Investigative Interviewing for Investigators: The Science-Based Era

Science-based interviewing—also known as investigative interviewing—plays a central role in the pursuit of truth and justice. Research conducted by the RAND Corporation during its landmark study of criminal investigation practices identified interviews as the primary method by which case information is developed, including identifying suspects, clarifying timelines, resolving conflicting accounts, and locating additional evidence. While much of this early research examined traditional investigative approaches of the time, its core finding remains relevant today: interviews are the central engine of information gathering in virtually every investigation.

Patrol Car at an intersection, patrol officers are the first-line investigative interviewers.

Through adaptable evidence-based conversations, interviewers transform verbal accounts into actionable case data. Two important communication skills that are at the heart of effective science-based interviewing are building rapport and active listening. Both of these skills help build trust and encourage open, honest, free-flowing communication, packed with new insights.

Investigative Interviewing Determines Case Outcomes

Every investigation rises or falls on the quality of the information collected. Physical, digital, and forensic evidence are critical, but statements provide the narrative structure that connects facts into a meaningful sequence. Investigative interviews uncover perceptions, decisions, explanations, and contradictions that cannot be accessed through physical evidence alone. When performed effectively, interviews become a powerful tool for corroborating evidence, generating new leads, and evaluating credibility. When performed poorly, interviews risk contaminating memory, reinforcing bias, and limiting essential disclosures.

Investigative interviewing goes far beyond simply recording accounts. High-quality interviews actively discover evidence, uncover previously unknown witnesses, reveal motive and intent, clarify elements of criminal or corporate misconduct, and place physical evidence into its proper context. Interviews often serve as the critical mechanism for corroborating—or disproving—pivotal information long before laboratory results or digital analysis are complete. Information is the foundation and lifeblood of every criminal and corporate investigation. The conclusions reached, the charges filed, the terminations issued, and the reputations protected or destroyed will all hinge on the accuracy of statement evidence. People make significant decisions based on statements provided by those involved. That makes the quality of interviewing not optional but essential. Make it count.

What Is Science-Based Interviewing?

Science-based interviewing and investigative interviewing are interchangible terms and they are the adaptable and trustworthy application of psychological research to information-gathering conversations. Unlike older intuition-based or confrontation-focused approaches, it emphasizes communication strategies that have been empirically tested and shown to improve cooperation, reduce counter-interrogation behaviors, and improve memory recall quality. The goal of science-based interviewing is not merely to obtain admissions or confessions or ask confirmatory questions; it is to elicit complete, reliable, and verifiable information. This approach recognizes that human memory is complex and vulnerable to influence, requiring interviews that support recall rather than distort it.

Rapport Building: The Foundation of Disclosure

Rapport is the foundation on which all meaningful dialogue is built. Researchers define rapport as the sense of connection, trust, and mutual understanding that develops between two people. In investigative settings, rapport is essential because it increases cooperation and reduces resistance, creating an environment where interviewees can speak openly, even when the subject matter is difficult or sensitive. Establishing rapport early in the interview, and throughout, has consistently been associated with greater information yield and enhanced perceptions of fairness.

The Core Question: More Case Information or Less?

At its core, investigative interviewing boils down to one simple question: Do we want more information, or less information?

Rapport-based interviews produce more detailed narratives than interviews driven by confrontation, pressure, or judgment. Coercive or manipulative techniques may provoke brief responses or compliance, but they suppress spontaneous recall, limit detail, and increase the likelihood of unreliable and/or contaminated statements. When rapport is present, communication expands rather than contracts, allowing interviewees to provide deeper, more accurate accounts of events.

Rapport Wins When Pressure Fails

Rapport is not a “feel-good” technique, nor is it a marker of investigators who have “gone soft.” It is a high-stakes operational tool used across the most demanding interview contexts, including national security settings, homicide investigations, sexual assault cases, non-fatal shooting inquiries, and any suspect interviews. Research continues to validate its necessity. A 2025 study concluded that “without rapport, interviewers struggle to overcome suspect resistance in either laboratory or field studies,” demonstrating that cooperation and continued disclosure depend on the interviewer’s ability to establish rapport. Another study found that “highlighting similarity and rapport tactics improved perceptions of rapport and increased both the quantity and quality of information disclosed.” In plain terms: want to be a great detective, officer, or deputy? Learn rapport. It is not about being soft; it is about being effective when the stakes are highest.

Active Listening: Turning Conversation into Evidence

Active listening is another critical skill in science-based interviewing. It is the process of fully attending to the speaker, understanding their meaning, and responding in ways that encourage continued disclosure. Active listening demonstrates genuine interest, strengthens rapport, and guides the conversation without overt control or confrontation.

In practice, active listening enables interviewers to clarify unclear statements, explore inconsistencies without immediate challenge, encourage uninterrupted narrative responses, and show respect that increases cooperation. Rather than interrupting, redirecting, or prematurely confronting discrepancies, science-based interviewers allow people to speak freely while patiently gathering richer investigative data.

Do you want more case information or less?

Rapport and Active Listening: A Great Combo

Rapport and active listening operate together as a single system. Rapport creates the psychological safety necessary for cooperation, while active listening maintains that safety and shapes the interview toward greater clarity. Independently these skills are helpful; combined, they become powerful. When both are applied intentionally, interviews are more likely to yield accurate accounts, greater detail, reduced resistance, and improved reliability.

Conventional interrogation models frequently relied on untested assumptions about deception detection, criminal behaviors, and confessions. Research has consistently demonstrated that coercive tactics, behavioral "lie detection" cues, and confrontational techniques fail to reliably identify deception (54% accuracy; a coin toss) and routinely lower the quality of obtained information. These methods risk causing false confessions, memory contamination, creating false case information, and biased investigative decision-making, while failing to provide consistent investigative advantages.

Science-based interviewing replaces folklore-based tactics with techniques supported by laboratory research, field studies, and real-world validation. These include cognitive interviewing methods that aid memory retrieval, strategic questioning rather than judgment-based interpretations, non-accusatory conversation flow, and the purposeful timing of evidence disclosure designed to maximize informational value.

The result is not softer investigations—it is stronger, more defensible case building.

While commonly associated with law enforcement, science-based interviewing applies to any profession involved in serious fact-finding. Corporate investigators, compliance personnel, insurance examiners, auditors, and human resources professionals all rely on interviews to make high-stakes decisions. Across fields, the objectives are the same: gather accurate information, reduce uncertainty, and support reliable conclusions.

Science-based investigative interviewing represents the modern standard for truth-seeking. By consistently applying rapport-building and active-listening skills within a research-supported framework, professionals increase the quality of information collected while protecting investigative integrity. Effective interviewers do not rely on instinct, pressure, or folklore. They rely on evidence-based communication strategies to elicit more information, reduce investigative error, promote fairness, and strengthen outcomes.

Whether in law enforcement, corporate investigations, or human resources, the choice is clear: rely on techniques that limit information—or adopt science-based interviewing to learn more, decide better, and pursue truth with confidence.

Investigative Interviewing: References

Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477

Dianiska, R. E., Swanner, J. K., Brimbal, L., & Meissner, C. A. (2021). Using disclosure, common ground, and verification to build rapport and elicit information. 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, 27(3), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000313

Kelly, C. E., & Redlich, A. D. (2025). The changing landscape of police interviewing and interrogation. Annual Review of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032924-124727