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?

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

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

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

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.

Body language and lie detection are often linked, but research does not support many popular claims. This article explains why nervous behavior, eye contact, baselining, and microexpressions are weak indicators of deception and why investigators should focus on statement evidence, corroboration, and science-based interviewing instead.

The interview decides your workplace investigation. Here's a step-by-step, science-based interviewing process—plan, free recall, open questions, strategic evidence disclosure, and a clean close—to run one that's fair, defensible, and actually gets to the truth.

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) must come before Artificial Intelligence (AI) in policing. Pseudoscientific lie detection and accusatory tactics feed garbage into investigations, and AI will only amplify those errors. Evidence-based SBI—rapport, active listening, open-ended questions—produces reliable, information-rich statements. That’s the data AI can actually use to strengthen cases and build trust in the information age of policing.

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

In science-based interviewing, mastering the art of questioning is not just a skill—it's a necessity. How do you ensure that the...

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

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

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) is an information-gathering approach to interview and interrogation based on peer-reviewed behavioral and cognitive science, including research funded through the FBI-administered High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). SBI emphasizes accurate, reliable, and corroborated information through open-ended questioning, active listening, rapport, Strategic Use of Evidence, and cognitive interviewing.

Mastering the art of ethical interrogation requires a blend of skill, strategy, and dumping of antiquated interrogation techniques....