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 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.

Success in high-stakes situations, such as criminal cases, compliance interviews, or HR investigations, requires more than just asking the right questions. It’s about asking the right questions for the right reasons, in the right way. That requires more than instinct or experience; it calls for strategic preparation. Integrating red teaming , setting clear interview objectives , and crafting a strategic questioning plan  can elevate any investigation from routine to remarkab

Detective Geyer’s relentless pursuit of justice unraveled Holmes’ web of deceit, leading to his conviction and execution.

Frederick Porter Wensley’s career at Scotland Yard offers enduring lessons for modern Criminal Investigation. Long before formal models or buzzwords, Wensley understood that information is the lifeblood of every case. His success came from patience, careful listening, and respect for evidence, not tricks or rigid systems. That same philosophy underpins today’s science-based approach: gather reliable information, avoid contamination, and seek understanding before conclusions.

Red teaming is a structured approach investigators use to challenge assumptions, counter confirmation bias, and strengthen investigative decision-making. Rather than reinforcing early conclusions, red teaming introduces disciplined skepticism, helping teams test working theories, evaluate evidence more critically, and explore alternative explanations. When applied intentionally, red teaming improves accuracy, reduces risk, and supports more defensible investigative outcomes.

Rapport is a critical but often underused soft skill in investigative interviewing. Defined as a smooth, positive interpersonal interaction, rapport increases trust, cooperation, and the amount of accurate information provided by witnesses and other information sources. Research shows that effective rapport-building leads to better disclosure and reduced resistance, yet many law enforcement and private sector interviewers fail to apply rapport consistently.

Science-Based Interviewing represents a decisive shift away from confession-driven interrogation toward information-driven investigations. Grounded in psychological science, SBI prioritizes higher-quality information, ethical evidence handling, and reduced investigative risk—without sacrificing confessions. As states move away from outdated accusatorial practices, science-based methods offer a more reliable, defensible, & future-ready approach for public and private sector in

Investigators rely on memory as evidence, yet memory is vulnerable to distortion through post-event information and poorly framed questions. Research on the misinformation effect shows how leading questions, social influence, and timing can alter recall. Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) protects memory integrity by prioritizing early interviews, witness separation, free narratives, and the strategic use of evidence to gather accurate, reliable statement evidence.

Active listening is a core skill taught across all IXI negotiation courses and a foundational component of science-based interviewing. In crisis negotiations, it is a life-preserving tool that helps negotiators identify emotions, values, and unmet needs behind demands. By reflecting feelings and summarizing concerns, conversations shift from confrontation to problem-solving without coercion.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) serves as a critical interagency effort within the U.S. government, bringing together intelligence professionals, operational interrogators, and academic researchers to advance the science and practice of interrogation. Established in 2009 under the direction of Barack Obama, the HIG was created to ensure that interrogation practices are effective, ethical, and grounded in empirical research. Since its creation, the HIG has su

Discover timeless detective quotes & sayings from famous detectives in literature, celebrating truth, sound investigation & ethical inquiry.

Effective investigative interviewing is one of the strongest determinants of case success. Research shows that eyewitness and subject statements often shape whether cases are solved, making interview quality critical. Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) prioritizes information gathering over confessions or lie detection, using open-ended questions, active listening, and rapport to elicit more detailed, reliable accounts. This article explores how these evidence-based techniques

The cognitive interview is a cornerstone of Science-Based Interviewing and modern investigative practice. Grounded in cognitive psychology, it improves memory recall by using open-ended questions, context reinstatement, and multiple retrieval pathways. Research shows it produces significantly more accurate information than traditional interviews, making it essential for law enforcement interview and interrogation training focused on reliability, ethics, and bias reduction.

False confessions are not rare anomalies. They are predictable outcomes of coercive, accusatory interviewing and pseudoscientific lie-detection practices. This article examines the history, psychology, and risk factors behind false confessions and their role in wrongful convictions. It contrasts confession-driven interrogation with Science-Based Interviewing, an evidence-based approach that prioritizes reliable information, corroboration, and sound questioning to reduce inves

False confessions persist because flawed assumptions go unchallenged. This article uses red teaming to critically test the belief that innocent people never confess, exposing how coercive tactics, bias, and psychological vulnerability undermine investigations. Grounded in research and real-world cases, it shows how Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) and key assumption checks strengthen critical thinking, protect memory and decision-making, and produce more reliable, ethical inv

Confirmation bias is predictable—but not unavoidable. Left unchecked, it distorts interviews, weakens investigations, and jeopardizes outcomes. Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) offers a practical path forward by using red teaming to challenge assumptions, test hypotheses, and counter confirmation bias and other cognitive errors. Through structured critical thinking, SBI strengthens objectivity, protects case integrity, and supports ethical, evidence-driven decision-making.

Red Teaming is critical thinking on purpose. It deliberately challenges assumptions, confidence, and early conclusions to strengthen investigations before decisions harden. While this may feel counterintuitive, it helps investigators check themselves and reduce bias before interviews, evidence interpretation, and case direction are shaped. When paired with science-based interviewing, Red Teaming improves information gathering, decision quality, and investigative integrity.