Investigation Interview Questions to Determine Credibility

Investigation Interviews

Consider these 5 factors when assessing the truthfulness of statements and responses during interviews

The interview element of a workplace investigation isn’t easy and it can be even more difficult when there are conflicting responses to investigation interview questions. The number of people interviewed can also affect the investigator’s ability to determine credibility. Too few (ie, just the complainant and the subject) and it becomes one person’s word against the other. Too many (ie, multiple witnesses) and some may have conflicting stories due to bias. The EEOC recommends weighing the credibility of each person interviewed in order to find out what actually took place during the incident.

Factors to Consider:

The EEOC has put together a list of 5 factors to consider when trying to determine the credibility of statements and responses made during the interview process. However, it is also important to note that these are “things to consider” and not the “be all, end all” for determining credibility.

1. Inherent Plausibility:

Is the testimony believable at face value? Does it make sense? Watch for the presence and order of key facts presented by everyone interviewed. You may also want to consult any materials in the workplace that could back up the facts of the story- security videos, whereabouts of the employees in the workplace, timing of events, etc.

Detecting Deception Cheat Sheet

Language indicators that can help investigators spot the grey areas in investigation interviews.

Download Cheat Sheet

2. Demeanor:

Did the person seem to be telling the truth or lying? We have put together a helpful resource that you can download here called the “Black Book of Lie Detection”. Read through it to learn more about determining how to tell if someone is lying or not.

3. Motive to Falsify:

Did the person have a reason to lie? Does the person feel threatened for any reason? Bias and opinion can sometimes get in the way of telling the truth. Consider any connections that people have to the incident or to the complainant and the subject. Could these connections cause them to lie because they know their friend will get hurt? Do they fear retaliation from others for being involved in the interview? Address these issues and enforce your zero-tolerance policy when it comes to retaliation in the workplace.

4. Corroboration:

Is there a witness (such as an eye-witnesses, people who saw the person soon after the alleged incidents, or people who discussed the incidents with him or her at around the time that they occurred) or physical evidence (such as written documentation) that validate the party’s testimony? The information gathered from these individuals needs to be weighed and considered for accuracy- if the witnesses have any bias towards either individual involved in the incident, chances are their story will reflect it. Watch for commonalities or discrepancies in witness stories and the claims made by the complainant and the subject in order to get a better picture of what took place during the incident.

5. Past Record:

Did the alleged subject have a history of similar behavior in the past? Many times, past behaviour is predictive of future behaviour, but is not always the case. It is beneficial to be aware of repeat offenders in the workplace and what conclusions and actions were taken in their previous cases. Our internal investigation software solution, i-Sight, has the capabilities to let you know if the subject has committed other incidents in the workplace, maintains all case records and evidence in past cases and is readily available to you to consult should you need to.


VP Sales & Marketing

Ask me a question

Article Published February 22, 2010

Article Tags: