Naming a Contradiction Gently
Launch library · evergreen read
When a subject's account shifts partway through an interview, the temptation is to pounce, framing the discrepancy as a catch. A gentler route, simply noting the two versions and asking the subject to help reconcile them, usually produces a fuller and more honest account than a confrontation would. Most subjects, given the chance, will happily walk through how their thinking actually shifted mid-conversation.
Most contradictions are not lies; they are the ordinary texture of memory, which reorganises itself the longer someone talks about an event. Treating every shift as evidence of dishonesty punishes the natural act of thinking aloud, and it teaches a subject to stop revising their answers in front of the interviewer. Memory reorganises itself constantly during a long exchange, which is a normal feature of thinking aloud, not a flaw.
The gentle version still does the necessary work. Naming the contradiction clearly, without accusation in the tone, invites the subject to do the reconciling themselves, and their explanation of the shift is often more revealing than either of the two original statements on their own. That explanation is frequently more interesting than either version of the original statement offered alone.