You grab a Red Bull at checkout. Behind that can is a race team that wins by testing everything. Here is what F1's small gains and rule changes teach investigators about upgrading the interview.

There is a heat map for the cereal aisle, the ad, the landing page, and your résumé. Entire professions test, measure, and upgrade to move a number two percent. The interview room—where we decide what is true—still runs on a method whose first famous case produced a false confession.

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?

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) replaces outdated interrogation myths with research-backed methods for gathering reliable information.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

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 (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 Through humor and memes, this article highlights how SBI outperforms outdated tactics, improves case outcomes, and replaces pseudoscience with proven investigative practice.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 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.

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.

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.

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

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 remarkable.

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

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

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.

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.