Thirteen research-backed principles for interviewers ready to leave legacy techniques behind — because effective interviewing, like good baking, benefits from giving a little extra.
Continuing on our journey 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 article, I want to explore the importance of a total transition to science-based interviewing methodology. This move must be fully adopted, including changes to mindset, to make it a permanent, functional part of our interview planning, preparation, and execution.
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 truthful information in an ethical manner? If the number one reason interviewees tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what are the results of using legacy and outdated practices with no evidential support?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. Stop curtailing progress, and implement the best practices available.
Do you find yourself struggling to gather complete and accurate information during interviews? Are you confident your techniques align with current research on what works? The landscape of investigative interviewing has evolved dramatically, and many traditional approaches have been scientifically debunked or significantly refined.
The research is clear: coercive, confrontational approaches increase the risk of false confessions, compromise information quality, and violate ethical standards that modern investigators must uphold. Current science-based practices focus on building rapport, encouraging free narrative accounts, and using non-coercive methods that respect human rights while maximizing information gathering.
I’ve spent years refining my approach based on emerging research, and I’ll be honest — some techniques I once relied on are now scientifically discredited. It’s humbling but essential work. As General Eisenhower said, “Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable,” and that planning must now be grounded in solid research, not tradition.
I’ve written hundreds of blogs, and I’m now reviewing each one to make sure I’m not promoting legacy practices and that I’m ethically adopting science-based practices. So here’s my rewrite of my Baker’s Dozen. The old one is still out there and has been viewed by thousands, but here is the science-based Baker’s Dozen of principles that can transform your interviewing effectiveness while maintaining ethical standards.
For those who didn’t grow up in an era when local bakeries were neighborhood institutions, a baker’s dozen means thirteen instead of twelve. The tradition dates back centuries, when bakers would throw in an extra roll or pastry to avoid penalties for short-weighing customers.
Growing up, my trips to Ken’s Luncheonette for my mom were always a treat — not just because they made the best homemade cinnamon donuts in town, but because every “dozen” I carried home was actually thirteen warm, sugar-dusted circles of heaven. That extra donut represented something important: going beyond the minimum, exceeding expectations, and building trust through generous practice.
In the spirit of that tradition, here are thirteen principles instead of the expected twelve — because effective interviewing, like good baking, benefits from giving a little extra.
Current research emphasizes that every interview must be prepared with the investigation’s needs in mind, accounting for all available information and identifying key objectives. But planning has evolved beyond just preparing questions. Science-based planning includes:
Inadequate planning remains epidemic — but the consequences are more serious than we once understood. Poor planning doesn’t just reduce information quality; it can lead to contaminated statements, false confessions, and human rights violations.
The physical environment dramatically impacts information flow, but not in the ways we traditionally thought. Research demonstrates that creating psychological safety through environmental choices improves both information quality and ethical compliance. Consider:
Forget the intimidating interview room with harsh lighting — this isn’t television. Research shows it’s counterproductive for gathering accurate information.
Recent training studies with law enforcement demonstrate that rapport-based approaches, including productive questioning skills and relational rapport-building tactics, significantly improve interview outcomes. But true rapport goes beyond small talk about sports teams and the weather. Science-based rapport involves:
Quality rapport takes time and genuine engagement — there are no shortcuts.
The cognitive approach emphasizes asking subjects to describe events without interruption, using pauses to encourage them to fill in gaps rather than asking leading questions. This represents a fundamental shift from traditional questioning approaches. Effective techniques include:
Let them tell their story first — interruptions contaminate memory and reduce information quality.
Science-based methods focus on obtaining a full account of events rather than seeking confessions, contrasting sharply with more aggressive, accusatory approaches. Modern investigative interviewing prioritizes:
The goal is truth, not admissions obtained through manipulation.
Rather than aggressively “shutting down” denials, current research supports:
Science-based methods allow suspects to provide their account before presenting evidence of inconsistencies, focusing on understanding rather than immediate confrontation.
Traditional “behavioral indicators” of deception have been largely debunked. Research shows that training investigators to discern lying through behavioral analysis is problematic and unreliable. Instead, focus on:
Abandon the myth that you can reliably detect lies through body language — you can’t.
Current research emphasizes avoiding re-traumatization and supporting victims through interview processes. This includes:
Not everyone responds to stress the same way, and trauma can significantly impact how people communicate.
Your nonverbal behavior matters, but not in the “rubber face” way traditionally taught. Science-based self-awareness involves:
The goal is professional empathy, not emotional distance, or plain arrogance.
Research supports breaking complex interviews into multiple sessions rather than marathon single encounters. Benefits include:
Don’t try to get everything in one sitting — quality over speed.
Systematic approaches to documentation improve reliability and provide accountability. Modern standards include:
Proper documentation protects everyone involved and provides an undisputed record.
For any technique to be truly science-based, it must undergo repeated independent evaluations using different methodologies and conducted by separate research teams. This means:
The field is evolving rapidly — what worked yesterday may be problematic today.
International standards now advocate for universal protocols identifying non-coercive interviewing methods and procedural safeguards. This includes:
Ethical behavior isn’t optional — it is fundamental to effective, quality interviewing.
So from Baker’s Dozen I to Baker’s Dozen II, several traditional techniques have been scientifically discredited or significantly refined:
The stakes are higher than we once understood. Poor interviewing doesn’t just reduce information quality — it can lead to wrongful convictions, re-traumatization of victims, and erosion of public trust in our institutions.
I challenge you to honestly assess which of these science-based principles you’re consistently applying. Pick one area for improvement in your next interview. Then another. Then another. The research is clear about what works, but implementing change requires commitment and practice.
That’s not just good ethics; it’s good investigative practice.
The field has evolved, and so must we. The question isn’t whether you can adapt to science-based practices — it’s whether you can afford not to.
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 specializes in customized science-based interview training that aligns with current research and international standards. Our programs address the transition from traditional to scientifically supported techniques while maintaining practical applicability in real-world interviews. 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.