Science-Based Interviewing and the Hidden Cost of Self-Handicapping Questions
- Christian Cory
- Dec 26, 2025
- 5 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Science-Based Interviewing is grounded in research on memory, communication, and decision-making. Its goal is simple: gather more information, more reliable information while reducing bias and error.
Sometimes, though, the most damaging interview failures don't come from bad tactics or coercive methods. They come from small, seemingly routine questions that quietly shut down information before it ever surfaces.
These are what I dubbed self-handicapping questions, a type of confirmatory questioning, and they hurt investigations by cutting off potential sources without the interviewer or case detective ever realizing it.
This article is not about a specific named Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) technique. What follows comes from my experiences responding to, conducting, and managing criminal investigations, including catching myself doing this early in my career, watching it play out later on body-worn camera footage, and recognizing it as a recurring pattern in my cases. As a case detective and later investigations supervisor, much of this work involved trying to mitigate the downstream damage caused by early, well-intended questions that quietly limited information.
Why This Isn’t a Named SBI Technique (and Why It Still Matters)
To be clear: self-handicapping questions are not a formal Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) method. They surface most often in real-world policing conditions, on the way to a call, during initial scene response, while conducting quick canvasses, or in fast-moving, dynamic scenes where officers, deputies, or investigators are trying to locate witnesses and sort, sometimes dynamic, chaos into something manageable. These questions are rarely asked with bad intent. They usually occur under time pressure (real or perceived) and with incomplete information, and the askers have the understandable urge to quickly identify who “matters” to the investigation. The problem is that, in those moments, these assumption-laden questions can quietly exclude people who hold relevant information long before its value is known or needed.
What Is a Self-Handicapping Question?
A self-handicapping question is a type of closed-ended question, one that limits information by taking on the interviewer’s early assumptions about relevance or role. Some common examples include
“Did you witness anything?”
“Did you even see what happened?”
“Were you a witness to anything?”
“You didn’t see anything, right?”
These questions seem harmless enough, after all, we are looking for information, trying to figure out what is going on. They are not. Sometimes they will hurt an investigation indefinitely and unknowingly.
They force a potential source of information to decide, for you, immediately and sometimes without much information at all, whether they meet your unknown definition of relevance.
Red Teaming the Assumption Behind the Question
Red teaming is the deliberate practice of challenging our assumptions before they harden into conclusions. In investigative work, it means slowing down just enough to ask whether the way we’re framing a problem—or a question in this case—actually holds up under scrutiny. By intentionally stress-testing assumptions, red teaming helps investigators avoid blind spots, reduce self-created errors (like these questions!), and strengthen both case development and interview planning before those assumptions quietly shape outcomes.
The Hidden Premise
Questions like “Were you a witness?” are built on assumptions:
A witness is someone who saw the incident
Seeing the core event is what makes information valuable
The interviewee shares this definition
In reality, none of those assumptions are reliable when it comes to investigative work. Most of us have heard some version of it on scenes, during neighborhood canvasses, or in early interviews: “I didn’t see anything, I only heard yelling,” “I only heard the gunshots,” or “I only saw him leaving.” Those “I only” statements are not irrelevant, but they are often taken for granted by the witness. They are, in fact, often direct evidence that speak to persons, actions, times, opportunities, locations, capabilities, abilities, and even elements of crimes. When someone minimizes their experience, and we accept that minimization through our initial questioning inquiry, we risk cutting off an information source that may later prove critical to understanding what actually happened.
What Has to Be True for This Question to Work
For the question to function as intended, the person must:
Conceptualize themselves as a “witness”
Understand, as a layperson, what details may matter later, even in court
Accurately judge their relevance to a bigger picture in the moment
Most people don’t and won't.
Some witnesses will hear something important. Some noticed behavior before or after the incident in question. Some received an outcry statement or phone call. Others observed people, vehicles, or movement that only became relevant later.
When asked a self-handicapping question, many answer “no,” and walk away with valuable case information.
How These Questions Quietly Remove People From Investigations
Self-handicapping questions don’t shut people down. They rule them out.
They often occur during:
Initial scene responses
Neighborhood canvassing
Rapid triage interviews
“Quick checks” near a location
A narrow “no” response can result in:
No documentation as a witness
No follow-up (because they are potentially unknown)
No re-contact when the investigation evolves
This is erroneously excluding a witness, not a refusal to cooperate.
The investigation doesn’t fail, it simply narrows incorrectly.
Why These Questions Fail With Everyone
Cooperative people answer narrowly and self-exclude
Deceptive people take the easy exit, it was given to them
Uncertain or reluctant people also self-exclude
Where Science-Based Interviewing Still Applies
Science-Based Interviewing doesn’t label this problem, but it can prevent it and correct it with a small adjustment to your lead question.
SBI emphasizes:
Letting people talk through better questions and active listening
Being curious
Allowing information to emerge before narrowing
Self-handicapping questions do the opposite.
Replacing Self-Handicapping Questions With Information-Generating Prompts
Avoid
“Did you witness anything?”
“Did you see what happened?”
“You didn’t see anything, right?”
Ask Instead
“Tell me what just happened.”
“What have you noticed so far?”
“Walk me through how you came to be at this location.”
“What did you experience around that time?”
These prompts remove assumptions and restore narrative control.
If someone says, “I didn’t see anything, I only heard yelling,” the interview isn’t over.
It begs the next question: “Tell me what you heard.”
The Cost of Speed Without Structure
These questions often appear during rushed activity. Speed is real, but assumptions are not required for efficiency.
Open-ended prompts often take less time and yield more usable information. A simple quick fix that I hope yields many new witnesses.
Conclusion
Getting rid of self-handicapping questions isn’t a complicated fix. The first step is simply noticing that you’re asking them and recognizing when you’re letting other people, through your assumptions, dictate the direction of a case.
Once you do that, the solution is straightforward. Replace assumption-laden questions with simple, open-ended questions that require a response: questions that ask what happened, what was noticed, or how someone came to be where they are. Those prompts quickly frame whether a person saw something, heard something, or experienced something, any of which could turn into officer-safety information, suspect information, or a key future witness.
You rarely know in the moment what information will matter later. Allowing people to speak freely gives you time—time to identify potential witnesses, time to evaluate responses, and even time on BWC with individuals who may ultimately be uncooperative.
This is a small adjustment, but it helps prevent forced errors, errors we create ourselves. A simple shift to simple open-ended questions sets the conditions for stronger follow-up interviews, better information flow, and ultimately better investigative outcomes. You may even be the hero of the incident by turning up that unknown, unknown that can break a case wide open, preserve evidence, get justice, or all of the above.
Comments