Science-Based Interviewing: Free, Open-Access Research Every Investigator Should Know About
- Christian Cory
- Jan 4
- 9 min read
When I started my journey into Science-Based Interviewing, I was trying to learn as much as I could and see what the research actually said about interviewing, interrogation, and deception detection. Like many people in law enforcement in the United States (I come from the 90s), my early training came with a lot of certainty. I was told that no one would ever falsely confess to a crime they didn’t commit. I was also taught that certain “validated” lie-detection techniques worked and that anyone who criticized them simply hadn’t walked in my police boots, so ignore them. Of course, after you are reasonably sure of someone's guilt, then start your interrogation, a this many-step process is the best practice for interrogations because confessions are king. We didn't know what we didn't know. We were trained poorly in interpersonal communication.
Years later, the same individual who had taught me “lie detection” acknowledged that they had never produced a successful study supporting those claims. In one case, they openly admitted they never got the “eyes to hit” when referring to research on neurolinguistic programming (NLP). That moment made something else clear to me as well: in some corners of the training world, selling classes and securing contracts mattered more than getting it right in the interview room, despite the very real consequences that interviews have for people, cases, and careers. By this point I had already started moving away from accusatory techniques, they simply don't work as well. Slowing down, building rapport, actively listening, and asking better questions produced more information, reduced problems, and led to better outcomes in interviews and interrogations. Naturally, I wanted to know why and I wanted to see what the research actually showed, since I had already been duped by "scientific"-sounding training and training relying on appeals to authority.
What I found was a growing body of research that challenged old policing assumptions, exposed pseudoscience, and consistently supported information-gathering approaches. The problem wasn’t a lack of research, it was knowing where to find it and how to read it for yourself. What follows are resources that can help you, if you are like me, track down that research, understand what it shows, and stay current as we continue learning more about effective interviewing and interpersonal communication. If your goal is to become the best professional interviewer you can be, these resources are an excellent place to start.
Google Scholar (The Starting Point)
Google Scholar is often the best first stop for Science-Based Interviewing research. It indexes peer-reviewed journals, preprints, dissertations, and open-access manuscripts across psychology, criminology, law, and forensic science.
Why it matters for investigators
Excellent coverage of interrogation, interviewing, and deception research
“All versions” links often lead to free PDFs hosted elsewhere
Citation trails help identify foundational studies and current debates
Resources Available with Investigative Interviewing Search
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2004). Investigative interviewing. In Psychology and law: Theory, research, and application (pp. 11–42). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Eliciting Reliable Information in Investigative Interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548592 (Original work published 2014)
Project Aletheia: Bridging Research and Practice in Science-Based Interviewing
Investigative interviews shape cases long before charging decisions, courtrooms, or appeals. When interviews are grounded in assumptions, pseudoscience, or untested techniques, the risk isn’t abstract, it shows up as contaminated statements, missed information, false confidence, and avoidable harm.
That gap between what research shows and what is often taught is exactly why Project Aletheia was created. High-quality research on interviewing and interrogation exists, but for years it has been fragmented, hard to access, or overshadowed by pseudoscientific training or "the way we've always done it." Project Aletheia serves as a central, practitioner-focused hub that makes credible research, state-of-the-science reports, and applied articles easier to find, easier to understand, and easier to apply without distortion.
Importantly, Project Aletheia’s Train the Trainer program helps forward-thinking agencies get started today by intentionally dumping problematic interviewing practices and junk science and replacing them with Science-Based Interviewing, better communication, and sound interview and interrogation skills. The goal isn’t theory for theory’s sake, it’s getting effective, evidence-based practices into patrol cars, interview rooms, and leadership where they actually influence better investigative outcomes, one case at a time.
Science-Based Interviewing Resources Available on Project Aletheia
Catlin, M. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2025, February). Information-gathering vs. accusatorial techniques. Project Aletheia. https://project-aletheia.org/information-gathering-vs-accusatorial-techniques-2/
Patterson, M. L., Fridlund, A. J., & Crivelli, C. (2023). Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1388-1411. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221148142 (Original work published 2023)
JSTOR
JSTOR provides access to foundational social science, psychology, and legal scholarship that helped shape modern thinking on interviewing and interrogation. Some newer research is still behind paywalls, but JSTOR lets users filter for open-access content, which makes it possible to find free, full-text articles that support Science-Based Interviewing without having to use paid-for sources. Two open-access articles are linked below, both located using JSTOR’s on-site search and citation tools.
Interview and interrogation articles on JSTOR
Eichen, A. (2024). Broken Trust: The Pervasive Role of Deceit in American Policing. Cato Institute. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep63147
Sutliff, U., & Severino, M. (2019). The Art of the Inquiry: The LAPD’s Journey with Science-Based Interview Techniques. Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at Auburn University. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep20760
PubMed (Psychology, Memory, and Decision-Making)
PubMed is widely known for biomedical research, but it also hosts a substantial body of peer-reviewed literature relevant to Science-Based Interviewing, particularly in the areas of memory, cognition, stress, decision-making, and human behavior. Importantly, PubMed allows users to filter results to show only free full-text articles, making it a good source for investigators seeking open-access research without encountering paywalls. Two free, full-text articles are linked below, both identified using PubMed’s built-in filters and citation tools so readers can access and evaluate the research for themselves.
Science-Based Interviewing Related Articles on PubMed
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A. M., & La Fon, D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: a self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and human behavior, 31(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
Krizan, Z., & Jones, M. (2024). Investigative fatigue: how sleep-circadian factors shape criminal investigations. Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society, 5(1), zpae017. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleepadvances/zpae017
ResearchGate (Author-Shared Full Texts)
ResearchGate is one of the most practical resources available to investigators interested in Science-Based Interviewing because it frequently provides free, full-text access to peer-reviewed research uploaded directly by the authors. Many top experts in investigative interviewing, police interrogation, deception detection, memory, and false confessions often share early versions or final copies of their research on ResearchGate, including studies on building rapport, the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), cognitive interviewing, active listening, and the limits of behavioral lie detection. This makes it an especially valuable platform for practitioners who want to read the actual studies being cited in training, policy discussions, or reform efforts rather than relying on summaries or secondary interpretations. ResearchGate also allows users to follow specific researchers and research topics, making it easier to track ongoing developments in Science-Based Interviewing and identify when new empirical findings challenge outdated methods or pseudoscientific practices.
Science-Based Interviewing Related Articles on ResearchGate
Mindthoff, A., Ferreira, P. A., & Meissner, C. A. (2024). The effect of confession evidence on jurors’ verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 48(3), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000563
Pérez-Campos Mayoral, E., Severino, M., Deeb, H., Granhag, P. A., Perez-Campos, E. L., Hartwig, M., & Fallon, M. (2025). Scientific interrogation: The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. European Polygraph, 19(2), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.2478/ep-2025-0010
CORE (Open-Access Aggregator)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories) is one of the largest open-access research aggregators available and is particularly valuable for investigators seeking full-text research that supports Science-Based Interviewing and better interviewing practices. It indexes millions of papers from universities, government repositories, and open-access journals worldwide, making it perfect for locating free versions of peer-reviewed studies on investigative interviewing, police interrogation practices, memory, forensic interviewing, deception detection, and false confessions. CORE is especially useful when a journal article appears to be behind a paywall elsewhere, as it often links to legally available manuscripts, preprints, or institutional copies hosted by the authors’ universities.
Open Source Articles on Science-Based Interviewing on CORE
Brandon, S. E., Wells, S., & Seale, C. (2018). Science-based interviewing: Information elicitation. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1496
Snook, B., Brooks, D., & Bull, R. (2015). A lesson on interrogations from detainees: Predicting self-reported confessions and cooperation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1243–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815604179
ScienceDirect (Abstracts + Some Open Access)
ScienceDirect hosts many of the most frequently cited studies on investigative interviewing, interrogation practices, rapport, evidence disclosure, memory, and decision-making that underpin Science-Based Interviewing. While some content on the platform is subscription-based, ScienceDirect allows users to filter search results to show only open-access articles, making it possible to locate free, full-text research without institutional access. Below are two open-access studies that were found using the "investigative interviewing" search and ScienceDirect’s open-access filter.
Investigative Interviewing Search on ScienceDirect
Danby, M. C., & Sharman, S. J. (2023). Open-ended initial invitations are particularly helpful in eliciting forensically relevant information from child witnesses. Child Abuse & Neglect, 146, 106505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106505
Dando, C. J., & Oxburgh, G. E. (2016). Empathy in the field: Towards a taxonomy of empathic communication in information gathering interviews with suspected sex offenders. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.10.001
SSRN (Law, Policy, and Psychology)
SSRN is a valuable resource for investigators interested in Science-Based Interviewing because it provides free access to working papers, preprints, and policy-oriented research in psychology, law, and criminal justice. Many influential studies on investigative interviewing, police interrogation practices, false confessions, and decision-making appear on SSRN before formal journal publication, allowing practitioners to engage with emerging research early. SSRN is especially helpful for looking at legal and policy papers that criticize coercive interrogation methods and question the scientific validity of behavioral and pseudoscientific lie detection. The citations included below were generated directly using SSRN’s on-page citation tool.
Police Interrogation Search on SSRN
Leo, Richard A. and Kassin, Saul M. and Meissner, Christian A. and Richman, Kimberly D. and Colwell, Lori H. and Leach, Amy and La Fon, Dana, Police Interviewing and Interrogation: A Self-Report Survey of Police Practices and Beliefs (2007). Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 31, 2007, Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2010-12, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1141359
Snook, Brent and Barron, Todd and Fallon, Laura and Kassin, Saul M. and Kleinman, Steven and Leo, Richard A. and Meissner, Christian and Morello, Lorca and Nirider, Laura and Redlich, Allison and Trainum, James, Urgent Issues and Prospects In Reinforcing Interrogation Practices In the United States and Canada (August 7, 2020). Legal and Criminological Psychology (2020), Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2020-14, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3669413
Academia.edu (Author Uploads)
Academia.edu is a researcher-driven platform where scholars often share full-text versions of their work, including studies relevant to Science-Based Interviewing such as investigative interviewing, interrogation practices, rapport, memory, deception, and false confessions. While the platform is not a peer-review publisher itself, many of the papers hosted there are author-uploaded versions of peer-reviewed articles or preprints that would otherwise be difficult to access. For investigators, Academia.edu can be useful for locating full-text research when other sources lead to paywalls. An additional benefit is that users can follow specific researchers and, in some cases, connect with them directly, making it easier to track ongoing work, identify emerging research, and understand how findings may evolve.
CREST (Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats)
CREST (the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats) is a UK-based research partnership that produces high-quality, open-access research on interviewing, interrogation, intelligence gathering, and human behavior in high-stakes contexts. CREST is particularly valuable for practitioners interested in Science-Based Interviewing because it bridges academic research and operational practice, with a strong emphasis on ethics, effectiveness, and evidence over intuition. Its publications frequently address rapport-based interviewing, information elicitation, cognitive and social influences on disclosure, and the limitations of coercive or deceptive tactics. Much of CREST’s work is freely available and written with practitioners in mind, making it a reliable source for understanding how scientifically grounded interviewing principles apply in real-world investigative and security environments.
Detecting Deception and Investigative Interviewing on CREST
Why This Matters for Investigators
Investigative interviews shape cases long before charging decisions, courtrooms, or appeals. When interviews are grounded in assumptions, pseudoscience, or untested techniques, the risk isn’t abstract—it shows up as contaminated statements, missed information, false confidence, and avoidable harm. Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) offers a different standard: methods that are transparent, testable, and continuously refined as the research evolves. The resources in this article exist so investigators can read the evidence for themselves, challenge what they were taught, and make informed decisions in the interview room, where outcomes truly matter.
Science-Based Interviewing is not about adopting the newest fad tactic, it’s about rejecting methods that failed under scrutiny. Many popular “lie detection” techniques collapse when tested against open, peer-reviewed evidence. SBI asks a harder, more professional question: What survives careful testing, replication, and real-world consequences? This mindset protects investigations, investigators, and the people affected by both.
Getting better interviews isn’t about adding tricks, it’s about building systems that value accuracy, information gain, and ethical practice. That’s why Science-Based Interview training and the Project Aletheia Train the Trainer program matter. If you want to get your agency started today on the road to better interviews and ultimately better investigations, investing in evidence-based training creates a shared framework, reduces investigative risk, and builds durable training capability that lasts beyond any single class. The science is available. The choice is whether to use it.
Comments