Science-Based Interviewing: The Gold Standard for Investigations in Public Safety and Private Enterprise

For years, we’ve talked about interview and interrogation and legacy techniques were the standard. Too often, we have relied on these methods, which actually undermine our ability to gather reliable information. This is especially true in confession-driven approaches. The idea behind these tactics is that if a suspect denies involvement early, they’re less likely to confess later. But the problem here isn’t just the techniques; it’s the overall strategy. We’ve

Science-based interviewing, what it is and what it is NOT

been aiming too low as investigators. The past's "best practices" fooled us into thinking we were using sound interviewing and interrogation methods. We were unknowingly hurting our cases and our statement evidence, but now, guided by decades of research, we can upgrade how we communicate during our investigative interviews.

Instead of chasing confessions or trying to be human lie detectors, we should be pursuing better information gathering, a strategy focused on maximizing the quality and quantity of information, essentially what any investigative interview should be. This entails utilizing research-proven techniques to extract more precise, detailed, and valuable accounts.

As we move into a world shaped by artificial intelligence, digital evidence, and recorded interviews, the cost of getting it wrong grows higher. Communication errors, coercive tactics, wasting evidence, and the way we've always done it will be amplified. We are obligated to get it right: to reduce risk, make better case decisions, and build stronger, more defensible cases. In the end, this work is about the victims and making better cases and getting the truth. But truth can’t just be a marketing slogan. It has to be something you pursue through your actions, through the methods you choose to use in every interview.

What is Science-Based Interviewing (SBI)?

I was asked a really good question recently: Who sets the orthodoxy for science-based interviewing? The answer is, soon, someone will (I can't be a spoiler here). Science-based interviewing is not just a trend; it’s an approach grounded in decades of psychological research and growing international consensus on what works better during interviews and what doesn't harm statement reliability.

Science-based interviewing emphasizes rapport, active listening, memory-compatible questioning, and the strategic use of evidence. It’s built around gathering reliable case-relevant information, not coercing confessions. It also deliberately avoids techniques shown through research to amplify investigative biases, increase the risk of creating false case information or, worse, false confessions.

The handling of deception is another crucial distinction. Science-based interviewing, if it uses any deception detection methods at all, sticks to those supported by empirical evidence. It avoids pseudoscientific tactics, including popular claims about body language and behavioral “tells” that amount to little more than guesswork. And when those guesses are wrong, and according to research they are wrong half the time, people end up interrogated, using accusatory tactics, under flawed and risky techniques.

This shift in strategy, accusatory versus information-gathering, for interviews and interrogations isn’t just for law enforcement. Science-based interviewing has additional relevance in compliance investigations, human resources, loss prevention, fraud investigators, and corporate security. These fields, too, have been shaped by confession-driven models that fail to serve the goals of truth, fairness, and risk reduction (despite what their marketing says).

If you care about making better decisions, reducing liability, and uncovering facts that matter, then the path is clear. There’s a better way forward. More information is always better than less—every single time.

What Science-Based Interviewing Is Not

Science-based interviewing deliberately avoids coercion, confrontation, deception, and any method that relies on so-called nonverbal “truth wizards.” These techniques popularized in books, legacy training programs, and TV shows are often packaged with pseudoscientific claims that simply don’t hold up.

Unfortunately, some trainers and companies have started mislabeling their old and repackaged methods as “science-based,” "rapport-based," "evidence-based," or "non-confrontational" to stay relevant and sell courses. Investigators and organizations must remain cautious if they want true professional development. After all, we have been duped out of our training dollars for decades. Here are key warning signs that what you're being sold is not science-based interviewing:

• It assumes guilt from the outset (guilt-presumptive frameworks)

• It has the primary goal of securing a confession

• It includes high-pressure tactics like psychological manipulation, deceit, or false evidence ploys (FEP)

• It uses closed, confirmatory questions (bolsters bias)

• Prisoner's dilemmas

• They encourage not using rapport (there is one out there)

• It encourages a high-stress, adversarial environment to create disclosure or anxiety

• It promotes rigid step-by-step or this-many-step-process formulas or one-size-fits-all strategies (usually aimed at a confession)

• It emphasizes control, dominance, persuasion, and/or "breaking down" the subject (extra risky when the starting point is gaining a confession)

• Bait questions

• Behavioral analysis interviews

• Accusatory

• Human "lie detection" (this has NO place in interviews or interrogations)

• Non-verbal behavior interpretation

• Baselining

• Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)—reading eye movements

• Microexpression training

• Interrupting/shutting down non-confession narratives or explanations

• Black out theme (HUGE red flag)

• Alternative questions/kill questions

• Relies on outdated concepts like theming, maximization, and minimization (downplaying the seriousness of the offense to elicit a confession)

• Early evidence disclosure (aka wasting evidence)

These approaches are not just ineffective; they’re risky. These approaches pose a significant risk to both your reputation and your employer's reputation. Research has shown that techniques like bluffing or creating confrontational atmospheres often lead to increased resistance, contamination of the statement, and, in worst cases, false confessions (Kelly, Parker, Meehan, & McClary, 2024) Science-based interviewing, by contrast, is adaptable, ethical, and built around what actually works when gathering information accurately (communicating better).

Core Elements of Science-Based Interviewing

Science-based interviewing is built on techniques that increase both the quality and quantity of information, reduce resistance, and strengthen the integrity of the investigation. These are not tricks or shortcuts, they are research-backed information-gathering skills that can be learned, practiced, and applied across a wide range of investigative settings.

Curiosity: The Investigator's Mindset That Changes Everything

Curiosity is the mindset that drives outstanding interviews and deep investigations. It shifts your goal from confirming what you think you know to discovering what you don’t know. A curious interviewer isn’t just checking boxes; they’re listening for topics, patterns, contradictions, and overlooked details. Curiosity helps you follow up meaningfully, explore side paths that may lead to critical information, and stay open to alternative explanations for your case. It keeps you engaged, adaptive, and willing to shift strategies when needed. In science-based interviewing, curiosity isn’t a soft skill, it's a necessity. It fuels better questions, deeper understanding, and ultimately, stronger investigations.

Rapport Building as a Tactical Skill

Rapport is not just about being friendly or having polite conversations; it is a deliberate strategy to reduce resistance and facilitate information sharing. When done effectively, rapport-building creates psychological safety for the interviewee and positions the interviewer as a credible, respectful partner in the conversation.

Asking the Right Questions: Open, Strategic, and Purposeful

Science-based interviewing prioritizes open-ended questions and free narrative responses. This allows interviewees to provide details about what a former politician called the “unknown unknowns.” These are details that you may not have even known to inquire about. It leads to more topics, richer context, and case-relevant information you didn’t know to ask for. By gradually narrowing and probing based on disclosed information, strategic questioning continues to dive deeper during investigations.

Active Listening: The Engine Behind Every Good Interview

Active listening is not passive it’s one of the most powerful tools in a science-based interviewer’s skillset. It means listening with intention, not just waiting to ask the next question. This includes using minimal encouragers, paraphrasing key points, reflecting, labeling, and following up on what the interviewee has actually said, not what you expected to hear. Active listening builds rapport and trust, keeps the conversation flowing, and helps you spot inconsistencies, gaps, or new leads. It also signals to the interviewee that their information matters, making them more likely to continue sharing useful details. Done well, active listening increases the quantity and accuracy of the information you receive.

The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)

Evidence isn’t a weapon to just overcome denial or slam down to make your interview go quicker. It’s an opportunity that should be part of your interview strategy. A strategy that should not merely focus on getting a confession; you would be missing half of what your statement could entail. Science-based interviewing uses evidence strategically with SUE, not confrontationally. Research shows that gradual and delayed disclosure, when timed correctly, leads to more accurate information and helps identify inconsistencies without triggering resistance (Kelly, et al., 2024).

The Cognitive Interview and Memory Retrieval

Memory is not a file you open or a recording an individual can just rewind, it’s a process. The cognitive interview supports memory retrieval through scientifically tested mnemonics and structured prompts. These techniques increase both the amount and accuracy of recalled information, especially in victims and witnesses.

Planning and Preparation over Performance and Pressure

Science-based interviews are carefully planned, not improvised performances. They are based on strategy, not pressure. Preparation includes understanding the case, identifying goals, organizing topics, and deciding when (or if) evidence should be introduced.

Red Teaming and Investigative Bias Mitigation

Red teaming techniques help investigators challenge their own assumptions and test alternative theories. This adds another layer of integrity to your interviews and overall investigations. It protects you from confirmation bias and tunnel vision, helping ensure that your questioning strategy is truly exploratory, not just confirmatory.

Adaptability and Ongoing Learning

Science-based interviewing requires continuous growth. It’s about evolving beyond rigid scripts and pressure tactics and learning better ways to communicate and gather accurate, actionable information.

Applications in the Private Sector

Science-based interviewing improves both the quality and quantity of information and that’s exactly what’s needed in the private sector as well. Whether you're conducting employee interviews, handling internal investigations, investigating compliance incidents, or responding to workplace accidents, you have to ask yourself, do you want more information or less?

Unfortunately, many training programs in the private sector still rely on outdated and harmful techniques, bait questions, pseudoscientific lie detection tactics, and confession-seeking approaches that restrict the flow of useful information. These methods don’t just limit the truth; they create false case information and can increase organizational risk.

Science-based interviewing offers a better path, especially for those who want to build a better work product. It reduces the risk of liability from coercive or manipulative practices. It helps protect against costly mistakes like making a wrong disciplinary determination or failing to uncover the full scope of a compliance issue. More importantly, it builds trust. Employees are more likely to report concerns and provide accurate accounts when they feel heard and respected and know that even if they are the focus, they will receive fair treatment.

This approach can be taught across roles, including compliance, HR, security, legal, corporate investigations, and loss prevention. The benefits go beyond the interview itself. More accurate information helps identify breakdowns in policy, procedure, and security protocols, supporting your broader organizational goals of continuous improvement.

The question remains: Do you want more information or less? In every context or discipline, risk, safety, or ethics, more information is always better. Upgrade your interviews.

Conclusion: It’s Time to Upgrade Your Interviewing

We’ve upgraded nearly everything in the workplace and law enforcement, including our physical communication tools, our expectations for professional behavior, equipment, and our policies to reflect modern values. But one area that has largely remained stuck in the past, in both the public and private sectors, is how interviews are conducted. Many organizations are still using methods that trace their roots back to the 1950s or 1960s, strategies rooted in outdated thinking and, over time, padded with pseudoscience rather than research. It's time to upgrade your interviewing, just like you’ll upgrade your computer or software in a year or two without a second thought. Yet somehow, when it comes to investigative interviewing, we keep clinging to a 50-year-old system because, “that’s how we’ve always done it.” Science-based interviewing offers a better, smarter, and more effective way forward for you professionally and your investigative teams. The future of investigations isn’t coming; it’s already here. The only question is whether you and your organization is ready to evolve with it.

Hartwig, M., & Cory, C. (2025, June 24). A paradigm shift in science-based interviewing. Police Chief Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/paradigm-shift-science-based-interviewing/

Kelly, C. E., Parker, M., Meehan, N., & McClary, M. (2024). Evidence presentation in suspect interviews: A review of the literature. The Police Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258x241243286