Investigative Interviews vs Recruitment Interviews — What Deception Looks Like in Each

Updated on
Investigative Interviews vs Recruitment Interviews — What Deception Looks Like in Each

Introduction: Two Worlds, One Challenge

At first glance, police interrogations and job interviews couldn’t be more different. One involves crime, the other career progression. Yet, both share a core challenge: separating truth from deception.

Over 25 years of working with law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and corporate recruiters, I’ve seen the parallelsand differences between investigative and recruitment interviews. Understanding these helps professionals in both fields sharpen their lie-detection skills.

Motivation: The Fuel Behind the Lie

  • Investigative Interviews: The suspect lies to avoid punishment (jail time, fines, charges).

  • Recruitment Interviews: The candidate lies to gain reward (job, salary, prestige).

This difference shapes the form the deception takes:

  • Suspects often omit details.

  • Candidates often exaggerate details.

Linguistic Patterns in Each Setting

  • Investigative Interviews:

    • Distancing language (“that woman” instead of “my partner”).

    • Time gaps (“I was at the pub… then suddenly I was home”).

    • Passive voice (“The door was left open” instead of “I left the door open”).

  • Recruitment Interviews:

    • Inflated verbs (“spearheaded,” “orchestrated”) to replace “assisted.”

    • Overuse of team attributions (“we delivered” instead of “I delivered”).

    • Buzzwords masking vagueness (“strategic alignment,” “innovation”).

Emotional Indicators of Deception

  • Suspects: Often display fear, anxiety, or withdrawal. Stress comes from fear of consequences.

  • Candidates: May show arrogance, overconfidence, or charm as they oversell themselves.

Case Study 1: The Silent Suspect

In a homicide case, the suspect repeatedly said, “I don’t remember” about key time periods. This wasn’t memory loss — it was a strategic omission. Investigators flagged the gaps, and forensic evidence later confirmed deception.

Case Study 2: The Overconfident Candidate

A marketing applicant claimed to have “doubled online sales.” But when asked, “Which analytics tools did you use?” he faltered. His confidence masked a lack of knowledge.

Questioning Techniques That Work in Both Worlds

  1. Unexpected sequencing: Ask for events in reverse order.

  2. Detail probing: Request sensory details (“What did the room smell like?”).

  3. Repetition: Revisit questions later to test consistency.

  4. Behavioural baselining: Note changes in tone, pace, or body language when sensitive topics arise.

Shared Mistakes to Avoid

  • Relying on body language myths (covered in Blog 4).

  • Confirmation bias – seeing what you expect rather than what’s there.

  • Assuming confidence = truthfulness – some liars thrive under pressure.

Lessons From the Crossover

Investigative and recruitment interviews look different on the surface but share the same psychological underpinnings. Both involve:

  • High stakes.

  • Motivations to conceal or distort.

  • Observable patterns when deception leaks through.

By borrowing techniques from each world, recruiters and investigators can elevate their accuracy.

Conclusion: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Whether in the interrogation room or the boardroom, lies follow predictable patterns. The tools of forensic psychology and linguistics empower interviewers to move beyond gut feeling and base decisions on evidence.

www.liedetectoronline.com bridges these worlds, applying validated investigative models to recruitment, compliance, and corporate risk management.

Updated on