The Case for Modernizing to Science-Based Interviewing Practices

The Legacy of Confession-Driven Methods

For over half a century, many American agencies relied on styles of interrogation built around confrontation, accusation, and pushing for an admission followed by a confession. Tradition, intuition, and anecdotes, rather than empirical testing, drove these methods. Research shows these tactics reduce information yield, increase resistance, and introduce risks to the investigation itself through the production of false case information and false confessions. Field studies have documented that investigators exposed to confession-driven training ask very few open-ended questions and interrupt frequently, which limits the quality and quantity of information collected. In one analysis of police interviews, less than 1 percent of questions were open-ended, and free narratives were almost never used, even though they produce the most accurate and detailed accounts. This historical approach, once considered a best practice, has shaped generations of interviewers and influenced how agencies think about questioning, often keeping them tied to methods that produce short answers, contaminated statements, and missed opportunities.

Science-Based Interviewing gathers more case information over legacy methods.

Risks to Investigations and Prosecutions

Confession-driven tactics introduce significant risks for investigators and law enforcement agencies. Once it is determined a suspect is probably guilty, sometimes through unvalidated lie detection methods, you then move into the interrogation phase. A so many step process designed to elicit an admission followed by a confession. This portion is not designed to collect information, only a confession. Research shows that accusatory approaches increase the likelihood of false confessions which will also distort other evidence in a case. Once a confession is introduced, it can overshadow inconsistencies or weaknesses in the rest of the case. This influences juries, judges, and even investigators. At the same time, harsh questioning reduces cooperation and suppresses valuable details. Studies of real terrorism interviews found that even minimal use of confrontational or maladaptive behavior by an interviewer directly decreased information yield and increased unproductive suspect behavior. In short, confrontational tactics do not help investigators build cases. They create vulnerabilities that can lead to false statements, wrongful confessions, credibility issues in court, and community distrust.

False Confessions, False Case Information, and Contamination

False confessions are rare in absolute numbers, but when they occur, they destroy lives and contaminate entire investigations. Decades of research demonstrate that once investigators believe a suspect is guilty, they are more likely to use tactics that confirm their assumptions. This increases the risk of inaccurate statements and coerced admissions. Contamination is not limited to custodial interrogations leading to confessions. Poor questioning practices contaminate memory by interrupting, imposing story structure, leading the interviewee, or revealing case facts during questioning. Science-Based Interviewing minimizes these risks through the disciplined use of free recall, memory-supported questioning, and Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). These practices protect the integrity of statements and prevent investigators from accidentally shaping the narrative.

Science-Based Interviewing for Patrol, Detectives, and Supervisors

Science-Based Interviewing is not limited to the formal interview room. The same principles that improve suspect interviews also improve street contacts, questioning in the field, follow-up calls, and supervisory reviews. At every level, better questioning leads to better information.

For patrol officers, SBI emphasizes rapport, active listening, and open-ended questions that encourage people to give better statements. A well-timed, neutral question on the street can surface details that would otherwise be missed or distorted by rushed, closed-ended confirmatory questioning. These early interactions often shape the quality of the entire investigation and many times uncover key case facts early on.

For detectives, SBI provides more tools for the interview room. Interviews are planned with clear objectives, red teaming and information on what is needed or understood, not what conclusion is preferred. Questioning strategies are paired with rapport-building and active listening to gather more case information, clarify inconsistencies, and identify information that can be corroborated. SBI, through SUE also supports the development of evidence disclosure plans, helping investigators decide when, how, and why evidence should be introduced without contaminating statements and helping to determine veracity.

For supervisors, SBI offers a common framework for evaluating interviews and coaching investigators. Instead of focusing solely on outcomes, supervisors can assess whether interviews were properly planned, whether questioning promoted disclosure, and whether evidence was used properly.

Supervisors can also assist detectives in formulating evidence disclosure plans—helping them think through what evidence to disclose, when to disclose it, and how disclosure supports information gathering rather than simply late disclosure or confrontation. Just as importantly, supervisors support red teaming efforts by encouraging detectives to challenge assumptions, test alternative explanations, and slow down conclusions. This creates a culture where investigators are continuously thinking, checking themselves, and refining their approach. The result is improved case quality, reduced investigative risk, and more disciplined, defensible decision-making.

Across patrol, investigations, and supervision, SBI strengthens how questions are asked, how answers are heard, and how information is developed, long before a case ever reaches the interview room.

How Science-Based Interviewing Aligns with Legal, Scientific, and Community Expectations

Science-Based Interviewing aligns with what modern policing requires. Courts expect transparency, fairness, and reliability in how statements are collected. Procedural justice research shows that people judge law enforcement not only by the outcome but also by whether they were treated with respect, allowed to speak, and given a fair process. Science-Based Interviewing reinforces these principles by focusing on rapport, neutrality, and open communication. Research from multiple studies demonstrates that rapport-based approaches increase trust, cooperation, and information yield, even with reluctant or high-risk subjects. Science-Based Interviewing also aligns with scientific findings from memory research. Techniques such as free narratives and self-generated memory cues, Cognitive Interviewing, Strategic Use of Evidence, and active listening. This shift supports community expectations for professionalism. Investigators get a set of adaptable communication techniques that help them gather stronger, more defensible case information. So many step interrogation systems do not work with the way human's actually communicate or how investigators are able to conduct interviews.

I know of nothing more likely to defeat its own ends than any form of bullying. Of course, there are officers who are apt to become impatient and irritable when they are called upon to listen to an interminable string of obvious and contradictory lies...but these men seldom get satisfactory results. Often they have come to me baffled, and I have managed to get at the truth by directly opposite methods. - Frederick Porter Wensley, 40 Years of Scotland Yard

Even before formal confession-driven systems took hold, even in the era of the third degree in the USA, experienced investigators

Frederick Porter Wensley, 40 Years of Scotland Yard

understood a fundamental truth about human communication. Rapport works better than pressure. Frederick Porter Wensley’s observation reflects a practical wisdom that predates modern research but aligns with it perfectly. Skilled investigators learned that patience, listening, and respect produced better information than confrontation or impatience. Research supports Wensley's early observations: bullying shuts people down, increases resistance, and obscures the truth, while better engagement allows for interview success. Science-Based Interviewing does not replace this insight. It formalizes it. What seasoned investigators once learned through experience is now supported by decades of research showing that rapport, active listening, honesty, adaptability, and better questioning consistently outperform coercive or rigid step-based interview and interrogation systems. This is simply because this is not how human communication works.

Conclusion

Science-Based Interviewing is not a new technique. Long before these practices had names or research labels, some of the best investigators, like Wensley, intuitively relied on careful questioning, patience, rapport, and disciplined thinking, through red teaming, to gather reliable information. What SBI provides today is structure, evidence, and consistency for interview practices that have always worked when applied.

From initial street encounters to formal interviews and supervisory reviews, SBI improves how information is gathered, interpreted, and tested. Better questioning, supported by rapport and active listening, increases the amount and quality of information obtained for investigators. Planning interviews with clear objectives and evidence disclosure plans helps investigators avoid premature conclusions and statement contamination.

When supervisors reinforce these practices and support red teaming, they create an investigative culture where assumptions are challenged, alternatives are considered, and investigations remain adaptable and self-correcting. Ultimately, SBI strengthens investigations by focusing on information rather than outcomes. It protects the integrity of statements, reduces investigative risk, and supports sound, defensible decisions, benefiting investigators, supervisors, and the communities and organizations they serve.

Science-Based Interviewing References for Law Enforcement Agencies

The following research and publications inform Science-Based Interviewing practices used by law enforcement agencies in the United States and abroad.

Granhag, P.a. and Hartwig, M. (2014). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique. In Detecting Deception (eds P.A. Granhag, A. Vrij and B. Verschuere). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2025). Police-induced confessions 2.0: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 49(1), 7–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000593

Snook, B., Luther, K., Quinlan, H., & Milne, R. (2012). Let ’em talk!: A field study of police questioning practices of suspects and accused persons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1328–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812449216

Wensley, F. P. (1931). Forty years of Scotland Yard: A record of lifetime’s service in the criminal investigation department. Kessinger Publishing.