The Shift-of-Strategy Approach: When Strategic Recognition Becomes Strategic Influence

We’re at a critical juncture in the evolution of investigative interviewing. The science is clear, the tools are available, and the moral imperative is undeniable — yet implementation remains frustratingly inconsistent across our profession. This isn’t about tweaking what we’ve always done; it’s about fundamentally reimagining how we approach every interview, from initial planning through final documentation.

The transformation starts with brutal honesty about our current practices. Ask yourself: does your interviewing methodology align with your organization’s mission to uncover truth? If interviewer credibility is the cornerstone of successful information gathering, what does it say about our profession when we rely on techniques that modern science has proven unreliable? Every time we choose convenience over science-based practice, we’re not just failing our cases — we’re failing our calling as truth-seekers.

If understanding counter-interrogation strategies was the first revolution in science-based interviewing, then learning to ethically influence those strategies represents the second. While strategic recognition helps us understand what subjects are doing, the Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach helps us create conditions where they might choose to do something different — voluntarily.

This isn’t about manipulation or coercion. It’s about sophisticated relationship management that acknowledges strategic behavior and creates environments where disclosure becomes more attractive than withholding. For investigators still operating under the assumption that people either cooperate or they don’t, this represents a fundamental paradigm shift that’s already transforming complex case outcomes.

Beyond the Binary: Understanding Strategic Flexibility

Traditional interviewing approaches often treat subject behavior as fixed: someone is either cooperative or uncooperative, truthful or deceptive. The Shift-of-Strategy approach is built on a more sophisticated understanding — strategic behavior is dynamic and responsive to interview conditions.

Recent research demonstrates that subjects continuously evaluate their strategic choices based on changing circumstances during interviews. The same person who begins with sophisticated withholding strategies can be encouraged to shift toward disclosure strategies when interview conditions make that choice more attractive and beneficial.

Consider a corporate investigation where a subject initially uses careful withholding strategies to protect their professional reputation. Through strategic influence techniques, an investigator can create conditions where providing comprehensive information appears more likely to protect that reputation than continued withholding. The subject makes a voluntary strategic shift based on their own assessment of their best interests.

The Psychological Foundation: Why Strategic Shifts Occur

The power of the SoS approach lies in understanding the psychological mechanisms that drive strategic decision-making:

• Decision Theory in Action. Subjects continuously perform cost-benefit analyses of their strategic choices. SoS techniques work by ethically influencing these calculations through strategic evidence revelation and relationship management.
• Cognitive Dissonance Resolution. When subjects recognize that their current strategies aren’t serving their interests effectively, psychological discomfort motivates strategic adaptation. SoS creates conditions where this recognition occurs naturally.
• Social Exchange Dynamics. Subjects evaluate their relationship with investigators based on reciprocity, respect, and mutual benefit. SoS techniques demonstrate investigative competence while creating collaborative rather than adversarial dynamics.

The key insight: strategic behavior isn’t fixed resistance to overcome, but adaptive decision-making to influence ethically.

How SoS Differs from Traditional Approaches

Traditional interview methods often create conditions that reinforce strategic resistance:

• Confrontational Evidence Presentation typically triggers more sophisticated withholding strategies rather than promoting disclosure. Subjects who feel attacked often become more defensive and strategic in their responses.
• Adversarial Positioning frames the interview as a battle of wills rather than a collaborative truth-seeking process. This naturally encourages strategic withholding and resistance.
• Binary Thinking about cooperation fails to recognize the graduated nature of strategic behavior and misses opportunities for strategic influence.

SoS techniques work differently by:

• Creating Collaborative Frameworks that position disclosure as beneficial rather than risky. Instead of confrontation, the approach emphasizes partnership in truth-seeking.
• Strategic Evidence Management that demonstrates investigative competence while providing face-saving opportunities for strategic shifts. Evidence becomes a tool for influence rather than confrontation.
• Graduated Disclosure Opportunities that allow subjects to test the waters with smaller disclosures before committing to more comprehensive cooperation.
• Professional Respect Maintenance that acknowledges subject dignity and intelligence while encouraging voluntary cooperation.

The Science Behind Strategic Influence

The Shift-of-Strategy approach extends the validated Strategic Use of Evidence technique by focusing specifically on influencing strategic behavior rather than just working within it. Research examining strategic influence applications shows that subjects using withholding strategies can be encouraged to shift toward disclosure strategies through ethical interviewing techniques that make disclosure appear more beneficial than withholding.

This isn’t theoretical — it’s measurably effective. Studies demonstrate that strategic influence techniques can significantly increase information disclosure while maintaining ethical standards. The approach works because it aligns with, rather than opposes, natural psychological tendencies toward consistency, reciprocity, and rational self-interest.

The University of Gothenburg’s current research project aims to substantially advance the SoS approach and develop effective training packages ready for deployment with various practitioner audiences. This represents serious academic investment in practical applications that can transform investigative effectiveness.

What SoS Looks Like in Practice

Strategic influence operates through subtle relationship and communication management rather than dramatic confrontational techniques:

• Environmental Design. Creating interview conditions that reduce stress and defensive responses while promoting rational decision-making about cooperation.
• Evidence Revelation Timing. Using strategic evidence presentation to demonstrate investigative capability while providing opportunities for subjects to shift toward disclosure without losing face.
• Collaborative Problem-Solving. Framing the interview as joint truth-seeking rather than adversarial confrontation, making disclosure appear beneficial rather than risky.
• Professional Partnership. Positioning yourself as a competent professional partner in resolving complex issues rather than an adversarial interrogator seeking to defeat the subject.

Consider a scenario involving suspected financial irregularities. Instead of confronting a subject with evidence in an accusatory manner, an SoS-trained investigator might present evidence that demonstrates investigative thoroughness while asking for help understanding complex financial transactions. This approach provides the subject with opportunities to explain their actions in professional context rather than simply admit wrongdoing.

The difference is profound: traditional approaches often escalate strategic resistance, while SoS techniques create conditions where strategic cooperation becomes attractive.

Ethical Considerations: Influence vs. Manipulation

The most critical aspect of SoS training involves understanding and maintaining ethical boundaries. Strategic influence is not manipulation — the distinction lies in intent, method, and respect for subject autonomy.

The SoS approach maintains ethical boundaries through:

• Honest Communication. All information provided to subjects must be accurate. Strategic influence never involves deception about evidence or consequences.
• Respect for Autonomy. Subjects retain full decision-making capacity. Strategic influence creates attractive choices rather than removing choice.
• Proportional Methods. Influence techniques must be proportional to case seriousness and circumstances. Minor matters don’t justify sophisticated strategic influence approaches.
• Professional Integrity. The focus remains on truth-seeking and comprehensive information gathering rather than confirmation-seeking or case-building.

The Professional Imperative: Why SoS Matters Now

Modern investigative contexts increasingly involve sophisticated subjects who use strategic approaches regardless of whether investigators recognize them. SoS provides tools for working effectively within this reality.

• Corporate Investigations often involve highly educated subjects with professional reputations at stake who naturally employ sophisticated strategic approaches. SoS techniques can create conditions where comprehensive disclosure appears more likely to protect professional interests than strategic withholding.
• Criminal Investigations involving experienced subjects or those with legal representation benefit from approaches that acknowledge strategic sophistication rather than attempting to overcome it through confrontation.
• Regulatory Compliance investigations require gathering comprehensive, accurate information from subjects who may have complex motivations for partial disclosure. SoS techniques can encourage complete cooperation while maintaining professional relationships.

The stakes are significant: cases that remain unresolved due to strategic withholding, evidence that goes undiscovered because investigators lack strategic influence capabilities, and outcomes compromised by incomplete information disclosure.

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Organizations implementing SoS capabilities often encounter predictable challenges:

• Skill Development Time. SoS techniques require sophisticated interpersonal and strategic thinking skills that take time to develop. This isn’t point-and-click methodology — it requires genuine professional development investment.
• Ethical Clarity. Practitioners need clear frameworks for distinguishing ethical influence from manipulation. This requires ongoing training and supervision rather than one-time instruction.
• Integration Complexity. SoS works best when integrated with other science-based interviewing methods rather than implemented in isolation. This requires comprehensive rather than piecemeal training approaches.
• Measurement Adaptation. Success metrics need to focus on information quality and voluntary disclosure rather than confession rates or compliance measures.

The solution involves systematic capability development rather than quick technique adoption. Organizations that invest in comprehensive SoS training report significant improvements in case outcomes and investigator effectiveness.

The Competitive Reality

Here’s what organizations with SoS capabilities report: complex cases resolve with better outcomes, subjects provide more comprehensive information voluntarily, and relationships improve rather than deteriorate during strategic influence processes.

More importantly, they handle sophisticated subjects more effectively. When dealing with educated, experienced, or legally represented subjects who naturally use strategic approaches, SoS-trained investigators maintain effectiveness while investigators using legacy methods often struggle.

The gap is widening. As more investigators gain strategic influence capabilities, organizations without these skills find themselves at increasing disadvantage in complex cases requiring sophisticated interviewing approaches.

Moving Beyond Comfort Zones

The shift from passive strategic recognition to active strategic influence requires professional courage. Many investigators are comfortable identifying strategic behavior but hesitant to engage in strategic influence, often due to concerns about ethical boundaries or technique complexity.

This hesitation is understandable but increasingly costly. The research demonstrates that ethical strategic influence is both possible and highly effective. The key lies in proper training that emphasizes ethical frameworks alongside technique development.

The alternative — continuing to operate as passive observers of strategic behavior while subjects become increasingly sophisticated — leads to predictable outcomes: incomplete investigations, unresolved cases, and missed opportunities for comprehensive information gathering.

The Path Forward

The Shift-of-Strategy approach represents the natural evolution of science-based interviewing from passive observation to ethical engagement. Organizations that develop these capabilities now position themselves to handle complex cases more effectively while maintaining the highest ethical standards.

The research foundation is solid, the training methodologies are developed, and the evidence of effectiveness is compelling. What’s required now is the professional commitment to move beyond comfortable legacy methods toward sophisticated strategic influence capabilities.

Every case involving strategic withholding represents an opportunity for strategic influence. Every subject using sophisticated approaches is a candidate for ethical strategic shift encouragement. The question isn’t whether these techniques work — it’s whether we’ll develop the capabilities to use them effectively.

The second revolution in science-based interviewing is already underway. Those who embrace strategic influence capabilities now will find themselves significantly more effective in complex cases requiring sophisticated approaches. Those who don’t will find themselves playing an increasingly outdated game.

Advanced strategic influence training represents a significant investment in investigative effectiveness. Organizations that develop these capabilities gain substantial advantages in complex cases involving sophisticated strategic behavior.

Anderson Investigative Associates provides comprehensive training in Shift-of-Strategy techniques and ethical strategic influence methods. This advanced training builds on strategic recognition capabilities to create complete strategic engagement competencies.

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 science-based training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the subject of this imperative transition, 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 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.

Further Reading

• Brandon, S. E. (2011). Impacts of psychological science on national security agencies post-9/11. American Psychologist, 66(6), 495–506.
• Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence technique: A conceptual overview. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons.
• Granhag, P. A., Kleinman, S. M., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2016). The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches (pp. 293–312). John Wiley & Sons.
• Granhag, P. A., Oleszkiewicz, S., Strömwall, L. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2015). Eliciting intelligence from sources: The first scientific test of the Scharff technique. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(1), 96–113.
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic disclosure of evidence: Does immediate disclosure affect innocent suspects’ strategies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 89–99.
• Kleinman, S. M. (2006). KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations by a Former Senior Interrogator. National Defense Intelligence College Press.
• Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). How awareness of possible evidence induces forthcoming counter-interrogation strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 876–882.
• Mac Giolla, E., & Luke, T. J. (2021). Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve discrimination between truth tellers and liars? A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 445–462.
• Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017). On eliciting intelligence from human sources: Contextualizing the Scharff technique. Applied Psychology, 66(4), 605–628.
• Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., Kleinman, S. M., & Okado, Y. (2020). Eliciting human intelligence: A conceptualization and empirical testing of the Scharff technique. Law and Human Behavior, 44(4), 278–289.
• Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6), 481–486.
• Skerker, M. (2010). An Ethics of Interrogation. University of Chicago Press.
• Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L., & Vrij, A. (2016). How to make suspects disclose more information about their intentions: The efficacy of sketching in the intentions interview. Memory, 24(4), 472–480.
• University of Gothenburg. (2024). Research Project: Advancing the Shift-of-Strategy Approach for Investigative Interviewing Practitioners. Department of Psychology.
• Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121.
• Walsh, D., & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(1), 39–57.
• Walters, S. B. (2014). Advanced Interviewing Techniques: Proven Strategies for Law Enforcement, Military, and Security Personnel (3rd ed.). CRC Press.