking about inconsequential matters.

Like control questions, non-pertinent ones can be useful in observing the subject's demeanor. Specifically, you can ask an innocuous question to get a sense of how they respond when they are not under pressure, and not attempting to conceal information, such that you can recognize behavioral changes that arise from stress when more serious questions are asked.

Random Tips

The author pauses to consider two ways in which an interrogator may "ruin" a question that starts off good.

1. Clouding the question with too many details or qualifiers can confuse the respondent, rendering him unable to answer and increasing his annoyance
2. Failure to wait for an answer is another common problem - when a respondent pauses to think for a moment, the interrogator guesses at the answer or asks a different question. Know when to shut up.

Particularly in the latter instance, the author suggests that silence is among the most powerful interrogation tools - the other party may volunteer information without being asked a question, or add detail to an answer they have previously given, if the interrogator just sits quietly and waits.

Bad Questions

There are four basic categories of "bad" questions:

• Leading - Your question suggests or presumes an answer, preventing the respondent from responding accurately
• Negative - A question phrased in the negative (using "not" or "never") makes it unclear what you are asking
• Vague - The question is vague or nebulous, such that it cannot be answered
• Compound - Multiple questions are mashed together into a single question, such that they a single answer cannot be given.

The author reiterates that a bad question can be used effectively to interrupt the tempo of an interrogation or distract a subject who is being uncooperative - but again, there is a difference between intentionally using a bad question and using one because you don't know better.

Leading

A leading question presents an answer with which the respondent may only agree or disagree, and discourages them from providing an answer that reflects a truth that is not embedded in the question.

They are very popular with unethical interrogators, whose purpose is not to discover the truth, but to prove their preconceptions by putting words into another person's mouth. They are also popular with unethical journalists, salesmen, and others who are in positions in which they lack power and wish to manipulate the other party.

A leading question is often used merely to get consent or authorization: rather than asking what an superior would like a subordinate to do, the subordinate suggest a course of action for the superior to approve: "shall I do this?"

In these instances, the request is placed with an intent to conceal the intentions or to eliminate alternatives - the subordinate knows what he is supposed to do, but does not want to do it, and suggests a different course of action hoping the superior will not hold him to doing the right thing.

They can also be used manipulatively - in that if the superior fails to authorize the exact solution that is proposed, he is accused of being indifferent to the problem - ignoring, and hoping that he ignores, that there may be alternative means to accomplish the goal.

Leading questions are also asked to save time: when someone does not want to spend time in conversation and doesn't really care what the other person has to say, they will ask a leading question to get agreement to avoid an extended conversation.

Leading questions may also be asked when the interrogator wishes to verify an assumption - such that the assumption is embedded into the question. Rather than asking "will the price of this item go down next month?" a bargain shopper will ash "how much will the price go down next month?" because he is already assuming that a decrease will occur. The same tactic is used by salesman to rush a buyer to close: "when can we deliver the item?" presumes that the buyer wants the item at all and is an attempt to get the buyer to accept the terms of the sale without negotiation.

Another way in which a respondent can be led to an answer is to create positive or negative associations to one response. The author's example is "Would you prefer to live in the United States, where dental care is excellent, or in England?" This is intended to cause the respondent to consider only the factor that is provided, as opposed to any other criterion that might come to mind when making a decision.

Another tactic implies that there are negative consequences to choosing an answer - such as a parent who asks a child "if you go to the party tonight, how will you pass the math test tomorrow?" This can actually be effective in getting people to consider the negative consequences of a choice, but may also be used to suggest negative consequences that will not actually occur.

Social pressure can also be a factor in leading questions. People are naturally inclined to be agreeable and complaisant, so a question that starts with "do you agree that ..." is meant to imply that they are disagreeable or offensive to the interrogator unless they agree.

The author suggests a different tactic of "danglers" for instances in which a question merely asks an individual to agree with a statement - "this is great, isn't it?" - but it is essentially the same thing.

Another redundant tactic is bullying - which is often used in situations in which a threat is implied if the other party does not give the answer the other party wants to hear. It's similar to social pressure, but when the interrogator is a boss, a question such as "aren't you coming to the meeting?" implies that the subject ought to, or else.

Pressure can also be applied by implying that a person is immoral or inferior if they fail to agree. For example, most questions that place the respondent in someone else's role ("if you were in that situation, wouldn't you want someone else to help?") cause the respondent to feel that they are being callus or cruel if they disagree.

In general, leading questions are common in hostile interrogations, when there is the sense that the other party is attempting to conceal information or misinform the interrogator. He mentions that many legal systems disallow leading questions in the direct examination of a witness, so that they are able to provide unbiased testimony, but then allow the use of leading questions in cross-examination, at which point the attorneys are attempting to discredit the witness or his testimony.

Leading questions can legitimately be used as summary questions (where you state your interpretation of what was said for verification) and may also be useful in getting information from someone who isn't confident in their ability to answer. (EN: In the latter instance, I expect it's very delicate and may be likely to elicit bad information.)

Negative

Questions that contain a word that negates their meaning are problematic, because the respondent must recognize the way in which the meaning is inverted - and in some instances, reverted - by the negatives in the question.

For example, it's easy to answer the question "is that true?" that "is that not false?" as the latter gives the respondent pause to figure out what it really means. And the answer "no" is unclear because it is the equivalent of saying "it is not 'not false'," which often stumps the interrogator and the two end up in "an endless game of verbal ping-pong" as they try to figure out what the other person meant.

The author mentions that there are various tactics from the subject's side to interpreting negative questions - which is to provide a statement as an answer rather than using "yes" or "no" (e.g., asked "is that not false," reply "it is true").

For the interrogator, the best advice is simply to avoid using them.

Vague

A vague question does not give the respondent enough information to respond, or provides a context that is so broad that the person cannot determine a way to respond concisely. "What's your opinion about politics?" or "How do you feel about marketing?" are questions that cannot be answered concisely, and the respondent is not clear on what you need to know.

A vague question is often a sign that the interrogator is just fishing and doesn't know what he wants to know - or perhaps he knows but wishes to conceal his motives for asking. It may also be an attempt to make the respondent feel foolish or suggest he is incompetent because he cannot provide an answer to a broad question.

In some instances, asking a broad question can get a person to disclose information that you would not have thought to ask about - but only if the other person is unintelligent or caught off-guard.. But in general, "vague questions get you vague answers" that are not very useful and only serve to frustrate the respondent.

The author also sweeps into this category questions to which the respondent could not possibly know the answer. If you ask a person "how many people were in the lobby?" there is likely no way that they know the information - even though they passed through the lobby, they did not count the number of people they saw on their way. (EN: This, too, can be an attempt to discredit someone.)

Compound

A compound question mashes multiple questions together, often in an assumptive way. "Did you go to the cafeteria and visit the bank?" can only be answered with yes or no if the person did both or neither - but if they did one or the other, they have to present an answer that splits the original question into two. (EN: if they are literally minded, they may answer "no" if either is false.)

It can become exceedingly difficult if there are more than two questions in the compound, or if the questions require more than a simple yes-or-no answer.

Journalists at press conferences provide excellent examples of compound questions of politicians and celebrities. When they must take turns asking one question apiece, or don't expect to have the opportunity to ask a follow-up question, they attempt to compound multiple questions into a single one.

Compound questions can also be used unethically - to ask a question so tangled that the responded loses track of what questions were actually asked, in an attempt to make them seem foolish, or when the second part part of the compound question presupposes the answer to the first and the speaker can be accused of avoiding the question.

Non-Discovery Questions

The author provides a list of questions that do not fit his "good" and "bad" categories, and he figures that these kinds of questions do not elicit information that is useful, and some do not elicit responses at all. (EN: I'm not sure if there's value here, but I'll follow along all the same.)

Requests

Sometimes a person asks a question as a way to get someone to do something. When a person asks "will you help me move this table?" or "could you hand me that pencil?" they expect the other person to perform the action they are requesting, not to say "yes I could" and then not do it.

(EN: I've seen some sources suggest that this is a manipulation tactic, to ask "could you" makes the other person feel that failure to consent suggests that they lack the ability to assist, but this may be splitting hairs.)

Pre-questions

Pre-questions are asked to build rapport or establish comfort before asking a question that the interrogator is interested in learning more about. For example, a parent whose child wants to quit their job to go to art school will likely react negatively to the question the parent really wants to ask - so the approach might be to ask about what got them interested in art, how long they will be in school, what the education might cost, what jobs are available for artists, etc.

The author suggests that a question that asks permission to ask a question is a waste of everyone's time, and you should never approach someone with "May I ask you a question?" (EN: That exact question, with nothing more, is likely a waste of time, but other sources suggest that if you suspect a subject is delicate, it's good to ask a pre-question as a means of approaching a sensitive or personal topic - but it should be more specific, such as "Would you be comfortable if I asked you about [sensitive topic]?")

Ritual Questions

There are a number of questions that people ask as a social ritual, when they are not expecting a full and detailed answer. Greeting someone with "how are you?" or "how are things going?" is a ritual question, and the other party is expected to give the ritual answer of "fine" or "well" - to do otherwise is a socially awkward violation of protocol.

The author also adds questions from service rituals, "may I help you?" and "did you find everything you need?" as this category. They are ritual questions because in most instances the person who asks them assumes that the other party doesn't need help and was successful - but it is permissible to violate this ritual when assistance is needed.

Corrective Questions.

Corrective questions are asked by people in positions of authority - managers, parents, teachers, and others. "Can't you do any better than that," "Are you lazy" or "What are you thinking?" are often used to interrupt behavior and suggest it be changed, without being specific as to what is unacceptable (because it is assumed the other party will recognize and correct themselves.)

The author doesn't recommend them in an interrogation scenario, but suggest that other sauces should be consulted about whether they are useful in management or parenting scenarios.

Rhetorical Questions.

A rhetorical question is not meant to be answered by another person, but is often answered by the person who asked it.

He sweeps sarcastic questions into this same category, but those are often more akin to corrective questions, in that it assumes the person who is asked a sarcastic question is not supposed to answer, but recognize their own stupidity.

Exercises

The process of questioning is not always going to be the same - it is a social engagement between two people, each of whom brings their own personality to the table, and who are also prone to act in ways that are not natural or comfortable to them, given the context of the interview and what they intend to achieve.

The author refers to the children's game of "twenty questions" as a method for learning to develop good questions - as in that game situation your aim is to discover something that only the other person knows, and you do not have an agenda of getting the other party to say anything that is not both true and useful to achieving that goal.

He also refers to the game show "to tell the truth" in which participants questioned a trio of people who were all pretending to be the same famous person with the goal of getting the impostors to reveal themselves by their lack of knowledge. Naturally, the impostors were allowed to lie, such that the contestants had to find questions that would reveal their lack of knowledge, or detect from their mannerisms when they were making up answers.

He also mentions an exercise he sometimes tries with unsuspecting strangers in brief encounters, such as being in an elevator together. He will attempt to get a person to tell him something personal by asking them a single question, then seeing how long they run on and what kind of information they disclose.