Planning for Science-Based Techniques: Making Cognitive Interview and SUE Work

In my previous article, I discussed why most interviews fail before they begin due to inadequate planning. Today, I want to address a specific challenge: many of the most effective science-based interviewing techniques absolutely require extensive planning to work properly. Yet this critical connection between planning and technique effectiveness is rarely emphasized in training.

Two of the most powerful evidence-based techniques — the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) — exemplify this principle. Research shows these methods can dramatically improve interview outcomes, but only when investigators invest the necessary planning time. Without proper preparation, these techniques lose much of their power, and investigators wonder why "science-based interviewing doesn't work."

The problem isn't the techniques. The problem is inadequate planning.

The Cognitive Interview: Memory Facilitation Through Planning

The Cognitive Interview, developed by Geiselman and Fisher in the 1980s, has become one of the most validated interviewing techniques in forensic psychology. Research consistently demonstrates that the cognitive interview increases the average number of correctly recalled facts significantly compared to standard interviews.

But here's what many practitioners don't realize: the CI's effectiveness depends almost entirely on pre-interview planning.

Understanding How Memory Works

The Cognitive Interview is rooted in two principal concepts: memory for an event comprises a network of associations (meaning there are several ways a memory can be cued), and retrieval from memory will be more effective if the context surrounding the original events can be reinstated.

This isn't just theory — it has profound practical implications for how you must plan your interview.

The Planning Requirements for CI

Before conducting a Cognitive Interview, you must:

1. Understand the Memory Demands

What specific memories are you asking the interviewee to retrieve? Memory is facilitated by reflecting upon or revisiting the environment in which information was encoded. You need to plan:

• What environmental context existed during the event?
• What sensory details (sights, sounds, smells, temperature) might serve as retrieval cues?
• What was the interviewee's emotional state during encoding?
• How much time has elapsed, and how might that affect memory quality?

2. Plan Context Reinstatement Strategy

Context reinstatement has the purpose of returning the interviewee in their mind to the context in which the experience occurred. This often entails asking the interviewee to relax, preferably close their eyes, and recall where and when the incident occurred. You must plan:

• How will you explain context reinstatement to establish cooperation?
• What specific contextual cues will you help them access?
• Will you use sketch plans or other visual aids?
• How will you create an environment conducive to focused concentration?

3. Structure Your Questioning Sequence

The Cognitive Interview follows a structured series of phases: introduction, mental reinstatement, free report, detailed questioning, investigatively important questions, closure, and evaluation. Planning requires:

• Developing open-ended questions that allow narrative recall
• Identifying which "report everything" instructions will be most effective
• Planning when to use varied retrieval strategies (different temporal order, different perspectives)
• Preparing follow-up questions based on anticipated information gaps (planning will help to determine these)

4. Minimize Contamination Risk

Memory recall at an early stage can prevent memory from being contaminated, as retrieving a memory using proper techniques soon after the incident prevents the influence of post-event information. Your planning must address:

• Has the interviewee been exposed to potentially contaminating information?
• How can you avoid introducing new information during the interview?
• What leading questions must you absolutely avoid?
• How will you document the interview to preserve the original account?

The Planning-Performance Connection

Research demonstrates why planning matters so much for the CI. Context reinstatement — where witnesses mentally reconstruct the physical and emotional environment — is often highlighted as particularly effective, leveraging the encoding specificity principle.

But context reinstatement requires you to know what context to help them reinstate. Without planning, you're guessing. With planning, you're strategically facilitating memory retrieval.

Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE): Planning-Based Deception Detection

If the Cognitive Interview requires substantial planning, the Strategic Use of Evidence technique is almost entirely planning-based. The Strategic Use of Evidence approach is a framework for planning and executing suspect interviews with the aim of facilitating judgments of truth and deception.

The results speak for themselves: SUE-trained interviewers achieve a 65% deception detection accuracy rate compared to 43% for untrained interviewers — a dramatic improvement that stems directly from structured planning.

The SUE Planning Framework

The SUE technique offers specific tactics organized into three categories: pre-interview assessment of background information (evidence), the questions posed during the interview, and the disclosure of evidence.

Notice the first category: pre-interview assessment. That's planning.

Phase 1: Evidence Assessment and Planning

The first phase of SUE involves selecting your best evidence and thinking of plausible explanations for it — thinking of the most innocent explanation. This seems counterintuitive when you have DNA or other strong evidence, but it's essential to conduct successful interviews. Your planning must include:

Evidence Analysis

• What evidence do you possess?
• Not all evidence is created equal — an eyewitness and a partial fingerprint are not the same. What is the strength of each piece?
• Which evidence is the suspect least likely to know you have?
• What are plausible innocent explanations for each piece of evidence?

Strategic Question Development

• Develop initial open-ended questions like "In as much detail as possible, please tell me about..." Then funnel toward increasingly specific questions
• Plan questions that allow you to test alternative explanations
• Determine the optimal sequence for narrowing focus
• The current SUE framework advises that questioning be planned and executed in a funnel structure, beginning with broad questions and narrowing to specific ones

Evidence Disclosure Planning

• Plan how you will disclose evidence using the Evidence Framing Matrix — start vague about the evidence's source with low specificity, and end by identifying its source precisely with greater specificity
• Determine at what point disclosure will be most effective
• Plan how to handle statement-evidence inconsistencies when they emerge. Significant planning here is very effective.

The Psychology Behind SUE Planning

Why does all this planning matter? Guilty suspects tailor their information disclosures to their perceptions of what the interviewer already knows in order to maintain credibility. This means:

• If you disclose evidence too early, guilty suspects adjust their story to accommodate it
• If you ask questions without strategic planning, you miss opportunities to identify inconsistencies
• If you don't analyze evidence beforehand, you can't recognize when statements contradict what you know

The power of SUE lies in creating a situation where liars' statements may reveal internal inconsistencies or within-statement inconsistencies that can be elicited through strategic disclosure of evidence. But this only works if you've done the planning to know what inconsistencies to look for.

SUE in Practice: The Planning Process

While SUE may seem like a lot of information initially, the process quickly becomes second nature. Here's a practical planning workflow:

Before the Interview:

• List all evidence you possess
• Rate evidence by strength and by suspect's likely awareness
• Identify the strongest piece they probably don't know about
• Generate innocent explanations for each piece (yes, even the "smoking gun")
• Develop your question funnel (broad to specific)
• Plan evidence disclosure sequence using Evidence Framing Matrix
• Anticipate likely suspect strategies based on evidence awareness

Even basic SUE planning dramatically outperforms the common approach of confronting suspects with evidence immediately.

The Planning Payoff: What Research Shows

The connection between planning and effectiveness isn't speculative, it's empirically demonstrated:

For Cognitive Interview:

• The average number of correctly recalled facts for cognitive interviews was 41.2, compared to 29.4 for standard interviews
• Context reinstatement and "report everything" produce better recall than other techniques when properly planned and executed
• CI is effective when interviewers understand the theoretical rationale and implement techniques with fidelity — which requires planning

For SUE Technique:

• Trained SUE interviewers questioned suspects systematically, withheld evidence until after questioning, and relied on statement-evidence inconsistency — achieving 65% accuracy vs. 43% untrained
• The SUE framework operates on the premise that liars and truth-tellers use different strategies, and strategic evidence use magnifies these differences
• Without planning, even experienced investigators miss opportunities to identify deception cues

Common Planning Failures

Despite research demonstrating planning's importance, I consistently see these failures in the field:

1. Technique Without Preparation

Investigators learn the CI or SUE in training, then try to apply them without adequate planning. The techniques fail, and they conclude "science-based interviewing doesn't work in the real world."

2. Case Planning Without Person Planning

Investigators plan evidence strategy but don't research the suspect or witness. They miss opportunities for rapport-building, trust development, and context reinstatement.

3. Rigid Application

Some investigators treat techniques as checklists rather than frameworks requiring thoughtful planning. Interviewers should be flexible and alter their approach to meet the needs of each witness rather than using rigid, uniform questioning to meet their needs.

4. Inadequate Time Allocation

Agencies expect investigators to conduct complex interviews with minimal preparation time. Quality planning requires investment — usually 2-3 times the anticipated interview length.

Integrating Planning Into Your Practice

Here's how to ensure your planning supports technique effectiveness:

For Every Cognitive Interview:

• Spend 30-45 minutes planning context reinstatement strategy
• Research environmental details of the incident scene
• Plan your phased approach: introduction → context → free report → detailed questions
• Prepare to minimize contamination and leading questions
• Practice context reinstatement instructions beforehand

For Every SUE Interview:

• Spend 60-90 minutes on evidence analysis and question planning
• Complete evidence assessment: strength, suspect awareness, innocent explanations
• Develop your question funnel on paper before the interview
• Plan evidence disclosure sequence using Evidence Framing Matrix
• Anticipate suspect counter-strategies and plan responses

For All Interviews:

• Block dedicated planning time — don't squeeze it between other tasks
• Document your planning (question sequences, evidence strategy, etc.)
• Review planning with a colleague when possible. This is not done enough.
• Refine your approach based on post-interview evaluation, by you and others.

The Bottom Line

Science-based interviewing techniques work — but only when properly planned. The Cognitive Interview facilitates memory retrieval through structured context reinstatement and strategic questioning. The Strategic Use of Evidence elicits deception cues through careful evidence analysis and tactical disclosure. Both require significant pre-interview planning to achieve their documented effectiveness.

This is why the statistic that fewer than one in ten interviews receive adequate planning is so concerning. We're not just failing to plan generally — we're specifically failing to do the planning that makes our most powerful techniques effective.

If you've tried the Cognitive Interview or SUE and been disappointed with results, ask yourself honestly: Did I plan adequately? Did I invest the 30-90 minutes of focused preparation these techniques require? Did I research both the case evidence AND the person?

If not, you weren't really testing the technique — you were testing your ability to improvise. And research shows improvisation doesn't work, regardless of experience level.

The good news? Planning is a learnable skill. With practice, evidence analysis becomes faster. Question funnel development becomes more intuitive. Context reinstatement planning becomes routine. But you must commit to doing it consistently.

The science is clear: how we respond to questions is just as important as the questions we ask. Master the Time/Responsibility Continuum, and you'll transform potentially disruptive interviewee questions into opportunities to build rapport, maintain control, and facilitate truth-telling. Planning for eventualities assists with this as well.

Like much of what I write about, training is a first step! It is what has 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, 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. This is not the time to "do it as we have always done it." If you are in leadership, you have the same responsibility to know and apply these standards and find that 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 have 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 which is ethical and effective. It will improve everything you do. It is time to improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in your work but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.

Read the first article in this series: "The Planning Paradox: Why Most Interviews Fail Before They Begin."

Further Reading

• Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
• Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: A conceptual overview. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and new approaches (pp. 231-251). Wiley.
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 1-36). Academic Press.
• Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph, E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., Jordan, S., Osborne, J., & Granhag, P. A. (2016). Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(4), 270-278.
• Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340-372.