Interview and Interrogation Training: America’s Outdated Playbook
- Christian Cory
- 5 days ago
- 8 min read
I have an admission and a confession to make. I was all in on accusatory and legacy methods. I believed in them, defended them, and taught them. Until they failed me. Case after case, I started seeing the cracks, the inconsistencies, the missing context, and the interviews that felt productive in the moment, but looking back, there was a lot left on the table. Then something shifted. When I began using the same skills I relied on as a salesman and crisis negotiator—rapport, empathy, and active listening—I started getting better interviews. Not just with victims and witnesses, but with suspects too. The more I listened, the more I learned. That’s when I realized it wasn’t the people or the cases that were broken; it was the systems and so-called "best practices" we were trained in.
Like clockwork, I hear the same thing: guardians of the past defending the old ways of interview and interrogation as if time stood still. It’s not difficult to understand why. Many don't want to be a part of something bad, and they want to protect the legacies we built when we didn't have better tools. There was no malice in it; this was how we were trained, and these were the methods we were given. But the world changed. DNA exonerations shattered the long-held belief that no one would falsely confess to a crime they didn’t commit. The evidence forced us to face an uncomfortable truth: good, even noble, intentions don’t make broken tools work. Using outdated, confession-driven techniques is like using a broken compass to go north and being surprised at the wrong geographical outcome. We’ve upgraded everything else in investigations, DNA, surveillance cameras everywhere, license plate readers, digital cell phone forensics, and data analytics to give us an edge. So why the hard pushback against upgrading the way we interview and interrogate?
Interview and Interrogation Training: Interrogation Methods
Getting the confession has been the main goal of interview and interrogation training in the US for over half a century. Detectives and investigators were taught that success meant getting people to comply with what they believed to be the truth. The more someone denies, and that is to be shut down or they will never confess, the harder the interrogator pushes. The courses focused heavily on body language "tells," nervous behaviors, and closed-ended questions that were meant to confirm pre-existing case theories (confirmation bias) rather than clarify. A lot of us grew up professionally in that system; it was the only one we had. After all, the popularly held belief was, who would confess to a crime they didn't commit?
The issue is that these accusatory models were designed for control and compliance rather than communication. They teach investigators to take charge or be in control of the conversation, to cut people off, to see every pause or tick as possible guilt, and to think that being sure means being right. It rewards confirmation bias, thwarts investigative inquiry, and punishes curiosity. When investigators enter the room to validate guilt, they generally stop considering or explain away evidence that may refute it. Instead of using sound communication skills like active listening, empathy, and building rapport, which gather more and a higher quality of information, they use techniques that keep the actual truth from coming out. The truth, they claim, is what they are there for.
How to Interrogate Someone: Even Google Gets it Wrong
A late-night search for “how to interrogate” brings up all the usual suspects: dominance, direct confrontation, alternative themes, and even bait questions. The problem isn’t just that these suggestions exist; it’s that they reflect what’s still being taught in too many interview and interrogation training programs across the country. These legacy methods are so deeply rooted that even artificial intelligence mirrors them back to us when we ask. They promise control, quick results, and confessions, but in practice they contaminate statement evidence, create confirmation bias, create more resistance in subjects, and often generate false or misleading information.
Here’s the kicker: if you actually want more confessions, or at least no drop in them, field-validation studies show that Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) produces more true confessions.
The Interrogation Movie Myth: Breaking the Confession Obsession
It isn’t only the outdated interview and interrogation training; it’s cultural conditioning. Television, movies, social media, and Google searches have reinforced a false image of what a “good interrogation” looks like (maybe we should get rid of the word altogether). The public, and even many practitioners, have been conditioned to believe that raising your voice, showing evidence early, using clever tricks, asking behavior-provoking questions, "detecting lies," or playing psychological chess means you’re good at your job. Those are the hallmarks of an accusatorial system that mistakes these aforementioned techniques for skill. The reality is that these methods have never been proven effective by research; they simply look effective to those who don’t know better.
I’ve lived it firsthand. I once had a full year of homicide investigations without a single confession but my evaluation noted I didn't get a single confession. Every case was cleared, the suspect(s) was charged, and eventually every suspect was convicted. Not because anyone admitted guilt, but because the case was built on information and evidence. Reliable details, negative statements (false exculpatory statements), corroboration, and strong case management won the day. Confessions are powerful, but when they become the goal instead of the byproduct of good interviewing, we’ve lost sight of what makes investigations work: reliable information.
We need to retire the outdated belief that “getting the confession” is the pinnacle of interview or interrogation success. A real investigator measures success not by a suspect’s admission but by the quality of the information gathered, the fairness of the process, and the integrity of the evidence. After all, what if they never confess? What is the plan then? You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube once you contaminate your statement by dumping evidence. When we focus on gathering information instead of forcing it, we achieve both better cases and better outcomes for investigators, for justice, and for the public we serve.
Body Language: I Can Read Your Mind
The idea that investigators can “read” lies through micro-expressions, neurolinguistic programming, fidgeting, or nervous body language refuses to die. Many interview and interrogation training programs still sell this myth, often dressed up with pseudo-scientific jargon or Hollywood flair. It’s marketed as intuition, but it’s really an illusion, a comforting shortcut that tells investigators they can see deception rather than do the harder work of eliciting and testing information. Funny though, no one is selling "truth detection," so if you look for lies, you will find them.
What often gets overlooked is how these so-called lie cues stick around in the first place. Everyone has a story about the time they “knew” someone was lying and turned out to be right. You only hear about the times they were right, not the many times they were wrong—just like with psychics, fortune-tellers, or anyone selling certainty. There’s no feedback loop, no audit, no tally of the misses. It creates the illusion of perfect accuracy, as if intuition never fails. My own professional experience tells a very different story. And when one of these judgments collapses under real scrutiny, what are you supposed to rely on next time? In criminal justice, the stakes aren’t feelings or hunches; they’re freedom, justice, and the potential for irreversible harm. No one would hire a psychic to investigate a crime, yet we still allow these techniques to masquerade as skill.
What the research says: Decades of peer-reviewed studies show that humans are barely better than chance, about 54% accuracy, when attempting to detect deception through behavioral cues. Even trained professionals perform no better. This misplaced confidence doesn’t sharpen investigative skill, to the contrary. Overconfidence in so-called “lie detection” feeds confirmation bias, leading investigators to interpret neutral behaviors as deceptive and to ask questions designed to confirm guilt, creating false case information, rather than explore the actual truth. Once that anchor sets in, the interview shifts from discovery or curiosity to defense of a theory.
The outcome: investigators, anchored in false case information through the use of non-validated tactics and accusatory interviewing methods, stop listening. They miss or even shut down answers that could have exposed lies and verifiable details that could have revealed the case truth. Genuine Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) takes the opposite approach; it replaces guessing with active listening, rapport building, and open-ended questions that draw out uncontaminated and verifiable information. The goal isn’t to read people like a psychic; it’s to understand them like an investigator. The truth doesn’t hide in a twitch or an upward glance; it hides in the details you never asked about because you thought you already knew the answer.
Science-Based Interviewing Training: Better Communication Skills
Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) changes the entire game plan. It's not about making people follow the rules or maintaining control; it's about getting information. SBI delivers more accurate, verifiable information by using evidence-based methods like open-ended questions coupled with self-directed memory cues, building rapport, and active listening. The investigator doesn't try to get a confession; instead, they seek to gather the most amount of information. They look for verifiable details, within-statement contradictions, and statement-evidence contradictions, which allows for a more comprehensive look at any case. They don't pay attention to body language (something you won't testify to in court); instead, they pay attention to maximizing information, what's said, what's left out, and how the details fit into the bigger picture.
This change doesn't make investigators less tough or "soft"; it makes them smarter and more effective. Every answer is a piece of case data, and every pause is a chance to learn more. Using science-based methods helps investigators reduce bias, make their case more reliable, and improve the integrity of the whole investigation. When the goal is to get information instead of an "admission followed by a confession," investigators don't just close cases; they make them.
Here’s the kicker: if you actually want more confessions, or at least no drop in them, field-validation studies show that Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) produces more true confessions. Couple that with higher quality and greater quantities of information, and your interview and interrogation choice is obvious. Why cling to a system that’s been proven to cause harm through false confessions and deliver less information and even fewer confessions, the very thing it was designed to produce? SBI doesn’t weaken outcomes; it strengthens every part of the investigative process.
Now that we have decades of research, over 200 peer-reviewed publications supported by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), the verdict is in. Field-validation studies (actual law enforcement cases) show that investigators trained in Science-Based Interviewing gather more information, and the information they gather is of higher quality and higher quantity. Simply put, they gather more information that is relevant to the case. We also know that human "lie detection" and reading body language are little more than guesses that create false case information and embolden biases, not investigative tools. With this much evidence, continuing to rely on legacy interrogation methods isn’t tradition; it’s unacceptable complacency. If we ignore the science, we will remain willfully ignorant information gatherers, uninformed commanders, and organizationally complacent police executives.
Every call for service, every interview, and every moment captured on a body-worn camera is an opportunity to gather information that matters. Small changes, more open-ended questions, more active listening, and more rapport building will elevate the entire system. After all, more information is better than less information, every single time. Remember, AI is coming and it wants more information and more accurate information to help you solve cases.
Interview and Interrogation Training References:
Bond, C. F., Jr, & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
Brimbal, L., & Jones, A. M. (2018). Perceptions of suspect statements: a comparison of exposed lies and confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law: PC & L, 24(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2017.1390111
Catlin, M., Wilson, D., Redlich, A. D., Bettens, T., Meissner, C., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2024). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(4), e1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1441
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024). High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Fbi.gov. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/high-value-detainee-interrogation-group
Maria Hartwig and Christian Cory, “A Paradigm Shift in Science-Based Interviewing: Interrogating to Elicit True and False Exculpatory Statements,” Police Chief Online, June 18, 2025.
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D. J., Brandon, S. E., Wells, S., Kleinman, S. M., Ray, D. G., & Jones, M. S. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of a 5-day training on science-based methods of interrogation with U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement investigators. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, 30(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000422
Vrij, A. (2011). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.