Science-Based Interviewing

​What is Science-Based Interviewing

Science-Based Interviewing is an evidence-based approach that maximizes information gathering while minimizing risk. Using effective techniques like the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), cognitive interviewing, building rapport, and using active listening, it improves the results of investigations in law enforcement, businesses, human resources, loss prevention, and compliance. Ditch outdated “steps to confession,” so-called tricks, and manipulative tactics; SBI delivers accurate, reliable statement evidence, intelligence, and actionable information.

​​

After all, statements are evidence. Decisions to charge with a crime, clear of wrongdoing, or terminate employment often rest on the words collected in an interview. Those statements influence reports, personnel files, and reputations. So why wouldn’t we treat them with the same care as physical evidence? You wouldn’t collect DNA without gloves or kick a shell casing before photographing it, yet many investigators still rely on outdated, unvalidated methods to “collect” statement evidence. With what research now tells us, continuing to use guesswork or step-by-step confession formulas is no different. We’ve upgraded our technology; computers, record systems, even how we process scenes, but how we conduct interviews has stayed largely the same, despite decades of scientific research showing a better way.

​

Unlike traditional accusatory and legacy models that focus on extracting confessions, Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) is grounded in decades of behavioral and psychological research showing that rapport, transparency, and better questioning elicit more truthful and case-relevant information. The Campbell Systematic Review and its follow-up (Meissner et al., 2012; Catlin et al., 2024) found that information-gathering approaches significantly increase true confessions while reducing false ones, demonstrating that ethical, rapport-driven methods are also the most effective and reliable.

​

Research has indicated that rapport is not “just being nice,” and it certainly shouldn't be an afterthought; it’s a measurable state that improves cooperation and recall. Studies by Abbe and Brandon (2012) and Brimbal et al. (2021) demonstrated that interviewers trained in rapport-based tactics gained more complete and verifiable details, as rapport increases both the quantity and quality of disclosed information. When interviewers use empathy, respect, and adaptive questioning, participants are more willing to share information and correct misunderstandings, key indicators of reliability.

​

Research by Hartwig, Granhag, and Strömwall (2007) into evidence disclosure and strategic questioning found that interviewers who apply the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique can accurately detect deception (85% accuracy) by identifying contradictions between a suspect’s statements and the available evidence, also known as a statement-evidence contradiction. This evidence-based approach allows investigators to rely on verifiable discrepancies rather than intuition or a huntch. Conversely, attempts to identify deception through nonverbal behavior and anxiety cues like fidgeting, eye movements, or posture are only marginally more accurate than chance, with an accuracy rate of approximately 54% (Bond and DePaulo, 2006).

​

Field research on rapport-based interviewing with terrorist suspects (Alison et al., 2013; 2014) confirms that “tough tactics fail and rapport gets results.” Interrogators using adaptive, motivational interviewing behaviors produced greater intelligence yield, while coercive or confrontational tactics reduced cooperation and contaminated information. These findings were replicated in operational police settings, confirming that interpersonal skill—not pressure—is the driving force behind meaningful disclosures.

​

Across multiple studies, one conclusion remains clear:

​

​

​

​

 

​

Brimbal and Jones (2018) found that confession-seeking approaches narrow investigators’ focus to only one side of the case, the admission, while neglecting the equally valuable information contained in denials, lies, and contradictions. Their research compared how jurors perceived confessions versus exposed lies (statement-evidence contradictions) and showed that exposed lies, when properly identified and presented, can be just as powerful in establishing guilt. However, traditional confession-driven methods completely ignore the other aspect of the investigation: the false exculpatory statements, omissions, and inconsistencies that provide crucial insights into the true events and the subject's intentions. By prioritizing the confession above all else, investigators are missing the full story the evidence is trying to tell. In fact, using the proven ineffective legacy methods, you just throw it away.

​

This principle applies equally to private sector investigations. Whether in compliance, corporate security, or human resources, relying on behavioral cues, like eye movements or nervous gestures (which have been taught for years!), amounts to guessing at veracity. Corporate investigators, including those in loss prevention, will often tell us they’ve been trained to “just get a small admission” to something minor, believing that’s enough to prove wrongdoing. But as we’ve seen, there’s no drop in confessions or admissions when it comes to science-based interviewing—there’s simply a shift toward accuracy and completeness. In contrast, applying the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique allows investigators to elicit and identify statement-evidence contradictions that expose deception or confirm honesty. From a code of conduct or internal policy standpoint, the goal isn’t just to obtain an admission; it’s to establish truth through information. If you aim only for confessions, you’re missing the other side of the coin altogether.

​

Whether applied to law enforcement or corporate investigations, human resources or compliance, SBI promotes professionalism, transparency, and trust. It’s not about catching people; it’s about uncovering the truth through more sound information-gathering practices.

​

If you are serious about gathering more accurate, actionable information—and a lot more of it—you need to be consistent and intentional about how you build rapport and structure your questions.