Grocery stores have spent fifty years using behavioral research to change how you shop — down to the scent of the bread and the height of the cereal. Meanwhile, the way we interview and investigate hasn't meaningfully changed since 1955. If a soda bottle can be upgraded with science, why not the interview?

I get this question in almost every class: what's with all the goats? It started as a way to say thank you — cartoon GOAT stickers and a handwritten note for detectives who did great work. It ended up teaching me something about science-based interviewing. One good opening question once got 14 minutes of lies from a man now serving 30 years for murder. Every one of those lies was information. Statements are evidence. Here's why that changes how you interview — and how you lea

You can't learn from your mistakes—because anxiety-based lie detection training never lets you count them. No batting average, no save rate, and no field goal percentage: it records only the hits. I trusted NLP, microexpressions, and baselining once, and they pointed me at an innocent man while the real evidence sat on a phone I'd turned off. Human deception detection runs about 54%—barely better than a coin flip. Here's why the science-based fundamentals beat the pseudoscien

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) replaces outdated interrogation myths with research-backed methods for gathering reliable information. Learn how rapport, better questions, active listening, planning, bias reduction, and strategic evidence disclosure help investigators, HR professionals, compliance teams, and leaders improve interviews and decisions.

Spies gather intelligence, but someone still has to decide—usually without certainty. From the Prussian war game to the Catholic Church's Devil's Advocate, Israel's "Tenth Man," and the red teams that stress-tested the bin Laden raid, history shows that the most dangerous moment in any investigation isn't when the file is thin and everyone's arguing. It's when the file feels complete and everyone agrees. Are you red teaming your case—or one unchallenged assumption from disast

Most suspects walk into an interview braced for an accusation. The Strategic Use of Evidence flips the script: instead of confronting a suspect with what you know, you ask first and reveal later. Guilty suspects, unaware of the evidence against them, talk themselves into contradictions the innocent never produce. It's not about reading twitches or chasing nerves—it's about letting the gap between a story and the facts speak for itself. Here's how SUE works and why the science

Most active listening training teaches performance, not the real skill. After years in hostage negotiation and homicide investigations, I can tell you — nobody in those rooms cared whether I was nodding. What actually determines whether someone talks or shuts down has nothing to do with what any listening module ever taught. Here's what real active listening costs, why dismissing it as a soft skill is a dangerous mistake, and what it actually looks like when the stakes are hi

Science-Based Interviewing gives companies a better way to conduct internal investigations, workplace investigation interviews, and corporate security interviews. Instead of relying on accusatory tactics, pseudoscientific lie detection, or premature evidence disclosure, investigators can gather reliable information, protect statements from contamination, test accounts against evidence, and make better decisions.

Workplace violence prevention starts with better communication, such as active listening and rapport building, skills used by police hostage negotiators during crisis negotiations.

Peer review can keep homicide investigations from going stale by bringing fresh eyes, diverse disciplines, and red-team thinking into major case reviews. This article explains how multidisciplinary case reviews help challenge assumptions, identify missed leads, strengthen evidence, improve interview planning, and keep investigative momentum alive before time, workload, and competing priorities weaken a case.

Workplace investigations depend on more than policy and paperwork. They depend on communication, sound interviewing, and the ability to gather reliable information when tensions are high. This article explains how science-based interviewing helps HR, corporate security, compliance, and internal investigators conduct fairer, more thorough, and more defensible investigations through better questions, active listening, rapport, and evidence-based methods.

What investigators often call luck is usually better information gathering. Science-based interviewing helps create that edge through better questions, stronger rapport, and Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). Statement evidence gives context to every case, helps locate more witnesses and evidence, and moves investigators closer to the truth. Good interviews do more than confirm theories. They build a fuller picture of events and help define the case.

Science-Based Interviewing is not new, but the evidence supporting it is stronger than ever. While research consistently shows that information-gathering approaches outperform accusatory, confession-driven tactics, outdated interrogation methods continue to dominate training rooms. This article examines why legacy practices persist, the risks they create, and how evidence-based interviewing improves accuracy, cooperation, and investigative outcomes.

Science-based interviewing (SBI) is transforming modern investigations by prioritizing information over confession. Built on memory science and research-backed questioning, SBI produces more accurate, detailed, and cooperative interviews than legacy accusatory methods. Through humor and memes, this article highlights how SBI outperforms outdated tactics, improves case outcomes, and replaces pseudoscience with proven investigative practice.

What does trolling a teenager who loves Taylor Swift have to do with interrogation? More than you’d think. This article uses dad-level provocation, eye rolls, and pop-culture mischief to expose a serious problem in interviewing: tactics that rely on pressure, emotion, and reaction-hunting instead of listening. By contrasting accusatory methods with science-based interviewing, it shows why provoking people doesn’t produce truth—it produces noise.

Science-Based Interviewing gives law enforcement investigators and police executives a modern framework for gathering reliable information in today’s evidence-rich investigations. Built on research, not tradition, Science-Based Interviewing moves beyond confession-driven tactics and focuses on rapport, free narratives, and Strategic Use of Evidence. The result is stronger case context, fewer investigative risks, and statements that withstand legal, scientific, and community s

Science-Based Interviewing puts investigators back in control by grounding interviews in peer-reviewed research rather than intuition, tradition, or pseudoscientific lie detection. This article shows where to find open-access research on interviewing, interrogation, memory, deception, and false confessions—allowing investigators to read the evidence for themselves, verify claims, reduce investigative risk, and strengthen decision-making through transparent, evidence-based pra

Science-Based Interviewing focuses on gathering accurate, unbiased information—but some common questions quietly sabotage that goal. Self-handicapping questions like “Were you a witness?” embed assumptions that cause people to self-exclude, cutting off valuable information before it emerges. This article explains how these questions harm investigations, why they persist, and how open-ended, information-generating prompts protect investigative integrity.

In 1930, inventor Helene Shelby patented a bizarre police interrogation device—a life-sized talking skeleton with glowing red eyes, designed to scare criminal suspects into confessing. Hidden cameras and microphones recorded the suspect’s reaction as the skeleton "spoke," creating what Shelby believed would be a foolproof confession tool. Though never used, this eerie interrogation tactic highlights a strange chapter in the history of confessions and coercive police technique

Modern interview and interrogation training is failing because it still relies on accusatory methods, lie detection myths, and a confession-first mindset. Decades of research now show Science-Based Interviewing gathers more information, strengthens case integrity, reduces bias, and even increases confessions. It’s time to replace broken tools with evidence-based skills that actually uncover the truth.