Fewer than one in ten interviews receives adequate planning — and it's the single biggest reason science-based techniques like the Cognitive Interview and Strategic Use of Evidence disappoint in the field.
Over the past two weeks, I've explored the critical — yet criminally neglected — role of planning in investigative interviewing. Research shows that fewer than one in ten interviews receives adequate planning. This dismal statistic explains why so many interviews fail to elicit the quantity and quality of information they should, and why powerful science-based techniques often disappoint when investigators try to apply them.
This article synthesizes the key insights from my planning series into a comprehensive framework. Whether you missed the earlier articles or want a consolidated reference, this summary provides the essential principles that transform interview effectiveness.
Yet despite knowing planning matters, we consistently shortchange it. Most investigators plan just enough to know where they're going, who they're interviewing, and why — but not much more. Well, maybe where they will get lunch while they are out.
This inadequate preparation handicaps our ability to elicit truthful information. If an interview warrants our time and attention, doesn't it warrant proportional preparation to ensure success?
The paradox is stark: we recognize interviews are important enough to conduct, yet we don't invest proportionately in the planning that makes them effective.
Perhaps the most critical insight about planning: research shows we plan extensively regarding case elements, but invest far less effort in understanding the person we're interviewing. Both sides demand equal attention.
Most investigators excel here — reviewing evidence, understanding allegations, knowing timelines, identifying inconsistencies. This is essential groundwork, but it's only half the equation.
This is where planning typically fails. Yet understanding the individual across from you is equally critical:
Research demonstrates that people prefer talking to those they perceive as similar to themselves. Have you maximized your ability to identify commonalities? I've seen cases where the interviewee essentially posted their motivation — and thus the key to understanding — right on social media. The information often exists for those willing to invest time looking.
Recent research using the Delphi method with 21 international experts established gold-standard templates for planning investigative interviews. The emphasis: structuring open-minded objectives while avoiding prejudicial cognitive biases.
This research confirms what practitioners intuitively know but fail to implement: effective interviewing demands rigorous, systematic planning.
One critical problem the research addresses: confirmation bias. When investigators enter interviews with fixed beliefs about involvement, they unconsciously seek information confirming rather than challenging those beliefs. Every subsequent behavior gets interpreted through that lens.
The solution: develop multiple hypotheses before the interview. Generate alternative explanations for evidence. Consider both inculpatory and exculpatory possibilities. Plan questions that test multiple theories, not just confirm your leading one.
This approach directly counters confirmation bias by forcing active consideration of alternatives.
Research on memory science emphasizes that planning cannot be overstated — it is potentially the most important aspect of any investigation and especially the investigative interview, as victims' and witnesses' memory of events fade or become contaminated over time.
Effective planning must address:
Based on research and field experience, effective planning addresses these core areas:
Generate 3-5 plausible explanations for evidence before interviewing. Don't anchor on a single theory. Plan questions testing alternatives, not just confirming assumptions.
What made this person allegedly do what they did? View circumstances through their perspective. Minimize your bias. Understanding their reasoning facilitates genuine empathy — which research shows facilitates disclosure.
What specific concerns does this person bring? Generic fears (consequences, judgment) matter less than person-specific fears (losing custody, disappointing parents, career destruction). The better prepared you are to address their particular fears, the more effective your interview.
What interview style fits this person and situation? Which techniques are most appropriate? How much evidence do you possess, and how will that affect your strategy? Are you prepared to adjust based on interviewee responses?
Based on case analysis, what denials might be offered? How will you address them? Understanding that once lies are verbalized, people face irrational commitment to defending them means anticipating and addressing denials before verbalization becomes critical.
Plan your question sequences. Don't improvise in the interview room. Consider open versus closed questions, funnel structures, and how to minimize leading or contaminating questions.
Here's a fact many practitioners don't fully appreciate: the most effective science-based interviewing techniques require extensive planning to work properly.
The Cognitive Interview and Strategic Use of Evidence exemplify this principle. Research demonstrates these methods dramatically improve outcomes — but only when investigators invest necessary planning time.
The Cognitive Interview increases correctly recalled facts from an average of 29.4 (standard interview) to 41.2 — a 40% improvement. But this effectiveness depends almost entirely on pre-interview planning.
Understanding 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, what sensory details might serve as retrieval cues, and how much time has elapsed.
Planning Context Reinstatement: Context reinstatement returns the interviewee mentally to the context in which the experience occurred. But you must know what context to help them reinstate. Without planning environmental details, you're guessing rather than strategically facilitating.
Structuring Question Sequences: CI follows structured phases: introduction, mental reinstatement, free report, detailed questioning, investigatively important questions, closure, evaluation. Planning requires developing open-ended questions, identifying which retrieval strategies will be effective, and preparing follow-up questions for anticipated gaps.
Minimizing Contamination Risk: Memory recall at an early stage prevents contamination. Your planning must address whether the interviewee has been exposed to potentially contaminating information, how to avoid introducing new information, and what leading questions to absolutely avoid.
Without 30-45 minutes of focused preparation, the Cognitive Interview loses much of its power.
If CI requires substantial planning, SUE 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.
Research shows SUE-trained interviewers achieve 65% deception detection accuracy compared to 43% untrained — a 51% improvement stemming directly from structured planning.
Phase 1: Evidence Assessment — The first phase involves selecting your best evidence and thinking of plausible explanations for it — thinking of the most innocent explanation. This seems counterintuitive when you have strong evidence, but it's essential. Your planning must include:
The Psychology Behind SUE Planning: Guilty suspects tailor information disclosures to perceptions of what the interviewer knows to maintain credibility. If you disclose evidence too early, they adjust stories 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 situations where liars' statements reveal inconsistencies through strategic disclosure. But this only works with advance planning to know what inconsistencies to look for.
Before the interview, you must:
Without 60-90 minutes of planning, SUE technique cannot function as designed.
The connection between planning and effectiveness isn't speculative — it's empirically demonstrated:
Despite research demonstrating planning's importance, these failures persist:
Technique Without Preparation: Investigators learn CI or SUE in training, then try applying without adequate planning. Techniques fail, and they conclude "science-based interviewing doesn't work in the real world." The problem isn't the technique — it's inadequate planning.
Case Planning Without Person Planning: Investigators plan evidence strategy but don't research the suspect or witness. They miss rapport-building opportunities and context reinstatement possibilities.
Rigid Application: Some treat techniques as checklists rather than frameworks requiring thoughtful planning. Interviewers should be flexible and alter approaches to meet each witness's needs.
Inadequate Time Allocation: Agencies expect investigators to conduct complex interviews with minimal preparation. Quality planning requires investment — typically 2-3 times the anticipated interview length. For a one-hour interview, plan 90-120 minutes of preparation.
Here's the paradox that convinces many investigators planning isn't "worth it":
10 min planning → 60 min interview → poor outcome → re-interview needed → another 60 min → still incomplete. Total: 130 minutes, questionable results.
90 min planning → 60 min interview → comprehensive outcome → no re-interview needed. Total: 150 minutes, successful results.
Adequate planning takes 20 minutes more initially but saves time overall and dramatically improves outcomes. The "extra" time isn't extra — it's essential investment that pays immediate dividends.
In investigative interviewing, this isn't just wisdom — it's science.
The statistic that fewer than one in ten interviews receives adequate planning should concern every professional who conducts interviews. We can — and must — do better.
Science-based interviewing techniques work — but only when properly planned. The Cognitive Interview facilitates memory retrieval through structured context reinstatement and strategic questioning. SUE elicits deception cues through careful evidence analysis and tactical disclosure. Both require significant pre-interview planning to achieve their documented effectiveness.
If you've tried these techniques and been disappointed, ask yourself honestly: Did I plan adequately? Did I invest 30-90 minutes of focused preparation? Did I research both the case 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.
Make strategic planning non-negotiable in your interview preparation. When you do, notice the effect on your ability to elicit the greatest quantity and quality of information from interviewees. The research is clear. The techniques work. What remains is professional commitment to the planning that makes them effective.
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 settle for 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 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.