Executive Summary

The field of investigative interviewing stands at a critical juncture. After decades of relying on tradition-based methods that often produced unreliable information and false confessions, law enforcement agencies across North America are undergoing a fundamental transformation toward science-based interviewing (SBI) techniques. This white paper examines the historical context that drove this transformation, analyzes the current state of research and implementation, and identifies the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

The shift from coercive, confession-driven interrogation methods to rapport-based, information-gathering approaches represents more than a tactical change—it represents a paradigm shift toward evidence-based policing that prioritizes accuracy, reliability, and ethical practice. While significant progress has been made since 2010, when the U.S. government began investing millions in interrogation research, implementation remains uneven across jurisdictions, and substantial work remains to fully realize the potential of science-based methods.

Introduction: The Imperative for Change

The events of September 11, 2001, exposed critical vulnerabilities in how intelligence and law enforcement agencies gathered information from suspects, witnesses, and victims. As Mark Fallon, former chair of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) Research Committee notes, investigators were “getting a lot of bad information… unreliable information… inaccurate information” despite conducting thousands of interviews worldwide. This crisis of reliability sparked a fundamental reexamination of interrogation practices that continues to reshape the field today.

The transformation to science-based investigative interviewing is driven by three compelling factors:

1. the need for more accurate and reliable information to protect public safety,
2. mounting evidence that traditional methods contribute to wrongful convictions, and
3. the availability of validated scientific methods that demonstrably outperform legacy approaches.

Historical Context: From Custom to Science

The Era of “Customary Learning”

For most of the 20th century, investigative interviewing operated under a teach the next generation model—a system where experienced investigators taught newer officers to replicate their methods based solely on perceived success. This approach, exemplified by techniques like the Reid Method, emphasized psychological pressure, deception, and confession-seeking as primary tools. Organizations were driven by an expectation of confession model.

The Reid Technique, developed in the 1940s and 1950s, became the dominant interrogation method in North America. Its nine-step process relied heavily on accusation, confrontation, and psychological manipulation to elicit confessions. Training manuals taught investigators to use tactics such as:

• The “false evidence ploy” (claiming to have evidence that doesn’t exist)
• Minimization and maximization techniques
• Interrogation room isolation and control
• Lengthy questioning sessions designed to wear down resistance

These methods were widely accepted because they appeared effective at obtaining confessions, which were viewed as the gold standard of criminal investigation success.

The Wake-Up Call: Post-9/11 Revelations

The massive intelligence gathering effort following September 11 revealed critical flaws in traditional interrogation methods. The Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) conducted over 10,000 interrogations across multiple countries and detention facilities. Despite this extensive effort, the information gathered was often unreliable, leading to flawed intelligence assessments and misguided policy decisions.

In 2006, President George W. Bush commissioned the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to investigate why traditional interrogation methods were producing such poor results. The resulting study, “Educing Information,” found that law enforcement training academies and agencies were not using scientific methods but rather “coercive approaches and confession-driven approaches that were producing bad information.” These approaches had not changed in years despite changes in technology and application in so many other areas of investigation.

The Obama Administration’s Response

President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13491 in 2009 marked a watershed moment in interrogation policy. The order not only prohibited torture but also established a mandate to identify “the most effective means at obtaining accurate, reliable information.” This led to the creation of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), an inter-agency body that brought together expertise from the FBI, CIA, and Department of Defense.

For the first time in over 50 plus years, the federal government committed substantial resources to research-based interrogation methods. The HIG’s research program has since funded over 150 government-sponsored research projects, resulting in more than 225 peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.

The Scientific Foundation

Key Research Findings

The body of research developed through the HIG and related programs has established several scientifically valid and fundamental principles:

1. Rapport-Based Methods Are More Effective: Multiple studies have demonstrated that rapport-building techniques consistently outperform coercive methods in obtaining accurate information. Research by investigators like Dr. Maria Hartwig and Pär Anders Granhag has shown that building trust and connection with interviewees leads to more voluntary disclosure and higher-quality intelligence.
2. Coercive Methods Produce False Positives: Perhaps the most significant finding has been that traditional confession-driven methods are effective at obtaining confessions from both guilty and innocent individuals. DNA exonerations have revealed that approximately one-third of wrongfully convicted individuals had falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit.
3. Information-Gathering Trumps Confession-Seeking: Modern research demonstrates that focusing on gathering accurate, verifiable information rather than obtaining confessions leads to better case outcomes. Juries are as likely to convict based on demonstrated deception as they are based on confessions.

Validated Techniques

The research has produced several scientifically validated interviewing techniques now taught in science-based programs:

The Cognitive Interview Developed by Geiselman and Fisher, this technique uses psychological principles to enhance memory recall. It focuses on reinstating context, encouraging detailed narratives, and using varied retrieval methods to maximize accurate information gathering.

The Scharff Technique Based on the methods of World War II Luftwaffe interrogator Hanns Scharff, this approach emphasizes building rapport, finding commonalities, and creating a depressurized environment that encourages voluntary disclosure.

Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) Developed by researchers at the University of Gothenburg, SUE involves the strategic revelation of evidence to distinguish between truthful and deceptive responses while avoiding contamination of witness statements.

ORBIT (Observation Rapport-Based Techniques) This framework identifies four characteristics of elite interviewers: honesty, empathy, autonomy-granting, and reflectiveness. ORBIT focuses on managing both the interviewee’s behavior and the interviewer’s own conduct.

Current State of Implementation

Federal Agency Adoption

The transformation has progressed most rapidly at the federal level. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) has completely revamped its training programs to use science-based methods exclusively. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) became the first federal agency to mandate both science-based interviewing and recording of all interrogations.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) serves as the U.S. government’s primary entity responsible for developing, disseminating, and deploying ethical, lawful, science-informed interviewing techniques. The HIG continues to serve as the center of excellence for research and training in this field.

State and Local Progress

Implementation at state and local levels has been more variable. Several jurisdictions have emerged as leaders:
California: Among the first states to mandate recording of interrogations and ban deception in juvenile interrogations. The state has trained hundreds of officers in science-based methods.

Progressive Departments: Agencies like the Los Angeles Police Department and Wichita Kansas Police Department have completely revamped their training programs and now train other departments in science-based methods.

Training Evolution: Ten states have passed laws banning the practice of lying to juveniles in custody during police interrogations. Now, one state wants to extend the ban to adults too. This represents growing momentum toward eliminating deceptive practices.

Implementation Challenges

Structural Barriers

Decentralized System: Unlike countries with national police forces, the United States’ decentralized law enforcement structure means that over 18,000 separate agencies must individually decide to adopt new methods. This creates significant implementation challenges and uneven progress.

Resource Constraints: Many smaller departments lack the resources for comprehensive retraining. Science-based training typically requires 3-5 days of intensive instruction, compared to shorter traditional/legacy programs.

Leadership Resistance: Some agency leaders without benefit of the state of research remain skeptical of methods that appear to “take away tactics” that officers have traditionally relied upon.

Cultural and Psychological Barriers

Identity Challenges: Asking interviewers to give up methods they have “successfully” used, many for decades challenges their professional identity. Many officers believe that because they’ve obtained confessions using traditional methods, and they consider themselves ethical, the methods themselves must be acceptable. This is an ignorance of the science that must be overcome.

Misconceptions About Effectiveness: Some practitioners worry that rapport-based methods will be less effective, despite research showing significantly that the opposite is true.

Training Gaps: Many current instructors were trained in traditional methods and may lack expertise in science-based approaches. This is especially true with providers that are financially driven and have created fiefdoms with material that is no longer valid or acceptable.

Systemic Issues

Delayed Feedback: Unlike use-of-force incidents that are immediately visible, the negative consequences of poor interrogation practices often don’t emerge for years, when appeals or DNA evidence reveal false confessions.

Financial Disconnect: The costs of wrongful convictions—over $4 billion paid out since 1989—typically impact city and state budgets rather than individual department budgets, reducing incentives for change.

Legal Lag: Courts and prosecutors often lag 10-15 years behind the science, meaning that problematic methods may still be legally acceptable even when they’re scientifically discredited.

International Perspectives

The United States lags behind many democratic nations in adopting science-based interviewing methods. Most European countries prohibit police deception during interrogations, and many have implemented comprehensive investigative interviewing training programs based on scientific research.

Canada has made significant progress in some jurisdictions, with both the common law and the Charter providing protection against false confessions, though implementation remains uneven across provinces.

The Economic Case for Change

The financial argument for science-based interviewing is compelling. Since 1989, taxpayers have paid over $4 billion in compensation for wrongful convictions, with false confessions playing a role in approximately one-third of these cases. This figure represents only a fraction of the actual costs, as it doesn’t include:

• Investigation and prosecution expenses for wrongful cases
• Costs of appeals and post-conviction litigation
• Opportunity costs of not pursuing actual perpetrators
• Damage to community trust and police legitimacy

Research suggests that science-based methods not only reduce these costs but also improve case clearance rates and conviction quality by providing more reliable information.

The Path Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Policy Reforms

Mandatory Recording: Universal recording of interviews provides accountability, training opportunities, and protection for both officers and subjects.

Prohibition of Deception: Following the lead of states banning deception with juveniles, extending these protections to adult interviews would align U.S. practices with international standards.

Training Standards: Establishing minimum training requirements for investigative interviewing, similar to requirements for other critical police functions.

Continuing Education: Regular refresher training and competency assessment to ensure skills remain current.

Organizational Change Strategies
Leadership Engagement: Change must be driven from the top, with chiefs and sheriffs championing science-based methods.

Gradual Implementation: Successful departments often implement changes gradually, starting with specialized units before expanding agency-wide.

Peer Networks: Professional organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police play crucial roles in disseminating best practices.

Recommendations

For Agency Leaders

1. Commit to Science-Based Methods: Make a clear organizational commitment to adopting validated interviewing techniques.
2. Invest in Quality Training: Allocate resources for comprehensive training programs that go beyond basic awareness.
3. Implement Recording Policies: Establish policies requiring recording of all interviews, not just interrogations.
4. Create Accountability Systems: Develop supervision and quality assurance processes to ensure consistent application of science-based methods.
5. Engage with Research: Partner with academic institutions and stay current with emerging research.

For Policymakers

1. Support Legislative Reform: Consider laws prohibiting deception and mandating recording, following successful models from other jurisdictions.
2. Fund Training Programs: Provide grant funding to help smaller agencies implement science-based training programs.
3. Establish Standards: Work with professional organizations to establish minimum training standards for investigative interviewing.
4. Support Research: Continue funding research on investigative interviewing effectiveness and implementation.

For Training Organizations

1. Update Curricula: Eliminate confession-driven methods and focus exclusively on science-based approaches.
2. Develop Specializations: Create specialized programs for different types of interviews (victims, witnesses, suspects) and populations.
3. Emphasize Practical Application: Ensure training includes extensive hands-on practice with feedback.
4. Maintain Currency: Stay current with research developments and continuously update training materials.

For Practitioners

1. Embrace Continuous Learning: Recognize that effective interviewing requires ongoing skill development.
2. Focus on Information Gathering: Shift mindset from confession-seeking to information-gathering.
3. Build Rapport: Invest time in building genuine rapport with interviewees.
4. Document Thoroughly: Maintain detailed records and use recording when possible.
5. Stay Informed: Keep current with research developments and best practices in the field.

Conclusion: A Transformation in Progress

The transformation to science-based investigative interviewing represents one of the most significant developments in modern policing. After decades of relying on tradition and assumption, the field is finally grounding its practices in rigorous scientific research. The evidence is clear: science-based methods are more effective at gathering accurate information, reduce the risk of false confessions, and align with ethical policing standards.

However, this transformation is far from complete. While federal agencies and progressive departments have embraced science-based methods, thousands of agencies across North America continue to rely on outdated techniques. The challenge now is to accelerate adoption while maintaining quality and ensuring that the transition is supported by adequate training and resources.

The stakes could not be higher. Every false confession represents not only an injustice to the wrongly accused but also a failure to hold the actual perpetrator accountable. Every time inaccurate information is gathered, public safety is compromised. Every time police use methods that damage trust, community relationships suffer.

The tools for success are available. The research is robust and continuing to grow. Training programs are becoming more sophisticated and accessible. Professional organizations are supporting the transition. What remains is the will to complete the transformation.

Our ethical focus must be our primary concern, integrity is at the core of our mission—a return to the highest professional standards that the public should expect from law enforcement. The agencies and officers who embrace this transformation will not only serve their communities more effectively but will also experience greater professional satisfaction from knowing their methods are both ethical and effective.

The future of investigative interviewing is bright, but realizing that future requires continued commitment from leaders, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. The transformation that began in the shadow of 9/11 must continue until science-based methods become the standard practice in every interview room across North America.

The journey from custom to science is not yet complete, but the destination is clear: a future where investigative interviewing is grounded in evidence, guided by ethics, and focused on the fundamental mission of seeking truth in service of justice.

Anderson Investigative Associates, Copyright 2025. This white paper represents current understanding of science-based investigative interviewing as of 2025. The field continues to evolve rapidly, and practitioners are encouraged to stay current with emerging research and best practices.