We have focused on the relationship between procedural justice and issues like trust, strategic empathy, and effective listening. Not steering far from this, if we are implementing the tenets of procedural justice can we keep doing interviews in a way that are legacy based and not science-based? We must consider where we are at as individuals and where or organizations are at, to make a decision about the path going forward.
As in the last several articles, there are a couple of foundational thoughts we must ponder. What is our organizational mission? Are we in the interview to get the greatest quantity and quality of truthful information? If the number one reason interviewees tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what does using coercive practices and dominating the interview result in? The result is the antithesis of our organizational mission and goals. Stop stepping on your own progress.
Introduction
For decades, law enforcement agencies around the world have relied on coercive interrogation techniques, often believing them to be the most effective way to obtain confessions and uncover the truth. In the United States, a direct confrontation method has been the most widely instructed technique for years, incorporating psychological pressure, deception, and confrontational tactics to elicit confessions. However, research has shown that these methods can lead to false confessions, memory contamination, and miscarriages of justice.
In contrast, science-based investigative interviewing—rooted in psychology, cognitive science, and procedural justice—has emerged as a much more effective and ethical alternative. This article debunks common misconceptions about traditional interrogation tactics and highlights evidence-based approaches that yield more reliable, accurate, and legally sound outcomes.
Myth #1: Coercion and Pressure Lead to the Truth
Debunked: Coercion Increases the Risk of False Confessions
One of the biggest misconceptions in law enforcement is that applying psychological pressure and stress compels guilty individuals to tell the truth. However, numerous studies and real-world cases demonstrate that coercive techniques often push innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit.
- Case Example: The Central Park Five (1989) – Five teenagers falsely confessed to a brutal crime after hours of intense interrogations, only to be exonerated years later when DNA evidence and the real perpetrator’s confession surfaced. Their wrongful convictions were largely due to coercive tactics.
- Scientific Evidence: Research by Dr. Saul Kassin, a leading psychologist in false confessions, has shown that stress, sleep deprivation, and lengthy interrogations increase compliance and suggestibility, making individuals more likely to confess falsely.
Science-Based Alternative: There are numerous science-based interview models that emphasize rapport-building, open-ended questioning, and active listening, reducing psychological stress while obtaining more accurate and voluntary information.
Myth #2: Detecting Deception Through Body Language is Reliable
Debunked: Human Deception Detection is No Better Than Chance
Many interrogation techniques are based on the flawed assumption that body language cues—such as fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, or hesitating—indicate deception. This approach is continually taught in numerous different areas by a gaggle of supposed experts, but the science is not there to support it. Motivationally, I am convinced that these phony practitioners are focused on financial gain, not truth. However, scientific studies have debunked this belief:
- Research Findings: A meta-analysis by Dr. Aldert Vrij, an expert in deception detection, found that people (including law enforcement officers) correctly identify deception only about 54% of the time—barely better than chance.
- Real-World Consequences: Misinterpreting normal nervous behavior as deception can lead to confirmation bias, where investigators focus only on evidence that supports their suspicion while ignoring contradictory facts.
Science-Based Alternative: Instead of relying on body language, the Cognitive Interviewing (CI) technique encourages interviewees to recount events in detail and from multiple perspectives, making it easier to spot inconsistencies in genuine versus fabricated stories. Our abilities to detect deception are much more effective verbally, than non-verbally.
Myth #3: Good Interrogators Must Dominate and Control the Interview
Debunked: A Non-Confrontational Approach Yields Better Results
Traditional interrogation often promotes a power imbalance, where the interrogator exerts control over the suspect through intimidation, leading questions, and even deception. However, research shows that such an approach will reduce cooperation and lead to unreliable information.
- Case Study: The Norwegian K.R.E.A.T.I.V. Interview Model, which emphasizes respect, neutrality, and open dialogue, has been shown to increase confession rates without coercion. Norwegian law enforcement officials report higher levels of cooperation and better case resolution.
- Psychological Research: Studies by Dr. Laurence Alison, a forensic psychologist demonstrates that interviews emphasizing rapport, empathy, and fairness lead to higher-quality information retrieval compared to aggressive or manipulative tactics.
Science-Based Alternative: The Scholars and Practitioners Model, used in the UK and other countries, encourages interviewers to create a conversational environment that reduces resistance and encourages truth-telling.
Myth #4: The Goal of an Interrogation is to Obtain a Confession
Debunked: The Goal Should Be Information-Gathering
Many traditional interrogation techniques are designed with the sole purpose of securing a confession—often ignoring the possibility that the suspect may actually be innocent. This tunnel vision has led to countless wrongful convictions.
- Wrongful Conviction Example: The Norfolk Four Case (1997) – Four Navy sailors were coerced into falsely confessing to a crime they did not commit. DNA evidence later proved their innocence, but only after they had spent years in prison.
- Scientific Perspective: Research in investigative interviewing suggests that when interviewers focus on fact-finding rather than confession-seeking, they obtain more accurate and detailed accounts. If that information reveals wrongful conduct, that too will come out.
Science-Based Alternative: The Information-Gathering Approach, supported by law enforcement agencies in Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe, prioritizes truth-seeking over confession-seeking—leading to higher-quality evidence and fewer false confessions.
Conclusion: Science-Based Interviewing is the Future
Despite my ability to go on doing things the way I always had done them, because of antiquated legacy training I had received. The evidence is clear: traditional, coercive interrogation methods are outdated, unreliable, and often harmful to the pursuit of justice. Science-based investigative interviewing, grounded in cognitive psychology, procedural justice, and empirical research, offers a more effective, ethical, and legally sound approach.
By embracing non-coercive, rapport-based, and scientifically validated techniques, law enforcement agencies can:
- Enhance the accuracy of investigations
- Reduce wrongful convictions
- Strengthen public trust in the criminal justice system
It’s time to move beyond the myths and ignorant legacy practices. Science, not intimidation, is the key to uncovering the truth.
This approach is inextricably connected with what we have discussed in the last several weeks. We must create an environment where trust, empathy, and effective listening are prioritized. By understanding and implementing these principles, interviewers can enhance the quality of their interviews, build stronger cases, and ultimately contribute to a fair and just investigative process. This is the essence of science-based interviewing.
Science-based practices must be fully implemented in our interviewing approach. If you aren’t employing these practices, you should be. Why are you doing what you are doing? Do you have any proof that supports your legacy practices and the outcomes they produce? Is your approach maximizing the quality and quantity of truthful information obtained? The changes that are needed are fundamental and can be accomplished relatively easily.
Training is essential! It is what moved me beyond my blind spots. I can provide it or recommend providers teaching science-based techniques. Do your research, find the right provider, maximize your training dollar investment. If you are a practitioner or a leader, don’t get the same old legacy-based methods that have no empirical evidence supporting them. If you are in leadership, you have the same responsibility to know and apply these standards and find that content that maximizes your team’s effectiveness.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issues of debunking old legacy practices, or any training need, please reach out. Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that I have produced and are contained in most blocks of instruction that our company presents.
If you have additional questions, comments, or have an interview topic you would like me to address, just let me know. In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and please reevaluate your approach to effective interviewing. Is it time to improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in interviews but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.
Mark A. Anderson
Director of Training and Development
Anderson Investigative Associates, llc
114 Loucks Avenue
Scottdale, PA 15683
manderson@andersoninvestigative.com
tel:912-571-6686
