Investigative interviewing is moving away from confession-driven legacy methods and toward information-gathering approaches grounded in research. Science-Based Interviewing prioritizes accurate information, rapport, open-ended questioning, strategic evidence use, and hypothesis testing while reducing the risks created by guilt presumptions, psychological manipulation, pseudoscience, and false confessions.

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Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) replaces outdated interrogation myths with research-backed methods for gathering reliable information.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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Science-Based Interviewing is changing how interviews and interrogations are done—shifting from control and pressure to listening, curiosity, and strategy. From using silence as a tool to building rapport that actually produces better case data, this post shares five powerful lessons from decades in the field. If you care about getting better information, stronger cases, and more reliable interviews, start here.

Interviewing can be one of the most intimidating parts of an investigator’s job, especially for those who are new to their role. Whether you're a detective working a violent crime or a Boosting Interview Confidence Through Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) Techniques compliance officer leading a workplace inquiry, it’s normal to feel unsure. The goal of any interview should be to uncover the truth, not to trap someone with a clever question or rely on “gotcha” moments, manipul

For years, we’ve discussed interviews and interrogations, and that legacy techniques were the standard. We have relied on these outdated methods for too long. The training is not good. In fact, they actually undermine our ability to gather reliable information. This is especially true in confession-driven approaches. The idea behind these tactics is that if a suspect denies involvement early, they’re less likely to confess later. But the problem here isn’t just the techniques

Strong interview and interrogation planning starts with knowing what must be proven. Jury instructions can provide investigators with a practical roadmap for identifying key elements, building better questions, and avoiding assumption-driven interviews. By using the legal elements as an interview guide, investigators can gather more relevant, reliable, and complete information while strengthening the overall case.

Interrogation is a term loaded with negative associations, often conjuring images of rapid questions, an aggressive tone, and a power-driven agenda. This misconception is reinforced by misguided advice online, with Google AI's search suggestions promoting techniques like "dominance" and "direct confrontation," which belong to outdated, confession-focused accusatory practices. They legacy practices risk contaminating evidence, producing fake case information, and reinforcing b

Sherlock Holmes would be a disaster in a real interview room. Fictional detectives aren't a training manual — but every so often, the novelists got something right. A fun look at their sharpest lines, plus the real investigation skills that actually close cases.

Miranda v. Arizona reshaped modern interrogation by recognizing that custodial questioning creates psychological pressure that can compel statements. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires suspects to be advised of their right to remain silent and to an attorney before custodial interrogation. These protections safeguard voluntary statements, reduce coercion, and preserve the integrity and reliability of evidence obtained during interviews.