We say we want “the truth.” But the way we talk about it isn’t quite what it is — and getting clear on that changes everything about how we interview.
Our journey here continues to shine a light on procedural justice and science-based interviewing practices, and their absolute need to be implemented across the board in the practice of interviewing. We’ll keep focusing on specific issues, but the key is getting these practices into the hands of interviewers. In this piece, I want to explore the issue of truth: what is it, and how does it show up in our science-based interviewing methodology?
As we look at these science-based practices, there are a couple of foundational concepts each of us must consider. What is your organizational mission? Are you in the interview to get the greatest quantity and quality of accurate information in an ethical manner? If the number one reason interviewees tell us their truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what are the results of using legacy and outdated practices with no evidential support? The result is the antithesis of our organizational mission and goals. With the research and knowledge now available, it’s time to implement the best practices possible. Here’s one more to consider.
We say we want “the truth” — I’m tempted to say, “but you can’t handle the truth.” We pursue it in every interview, audit, and inspection like it’s a single, shining object waiting to be unearthed. But here’s the twist: what if truth — at least the way we talk about it — isn’t quite what we think it is?
That question isn’t just philosophical. It goes straight to the heart of our craft as investigators and oversight professionals. If our job is to find the truth, we’d better be clear on what we mean by it — and just as importantly, how we realistically, ethically, and scientifically get there.
For decades, many investigative practices operated under a legacy mindset: get to “the truth” by pushing for confessions, detecting lies by reading behaviors, and pressing hard when someone seemed evasive. But that approach has been repeatedly debunked by science — and often leads us away from the very truth we’re after.
Memory is flawed. Perception is filtered. Emotion, trauma, time delays, and simple human error shape the accounts people give. Even sincere interviewees may not produce fully accurate or complete information. And as it turns out, we’re not all that great at spotting deception either.
So what is “truth” in investigative interviewing? It’s not a confession. It’s not certainty. It’s not something we pull out of someone with the right amount of pressure.
One of the most compelling frameworks to emerge in recent years is Truth-Default Theory (TDT), developed by Dr. Timothy Levine. It explains something we all feel but often fail to confront: we’re biased toward belief. As humans, we default to assuming that others are telling the truth — unless something triggers our suspicion.
That’s true not just for civilians, but for us as professionals. Despite training and experience, investigators are not immune to the truth bias. We often believe what people say unless there’s an overt red flag. And unfortunately, that same bias means we’re poor at detecting deception.
Studies consistently show that our accuracy in distinguishing between truth and lies hovers around 54–56 percent — barely better than chance. The upshot? Efforts to detect lies by watching for fidgeting, eye movement, or hesitation aren’t just unreliable — they’re dangerous, and there is clearly no scientific evidence supporting them.
Truth-Default Theory reminds us that we’re not naturally equipped to “read” truthfulness with accuracy. Instead of trying to detect deception, we should focus on eliciting verifiable information.
This isn’t just a philosophical shift — it’s a practical, professional one, and a scientific one. Legacy confession-based models are falling out of favor for good reason. They lean heavily on adversarial posturing, presumptions of guilt, and false indicators of deception.
Contrast that with science-based, information-gathering approaches — models like:
These methods are rapport-based, open-ended, ethically grounded, and empirically validated. Their goal isn’t to “catch” liars — it’s to gather the most complete, accurate, and verifiable account possible. Is that “truth”?
Let’s reframe. When we say we’re “getting to the truth,” what we’re really doing is building a reliable narrative:
This process-oriented view of truth aligns with how courts evaluate evidence, how auditors build findings, and how inspectors justify outcomes.
It also aligns with memory science. As research by Loftus and others shows, memory is reconstructive, not reproductive. People don’t recall events like playing back a video — they reconstruct fragments, often imperfectly.
That means even cooperative interviewees may give inaccurate details — and pressing harder won’t clarify things. In fact, coercion or leading questions can distort the truth further, which is contrary to our mission and goals.
We must prioritize accurate, testable information — not confident narratives or early judgments.
Here’s a hard truth: we don’t spot lies well in real time. The science is clear:
So why do false confessions still occur? Because aggressive techniques pressure people into saying what they think interviewers want to hear. And if we believe we’ve “got the truth” too early, we stop looking for contradictions or overlooked facts. Our confirmation bias negates our open pursuit of reliable information.
Assume you are likely to believe too easily, judge too quickly, and close the investigation too early. Good science-based interviewing guards against all three.
If you’re wondering how to translate all this into actionable steps, here’s your starter pack:
Lastly, truth-seeking must be married to ethics — always. Science-based interviewing protects not just the process, but the people:
As noted in Vrij, Hope, and Fisher (2014), ethical approaches not only yield more accurate information — they also increase public trust in investigative outcomes, and in the people producing them.
Ethical interviewing isn’t just a moral stance — it’s a strategic one. It yields better information, improves decision-making, and builds institutional integrity.
If you’re an auditor, investigator, or oversight professional, the “truth” you seek may not always be crystal-clear, confession-ready, or instantly available. But that doesn’t mean we abandon the pursuit. It means we evolve.
| Old | New |
|---|---|
| Confession-based coercion | Science-based exploration |
| Gut instincts | Structured analysis |
| False certainty | Corroborated insight |
When it comes to the mindset shift this transition requires, training is a first step. It is what moved me beyond my blind spots, at least some of them. I can provide the training or recommend providers teaching science-based techniques. Do your research, find the right provider, and maximize your training dollar investment. If you are a practitioner or a leader, don’t settle for the same old legacy-based methods that have no empirical evidence supporting them. If you are in leadership, you carry the same responsibility to know and apply these standards and to find training content that maximizes your team’s effectiveness and accomplishes your mission.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the subject of what truth actually is, or any training need, please reach out. Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that we have produced and are contained in most blocks of instruction that our company presents.
If you have additional questions, comments, or an interview topic you would like me to address, just let me know. In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and start investing in a truth transition that is ethical and effective. It will improve everything you do. It’s time to improve your interviewing and communication skills, not just in interviews, but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.