7 Myths of Investigative Interviewing

7 Myths of Interview & Interrogation

Introduction

The investigative practice of interview and interrogation—myths and misconceptions abound. These myths, often perpetuated by popular culture, search engines, and media, can lead to ineffective interviewing techniques, misinterpretations, and even miscarriages of justice. As the field of interview and interrogation evolves, it is crucial to dispel these myths and replace them with practices grounded in scientific research.

This report aims to debunk seven common myths about investigative interviewing. From the Hollywood-fueled 'good cop, bad cop' routine to the belief that stress behaviors are clear indicators of guilt, these myths are deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness. However, they are not supported by empirical evidence and can hinder the effectiveness of investigators, in both public and private sectors, during the course of their investigations.

We will take each myth one at a time providing a clear explanation of why it is a misconception and offering a science-based perspective in its place. The goal is to provide a more accurate understanding of investigative interviewing, showing what is actually science, grounded in the latest research and best practices in the field.

By debunking these myths, our goal is to improve not just the interviews themselves, but the overall investigation and the decisions that follow. At the heart of it all is information quality and quantity—both of which are directly shaped by the techniques you use. Let’s get started:

Myth #1 - Good Cop, Bad Cop is the Gold Standard

The 'good cop, bad cop' strategy, often glamorized in popular culture, is a common myth in interview and interrogation. Sometimes referred to as the 'Mutt and Jeff' routine, this interrogation technique involves one interviewer adopting an aggressive stance while the other takes on a more sympathetic role. This practice creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. However, research has consistently shown that this approach is far from effective.

In a study by Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, and Christiansen (2013), it was found that a non-confrontational approach, characterized by empathy, respect, and active listening, was more effective in eliciting truthful information. This approach, known as the Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT), focuses on building rapport with the interviewee, which encourages them to share more openly and honestly.

In contrast, the 'good cop, bad cop' strategy can create a hostile environment that inhibits open communication. The fear and intimidation induced by this approach can lead to more resistance, reduced rapport, and increased deception, rather than cooperation and truth-telling. Additionally, this strategy raises ethical concerns. The aggressive tactics used by the 'bad cop' can border on coercion, which is not only unethical but can also lead to false case information, false confessions, and wrongful convictions.

In the end, the 'good cop, bad cop' strategy is a myth that is not supported by empirical evidence. A science-based approach to interview and interrogation training emphasizes the importance of empathy, cognitive interviewing, strategic use of evidence, and active listening, which are key to building rapport and eliciting truthful information. The most effective interviewers and investigators avoid this so-called "trick of the trade."

Myth #2 - Lie Detection is a Walk in the Park

The belief that deception can be easily detected through non-verbal cues or inconsistencies in a person's story is a pervasive myth in interview and interrogation trainings. In fact, it shouldn't be considered an interviewing technique at all, yet many interview and interrogation trainings focus a lot of time and course material to these pseudoscientific practices. Many people believe that liars exhibit certain 'tells', such as avoiding eye contact, fidgeting, or stuttering. However, research has consistently shown that these cues are not reliable indicators of deception.

In a meta-analysis by DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton, and Cooper (2003), it was found that humans are generally poor at detecting deception. The study revealed that people are only slightly better than chance at distinguishing between truth and lies, with an average accuracy rate of just 54%. Furthermore, the study found that even trained professionals, such as police officers and judges, are not significantly better at detecting deception than the general public. This suggests that the ability to detect deception is not simply a matter of training or experience.

Instead of chasing supposed “tells,” science-based interviewing focuses on gathering detailed, verifiable information—and plenty of it. This approach relies on memory-compatible, open-ended questions that prompt narrative responses, which can then be corroborated with other evidence. When paired with strong rapport and active listening, these skills create an elite investigator—one positioned for consistent, defensible investigative success.

In conclusion, the belief that deception can be easily detected is a myth not supported by empirical evidence. A science-based approach to investigative interviewing emphasizes the importance of gathering detailed, verifiable information—rather than relying on unreliable deception cues. In fact, these so-called “lie detection” techniques not only create risk and introduce false case information, but they also deceive the very investigators who depend on them.

Myth #3 - Memory is a Perfect Recorder

Another common myth in investigative interviewing is the belief that human memory works like a video recorder, accurately capturing events as they happen. This belief can lead to the assumption that any inconsistencies in a person's account are indicative of deception.

However, research has shown that human memory is far from perfect. Memory is malleable and can be influenced by various factors, including the passage of time, stress, and suggestive questioning. For example, studies have shown that eyewitnesses can be led to remember false details of an event through suggestive questioning, a phenomenon known as the misinformation effect (Loftus, 2005).

Furthermore, research has shown that memory recall is not a passive process of retrieving stored information. Instead, it is an active process of reconstruction, where memories are pieced together from various sources of information. This means that memories can be influenced by a person's beliefs, post-event information, expectations, leading questions, and even their current emotional state.

Given the complexities of human memory, a science-based approach to interviewing emphasizes the importance of using techniques that minimize memory contamination. One such technique is the Cognitive Interview, which encourages a free recall of events and reduces leading questions (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992).

In conclusion, the belief that memory is a perfect recorder or statements have to be in sequential order is a myth that is not supported by empirical evidence. A science-based interviewing approach recognizes the complexities of human memory and emphasizes the importance of using techniques that minimize memory contamination and maximize memory-compatibility.

"[Science-Based Interviewing] was probably the best class I have been to in my 10 years of military/LEO career. Very well taught.

Police Officer, Kansas

Myth #4 - Quantity Over Quality in Questioning

The notion that asking more questions leads to more information is a common myth in interviewing. The belief is that by bombarding an interviewee with questions, the interviewer can extract more information and uncover the truth. However, research has shown that this approach can be counterproductive. Asking too many questions can overwhelm an interviewee, reduce rapport, and result in less information and less accurate information. Furthermore, it can create an adversarial atmosphere that inhibits open communication and a free flow of information.

Instead, a science-based approach to interview and interrogation emphasizes the importance of allowing the interviewee to speak freely in narrative responses. This strategy involves asking open-ended questions that encourage the interviewee to provide detailed narrative responses. Research has shown that this approach yields more accurate and comprehensive information (Memon, Meissner, & Fraser, 2010).

Furthermore, this approach allows the interviewer to build rapport with the interviewee, which can encourage more open and honest communication. It also allows the interviewer to observe the interviewee's non-verbal cues, which can provide additional insights into their state of mind and the veracity of their statements.

In conclusion, the belief that asking more questions leads to more information is a myth that is not supported by empirical evidence. A science-based approach to investigative interviewing emphasizes the importance of asking open-ended questions and allowing the interviewee to speak freely.

Myth #5 - Confessions are Gospel

The belief that individuals would not confess to a crime they did not commit is a deeply ingrained myth in investigative interviewing. This belief can lead to an over-reliance on confessions in criminal investigations and trials, although false confessions are a well-documented phenomenon.

Research has shown that false confessions can occur for various reasons, including coercive interviewing techniques, psychological vulnerabilities, and cognitive biases (Kassin et al., 2010). For example, individuals may confess to a crime they did not commit under the pressure of a prolonged interrogation, out of a desire to please authority figures, or because they have come to believe, through suggestive questioning, that they are guilty.

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) prioritizes the quality and quantity of information gathered, rather than chasing confessions. When paired with the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), SBI becomes even more powerful—often leading to not just confessions, but also false exculpatory statements that mock juries have judged to be just as compelling as direct confessions.

This approach avoids coercive methods, such as legacy techniques, which rely on psychological manipulation and have been widely criticized for their role in producing false confessions (Leo, 2008). Unlike legacy tactics, SBI is grounded in research and emphasizes corroborating information—not pressuring for admissions.

Ultimately, the belief that confessions are always truthful is a myth. SBI recognizes the risks of false confessions and false case information, which are often introduced by outdated tactics and misinterpreted cues. Instead, it promotes non-coercive, evidence-led interviews that result in more reliable, defensible outcomes.

Myth #6 - Stress Equals Guilt

It's a common misconception in interview and interrogation training that stress behaviors, such as fidgeting or avoiding eye contact, are clear indicators of guilt. This belief can lead to a bias in the interpretation of these behaviors, with innocent individuals being wrongly perceived as guilty. However, research has shown that these behaviors are not reliable indicators of deception. Stress can be triggered by various factors, including the stress of the interview itself, fear of not being believed, or anxiety about the potential consequences of the investigation (Vrij, 2008).

Equally important, research has shown that individuals vary widely in their stress responses, with some individuals showing little to no visible signs of stress even in highly stressful situations. This means that the absence of stress behaviors does not necessarily indicate truthfulness. A science-based approach to interviewing recognizes these complexities and emphasizes the importance of focusing on the content of the interviewee's statements rather than their stress behaviors. This involves asking open-ended questions that encourage the interviewee to provide detailed responses, which can then be corroborated with other evidence.

In conclusion, the belief that stress equals guilt is a myth that is not supported by empirical evidence. A science-based approach to interviewing and interrogation recognizes that stress reactions are not reliable indicators of guilt and emphasizes the importance of focusing on the content of the interviewee's statements. Moreover, lie detection techniques that rely on stress cues not only lack scientific support—they can actively introduce false information into an investigation and strengthen cognitive pitfalls like confirmation bias and groupthink, ultimately compromising the pursuit of truth and derailing investigations.

Myth #7 - The Truth is a Sprint, Not a Marathon

The belief that the truth will emerge quickly during an interview is a common myth in investigative interviewing. This belief can lead to a rush to judgment, with interviewers prematurely concluding the investigation based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

However, research has shown that people may withhold information for various reasons, such as fear, embarrassment, or a desire to protect others. This means that the truth may not emerge immediately, but rather over the course of several interviews (Snook et al., 2010) and additional investigative activities.

A science-based approach to interviewing recognizes this complexity and emphasizes the importance of patience and persistence. This involves building rapport with the interviewee over time, which can encourage them to share more openly and honestly. It also involves corroborating the interviewee's statements with other evidence to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information obtained.

Overall, it may be said the belief that the truth will emerge quickly is a myth that is not supported by empirical evidence. A science-based approach to investigative interviewing emphasizes the importance of patience, persistence, and corroboration, which are key to uncovering the truth.

References

Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, 19(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74

Fisher, R. P. & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6

Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, 16(4), 340–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518

Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Stinson, M., Tedeschini, J., & House, J. C. (2010). Reforming investigative interviewing in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.52.2.215

Vrij, A. (2011). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.