7 Myths of Interview & Interrogation
When it come to interviewing and interrogation, myths and misconceptions are numerous. These myths, often perpetuated by popular culture, TV shows, search engines, and media, can lead to ineffective interviewing techniques, misinterpretations, and even miscarriages of justice. As the practice moves from 20th Century interviewing and interrogation systems, it is crucial to dispel these myths and replace them with information 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.
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 investigative interviewing. 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 comes from the accusatory confession-driven approaches of interrogation and 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 (open-ended questions, reflections, pauses, etc.), 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 is associated with more and more accurate information (the whole point of an interview).
In contrast, the 'good cop, bad cop' strategy creates a hostile environment that inhibits open communication, increases resistance, and limits the amount of information gathered. 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 (SUE), 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 & Detecting Deception
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 study after study 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 shifts the goal away from confession-driven, theme-based, accusatory methods and toward information-gathering, case construction, and the deliberate testing of accounts. Criminal cases are built on information, and confessions are only one part of that picture. A stronger objective is to obtain true exculpatory statements from innocent people and false exculpatory statements from guilty people. In practice, that means using evidence-based methods such as the Strategic Use of Evidence, or SUE, to allow innocent subjects to give an uncontaminated account while increasing the likelihood that guilty subjects will commit to statements that conflict with known evidence. Those contradictions, or statement-evidence inconsistencies, become meaningful and testable information for the investigation.
This is a major shift in philosophy. The issue is no longer whether an investigator can “read” deception from behavior, but whether the interview can produce detailed, verifiable information that can be checked against facts. Information-gathering approaches generate more information than confession-oriented methods, can produce true confessions at equal or higher rates, and reduce the risk of false confessions and false case information. In other words, the science points away from intimidation, premature certainty, and amateur lie spotting and toward careful interviewing that protects the integrity of both the statement and the case
In conclusion, empirical evidence does not support the myth that one can easily detect deception (no one testifies to this junk science). A science-based approach to investigative interviewing emphasizes the importance of gathering detailed, verifiable information rather than relying on unreliable deception cues. These so-called “lie detection” techniques not only create risk and introduce false case information, but they also distract investigators from the real work of interviewing: generating accurate information, testing accounts against evidence, and building stronger cases.
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).
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 another 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 the Only Goal of an Interrogation
The belief that a person would always deny committing a crime has long distorted investigative practice. It encourages investigators, attorneys, and jurors to treat confession evidence as the ultimate proof of guilt when the research record shows that confessions can be false and that confession-driven interviewing can produce serious errors. Science-based interviewing challenges this assumption by shifting the goal from chasing admissions to gathering accurate, testable information that can be checked against the evidence.
Criminal investigations should not be built around the idea that the ideal interrogation ends in a confession. A stronger goal is to obtain true exculpatory statements from innocent suspects and false exculpatory statements from guilty suspects. In other words, the interview should create conditions where innocent people can provide accounts that fit the evidence, while guilty people commit to denials or explanations that can later be disproven. That shift matters because a contradiction between a suspect’s statement and known evidence can be highly probative, even when no confession is obtained (after all, not everyone will confess).
This is where Science-Based Interviewing and the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) become especially powerful. Rather than relying on pressure, bluffing, or confession themes, the interviewer gathers a full account, carefully manages the evidence, and gives the suspect the opportunity to speak before the evidence is strategically introduced. That process allows investigators to test the account, identify statement-evidence inconsistencies, and develop stronger, more defensible cases.
Exposed lies can be just as useful as confessions (Brimbal & Jones, 2018). False exculpatory statements, once disproven by evidence, can be introduced in court to damage a suspect’s credibility and help build the case. False exculpatory statements undercut the old assumption that an interrogation without a confession is somehow a failure. A well-run interview may produce exactly what investigators need: a detailed statement that can be tested, challenged, and, if false, used to strengthen the case.
Ultimately, the myth is not just that people never falsely confess. The larger myth is that the confession should remain the centerpiece of good interviewing. Science-based interviewing rejects that outdated frame. It recognizes the risks tied to confession-driven methods and replaces them with a non-coercive, evidence-led approach focused on information, corroboration, and credibility testing. The result is a more reliable interview, a stronger case, and a more defensible investigative process.
.png)
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 - Interviewing 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, autonomy, and corroboration, which are key to uncovering the truth.
Interview and Interrogation 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
Bond, C. F., Jr, & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
Brimbal, L., & Jones, A. M. (2018). Perceptions of suspect statements: a comparison of exposed lies and confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law: PC & L, 24(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2017.1390111
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.