Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (20 page)

Confirmation bias manifests itself in several ways. For example, we can actively seek out only the information that fits our preconceived notion of how something should be, ignoring evidence to the contrary. We may interpret a piece of information in a way that suits our view. Or we may hang on to a particular view, even after all the evidence points us in a different direction.

Anyone who has been through the detection of deception training conducted by QVerity, our consulting company, or who has read the book
Spy the Lie
, is well aware of the impact that confirmation bias has on our personal interactions with other people, and on our business transactions. In our training, we highlight how important it is to ignore truthful behaviors, and to instead focus on deceptive behaviors in the process of getting the truth. The reason is simple: Truthful behavior adds no value, and we need to filter out as much extraneous data as we can in order to be able to effectively analyze any deceptive behaviors a person may exhibit. Confirmation bias can hinder that process all too easily. In the case of Omar, there were a couple of decades of reports indicating that this was a man to be trusted, that this was to be a routine interview with a rock-solid asset. Confirmation bias may explain how Omar’s deceit remained undetected for as long as it did. If we don’t put that bias aside, we’re easily inclined to form an initial impression, and to subconsciously seek out information that “confirms” that impression, often in the presence of contradictory information.

In the process of detecting deception, if we allow a first impression to suggest that someone is the “truthful type,” our tendency is to leap on any truthful behavior we observe in order to bolster that impression. How many times have you heard a person say she believed what someone had said because of the job he does, or because of what she had heard about the person? That’s confirmation bias. It causes us to seek out and interpret information in a way that supports our preconceived notions, whether that information is about a person, a company, a product, or virtually anything else—including, unfortunately, race, religion, nationality, and all the other distinctions that lead us to create stereotypes.

Watch any TV courtroom drama, or step into a courtroom during a trial, and you’ll see lawyers using the concept of confirmation bias as a basis for a strong cross-examination. A great example is the phrase attributed to the late Johnnie Cochran in the O. J. Simpson murder trial: “rush to judgment.” Cochran accused the investigators of having made up their minds at a very early stage in the proceedings, and as a consequence, he said, they sought and interpreted evidence in a way that bolstered their view that Simpson was guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Unless you check this confirmation bias at the door, you could fall victim to it, or to allegations that you’re guilty of it.
“You made your mind up early on, and gave up looking at any other possibility, didn’t you?”
is a powerful question, one I’ve used many times during cross-examination in civil and criminal cases. It’s also a question that can only be genuinely refuted when you approach your search for the truth with an open mind, and you can demonstrate that you utilized an objective methodology.

Through years of representing victims of domestic violence, I’ve come to recognize that the damage that’s done to the human psyche by physical and emotional abuse from someone the victim believes to be a loved one is unfathomable. It’s a difficult situation to discuss, let alone observe. But it can serve as a poignant example of the power of confirmation bias, as so many of my clients truly believed that their abusers loved them. To me, it was a reflection of the purity of the hearts of many of my clients, and what I can only describe as the evil, twisted nature of their abusers.

One case in particular stands out. A client of mine, whom we’ll call “Julie,” was a very gentle, loving wife and mother. After years of abuse at the hands of her husband, whom we’ll call “George,” Julie was still desperate to keep her marriage intact for the sake of her six-year-old son. One evening, Julie went with George and their son to the home of their minister for marriage counseling.

When they arrived at the minister’s home, George directed their son to run up and ring the doorbell. Still sitting in the car, Julie heard a distinct click from behind her. She turned around and was staring at two barrels of a shotgun. As she leapt from the car, George pulled the trigger. Miraculously, most of the pellets missed her, but some caused a deep wound to her left thigh. She fell to the ground, screaming in agony, “I’ve been shot! I’ve been shot!”

Lying on the ground crying, and with blood streaming from her thigh, she saw George looming above her with the shotgun. His next words to her were spoken with icy hatred: “That’s not being shot, bitch. But this is.” He pulled the trigger again. This time the blast removed most of her shoulder. George took off in the car, and was later caught by the police.

After several surgeries and a lengthy stay in the hospital, Julie came to my office. She was seeking a restraining order, as bail bonds set at that time, in that county, were notoriously low in “domestic” cases. This was such a case, even though George had been charged with attempted murder. Throughout our initial meeting, one thing struck me deeply. In spite of the years of torment, the physical and emotional abuse that culminated in an attack that could easily have killed her, Julie made a point of listing the “good” things that George had done. He had sent an apology through a relative, and made sure that their son received a birthday present. George, she believed, loved her. He had said as much. He had apologized, and he had sent gifts.

Julie had sought out the “evidence” that George loved her, and clung to that belief no matter how much evidence there was to the contrary. I cannot blame her. I cannot blame any victim of domestic or sexual violence, and I have no patience for anyone who does engage in victim blaming. I’m convinced that confirmation bias is so strong in so many of us, that even in horrific cases like Julie’s, it can be extremely difficult to overcome. And I’m convinced that some people can, and do, prey on that. I also believe it’s an oversimplification to suggest that confirmation bias is the exclusive driver of thought processes in domestic violence cases. Still, it was this case, and others like it, that led me to research confirmation bias to help me understand and better assist the victims I was representing.

What feeds confirmation bias, like many cognitive biases, is that we truly believe we’re objective and open-minded, when in many cases we’re really not. That’s difficult for a lot of people to swallow, but there’s an easy way to show how it happens.

When I teach negotiation classes, I use a very simple experiment developed by the psychologist Bertram R. Forer to illustrate confirmation bias—it demonstrates what’s called the “Forer effect,” sometimes better known as “Barnum statements.” What I’m about to say will probably get me into hot water with those who are fans of TV mediums and psychics, but here we go. When you look at how this works, you’ll see why so many purported psychics—and salespeople, for that matter—are believed, when what they’re actually doing is making statements that could apply to almost anyone.

Forer’s test is very simple to administer. All you have to do is come up with a fake personality test, and tell the people in the group that the resulting analysis will be unique to each of them. In truth, their answers are irrelevant, because the result you give them is this single analysis that Forer himself came up with:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

As you can see, there are several statements in the results narrative that could, and do, apply to almost anyone, yet they are then qualified or even contradicted by others. If you ask the people in the group to provide their assessment of the accuracy of the analysis, you’ll find that across the board they’ll rate the results as highly accurate and applicable to them. The reason is that their tendency is to seek out the positive attributes. That confirms the positive things they think about themselves, which in turn causes them to interpret the entire analysis as an accurate reflection of their personalities. I, like many negotiation trainers, have used this test in my classes for years, and my students are invariably taken in by it.

The takeaway from this is just how important it is not to allow confirmation bias to creep in when somebody is attempting to influence you by saying something positive about you. I recall a particular case I handled, in which we were trying to void a personal injury settlement that my client had agreed to before seeking legal counsel.

As my client explained it, the other side had told him that he was clearly someone who had good business acumen, and while he had obviously been injured and was taking medication, that would not impair his ability to fairly and accurately discern the true value of his case. That conclusion was drawn from their “assessment” of my client’s intellect following a review of his medical records. Anyone who would suggest otherwise was simply trying to “take advantage” of him.

In other words,
“We looked at some of your medical records, and now we would like to blow some smoke up whatever orifice it takes to convince you that you’re completely capable of placing a value on a serious injury case. And if someone tries to convince you otherwise, he’s a huckster.”

Unfortunately for my client, the bar is set very high on overturning settlements that have already been negotiated to a conclusion. He learned the hard way about the Forer effect, and about who was really taking advantage of him.

Back to Omar’s case, he was relying, whether consciously or not, on Phil believing, based on years of positive reports, that he was an honest and trustworthy asset. He was likely confident that his demonstration of his devotion to his faith would confirm what he presumed was Phil’s biased assessment of him. But Phil’s ability to check his bias at the door meant there was no bias to confirm. In the end, what was confirmed instead was the effectiveness of Phil’s approach.

SHIFTING GEARS: FROM ASSESSMENT TO PERSUASION

As Phil sat in the hotel room with Omar, he observed Omar’s deception and knew that before him was a man who had spied on the United States and evaded detection for two decades. Phil had no doubt that this man posed a serious threat to U.S. security. But there was a cavernous gap between what Phil knew, and what could be proved. How Phil transitioned from listening and observing, to persuading Omar to tell the truth, would have a direct impact on the success of the encounter, and, ultimately, on the security interests of the United States. The stakes were extraordinarily high.

Whether you’re trying to get someone to provide you with information he doesn’t want to reveal, pay you money he’d rather keep for himself, or agree to the favorable terms you’re seeking on a lease agreement, the
transition
is the point at which you move from the role of assessing what the other person has been saying to you, into the role of advocate, convincing the person to act honestly and in accordance with your aims.

In a negotiation situation, there are five stages in an effective, persuasive, and impactful encounter:

1) Preparation

2) Assessment

3) Persuasion

4) Exchange of proposals and options

5) Closing

Before coming to your meeting, it’s essential to ensure that you’re fully prepared (see Appendix II). Throughout the first portion of the meeting, you will have asked probing questions, listened, observed, and fully assessed what the other party has conveyed to you. Through your research prior to the meeting, and the information you gather during your assessment, you will have learned what motivates the other party, and what his interests are.

Now you’re ready to employ your advocacy skills to persuade the other party to provide what you’re seeking. In an elicitation situation, what you’re seeking is the full truth. In a negotiation setting, it’s the resolution you’re aiming for. Many people believe that it takes years to become a skilled advocate. That’s not the case at all. We all have the ability to formulate, and deliver, a persuasive argument. If we’ve done our preparation, and truly heard what the other side values, we can leverage that information to effectively persuade.

In the negotiation context, your persuasive statement—the negotiation equivalent of a monologue—should be detailed, balanced, concise, and sincere. Let’s examine each of those elements:

Detailed

Your statement should clearly outline each item that you want the other side to consider. Don’t hesitate to bring photos, documents, or other exhibits to support your position. When negotiating for the purchase of a vehicle or other large item, written information about prices for these items elsewhere is good to have with you.

Balanced

It’s a fatal approach to be strictly one-sided, failing to recognize the validity of portions of the argument made by the other side. If you have information or evidence that contradicts what the other party has put forth, by all means, present it. But recognize the importance to them of what they have said—never dismiss anything out of hand. If the other side makes a point that you can’t contradict, or a demand that costs you little or nothing, then concede to it.