Our focus has been on procedural justice and science-based interviewing practices over the last several weeks. We have focused on specific issues, but the key is getting these practices into the hands of the practitioners. This responsibility is not only the practitioners but that of organizational leadership as well. Leaders must stop doing it the way they have always done it, using the same providers, the same outdated material, and expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity. We must update our curriculums and understanding to change the direction and focus of investigative interviewing. We must consider where we are as individuals and where our organizations are at, to decide about the path going forward.
As in the last several articles, there are a couple of foundational thoughts we must ponder. What is our organizational mission? Are we in the interview to get the greatest quantity and quality of truthful information? If the number one reason interviewees tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what does using legacy and outdated practices with no evidential support result in? The result is the antithesis of our organizational mission and goals. Stop stepping on progress and implement the best practices possible.
Introduction
Law enforcement agencies worldwide are increasingly recognizing the need for science-based investigative interviewing to replace outdated and coercive interrogation techniques. Traditional methods involving direct confrontation have been criticized for their potential to elicit false confessions and compromise investigative integrity. In contrast, science-based approaches, such as rapport-based models and cognitive interviewing, align with scientific research on memory, deception detection, and procedural justice.
This article provides a roadmap for integrating science-based investigative interviewing into investigative training programs, ensuring ethical and effective information gathering that upholds justice and strengthens community trust. This is where interviewing must head.
Step 1: Establish a Science-Based Framework
The first step in transitioning to science-based interviewing is adopting a framework that aligns with psychological research and best practices. Investigative approaches that emphasize rapport-building, open-ended questioning, and active listening have been widely recognized for their effectiveness in eliciting consistent reliable information.
- Rapport-Building Techniques – Establishing trust between the interviewer and interviewee reduces resistance, increases cooperation, and leads to more accurate disclosures.
- Cognitive-Based Retrieval Methods – Grounded in cognitive psychology, these methods use structured questioning to help witnesses and suspects recall detailed and accurate information.
- Strategic Questioning – Instead of leading or coercive questions, science-based approaches employ open-ended and non-accusatory techniques that allow interviewees to provide their accounts freely, minimizing contamination and bias.
These evidence-based strategies prioritize voluntary cooperation, accuracy, and ethical investigative practices over confrontational or deceptive interrogation methods.
Step 2: Revamp Training Programs with Science-Based Techniques
To ensure effective implementation, law enforcement training academies must redesign their curricula to incorporate principles from scientific research. This involves:
- Training Officers in Memory Science and Psychology – Understanding how memory works prevents the introduction of false memories and improves the reliability of statements.
- Emphasizing Rapport-Building Skills – Teaching interviewers how to build trust with interviewees enhances cooperation and reduces resistance.
- Introducing Non-Coercive Questioning Techniques – Instead of leading or suggestive questions, training should focus on open-ended inquiries that allow interviewees to provide detailed responses.
- Teaching Active Listening and Non-Verbal Communication – Interviewers should be trained to recognize signs of stress, deception, and discomfort without relying on outdated and wholly inaccurate body-language myths.
- Providing Continuous Training and Simulations – Using real-life case studies and interactive simulations ensures that interviewers can practice and refine their skills.
Example: The UK’s shift to science-based interviewing led to more reliable confessions and reduced wrongful convictions, demonstrating the efficacy of science-based training.
Step 3: Implement Policy and Legal Reforms
Science-based interviewing cannot succeed and flourish without institutional and legal backing and buy-in. Agencies should:
- Revise policies to prohibit coercive techniques, such as prolonged interrogations, threats, or deception.
- Mandate video recording of interviews to ensure transparency and accountability. (Excellent training aid)
- Adopt standardized guidelines that align with international best practices (e.g., United Nations guidelines on investigative interviewing).
- Encourage judicial systems to recognize and support science-based techniques over traditional coercive methods.
Example: Norway successfully banned coercive interrogation methods and adopted science-based interviewing, resulting in higher conviction accuracy and fewer wrongful imprisonments.
Step 4: Foster a Culture of Procedural Justice
To fully integrate science-based investigative interviewing, agencies must promote a culture that values procedural justice. This means:
- Encouraging Ethical Leadership – Supervisors should reinforce fair and impartial investigative practices across the board, and lead with those principles.
- Holding Interviewers Accountable – Establishing oversight committees ensures compliance with ethical interviewing standards.
- Engaging with Communities – Transparency in investigative practices helps build public trust and enhances cooperation.
Example: Studies show that when individuals feel they are treated fairly during interactions with law enforcement, they are more likely to comply with the law and assist in investigations.
Step 5: Evaluate and Improve Training Through Research
Ongoing assessment is crucial to ensure the effectiveness of science-based interviewing. No more that’s the way we have always done it. Agencies should:
- Track success rates of interviews using science-based techniques versus traditional methods.
- Collaborate with universities and research institutions to continuously refine interviewing strategies.
- Solicit feedback from interviewers and interviewees to identify areas for improvement.
Example: The Innocence Project has highlighted numerous cases where wrongful convictions resulted from flawed interrogation techniques, emphasizing the need for continuous evaluation and adaptation.
Conclusion
Bridging the gap between traditional interrogation and science-based investigative interviewing requires a multi-faceted approach involving training, policy reform, ethical leadership, and ongoing research. By integrating science-based techniques into investigative training programs, agencies can enhance interview accuracy, prevent wrongful convictions, and build trust with communities.
Investigative agencies that embrace science over tradition will be better equipped to uphold justice and improve investigative outcomes in the modern era. The time for reform is now—investigative interviewing must evolve with science.
Science-based practices must be fully implemented in our interviewing approach. Time for introspection, if you aren’t employing these practices, WHY? Why are you doing what you are doing? Do you have any proof that supports your legacy practices and the outcomes they produce? Is your approach maximizing the quality and quantity of truthful information obtained? It is time to change and the changes that are needed are fundamental and can be accomplished in a timely and effective manner.
Training is essential! It is what moved me beyond my blind spots. I can provide it 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. If you are in leadership, you have the same responsibility to know and apply these standards and find that content that maximizes your team’s effectiveness.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issues of debunking old legacy practices, or any training need, please reach out. Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that I 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 it’s time to reevaluate your approach to effective interviewing. Is it time to improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in interviews but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.
Mark A. Anderson
Director of Training and Development
Anderson Investigative Associates, llc
114 Loucks Avenue
Scottdale, PA 15683
manderson@andersoninvestigative.com
tel:912-571-6686
