Information Gathering vs Confession-based Investigative Interviewing: The Future of Interrogation

Investigative interviewing today stands at a crossroads, split between two fundamentally different approaches: information-gathering and "the way we've always done it," confession-based techniques. The former focuses on collecting accurate, detailed, and reliable case information. The latter seeks a confession, often under the assumption of guilt and sometimes using junk science to shape the entire process around that goal. This article compares these methods and explains why the future of effective interview and interrogation lies in the information-gathering approach.

Information-gathering vs. confession-driven legacy techniques

Investigative Interviewing: Science-Based and Evidence-Driven

Information-gathering interviews, including science-based interviewing (SBI), rely on research-backed strategies such as rapport-building, open-ended questioning, active listening, and structured interview planning. These methods aim to create an interview environment that encourages voluntary cooperative disclosure and thorough accounts of events without contaminating the statement. Techniques like the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) enhance credibility assessment and elicit more case-relevant information through a gradual, non-confrontational presentation of evidence.

Notably, SBI rejects outdated and pseudoscientific tactics, such as nonverbal "lie detection," which bolster biases and create investigative risks by generating false case information. Field studies with law enforcement agencies during real criminal cases confirm that information-gathering strategies yield higher confession rates and better quality information compared to legacy approaches

The Confession-Based Model: Rooted in Presumption, Risk, and Pseudoscience

Confession-based, legacy, and/or accusatory methods operate on an assumption of guilt and aim to elicit admissions through pressure and psychological tactics. These include:

• Minimizing the seriousness of the offense

• Offering moral justifications

• False evidence ploys

• Repeated confrontational questioning

• Shutting down denials

• Determining probable guilt through unproven lie detection

The Danger of False Confessions

Confession-based methods carry real risks. Research shows that these tactics can and do produce false confessions, especially among juveniles and vulnerable individuals. According to the Innocence Project, 25% of DNA-exonerated cases involved false confessions.

Kassin et al. (2010) categorize false confessions into three types:

• Voluntary: Offered without pressure.

• Coerced-compliant: Given to escape a stressful interrogation.

• Coerced-internalized: When the innocent begin to believe they’re guilty.

These false confessions don't just impact the suspect—they derail investigations, allow actual perpetrators to remain free, and undermine trust in the justice system.

The Case Against Accusatory Techniques

Accusatory tactics often involve deception, suggestive questioning, and/or the use of "lie detection" techniques with no scientific grounding. These methods have the potential to taint statements, promote a narrow perspective, squander investigative resources, and potentially result in erroneous convictions.

Setting a confession as the primary goal is short-sighted. It limits the scope of the investigation and often fails to uncover additional evidence that could be corroborated or cross-verified. These tactics are relics of the past, akin to using outdated equipment that not only underperforms but also introduces avoidable risks.

Newer, evidence-based methods not only produce more accurate and complete case information (and a lot of it), but they are also more effective at obtaining reliable confessions without increasing the risk of false case information or false confessions.

Beyond legal jeopardy, accusatory techniques damage public trust in law enforcement. In a time when community relationships matter more than ever, continued use of outdated tactics sends the wrong message to both the public and to future investigators.

Science-Based Interviewing: The Path Forward

Training in information-gathering methods like Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) is essential for any professional investigator, whether in law enforcement, corporate investigations, loss prevention, or compliance roles. These modern approaches are designed to collect more information and more accurate information, making interviews not just longer but more productive, reliable, and verifiable.

SBI shifts the focus from simply extracting a confession to uncovering the facts. It emphasizes preparation, rapport, open-ended questioning, and evidence-based strategies like the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). Research shows these methods significantly increase both the quantity of information (information yield) and its quality (accuracy, verifiability, and case relevance).

Just as important, SBI eliminates reliance on discredited tactics, such as minimization, alternative questions, false evidence ploys (FEP), and nonverbal “lie detection.” These legacy techniques are not only less effective but are also known risk factors for producing false confessions, especially among juveniles and vulnerable individuals.

By training investigators in validated, research-backed methods, we remove the guesswork, reduce investigative errors, and strengthen both public trust and case outcomes. SBI isn’t just a safer option; it’s the smarter, more effective one.

Conclusion: Ethical Interviews, Better Outcomes

The distinction between confession-based and information-gathering approaches isn’t just academic—it determines the reliability of investigations, the safety of innocent people, and the integrity of justice itself. Confession-driven interviews risk false confessions, contaminated statements, and flawed outcomes. In contrast, information-gathering methods like SBI, PEACE, and CI represent a shift toward cooperation, accuracy, and ethical professionalism.

TThe future of investigative interviewing involves more than simply obtaining additional confessions. It’s about getting the truth reliably, accurately, and with scientific support.