A word I didn't have early in my career now shapes everything I teach: evocation, the disciplined practice of drawing out a person's own motivations rather than supplying them — and the research showing it outperforms every adversarial instinct we inherited.
Have you ever walked into the interview room and demanded change, expected the person across from you to follow your agenda, or felt frustration rising because they weren't being compliant?
I have.
And I know I'm not alone.
For years, I believed that if I pushed hard enough, confronted directly enough, or controlled the conversation tightly enough, the truth would eventually surface. That was the model I inherited. It was the model most of us inherited. And when it didn't work, I assumed the problem was the person in the chair — not the method, not the mindset, and certainly not me.
Interviewing has changed. Profoundly. But many practitioners have never been shown how to make the change, nor the research-based reasons for making it.
And when we're under pressure, when the stakes are high, or when frustration creeps in, we all feel the pull of those old instincts. They're familiar. They're comfortable. They feel decisive. They give us the illusion of control. They are our reaction when cognitive load gets too high.
But they don't give us the truth.
My shift didn't happen overnight. It wasn't a single training or a single case. It was a slow accumulation of moments — interviews that stalled, conversations that derailed, subjects who shut down the harder I pushed. I began to see a pattern I couldn't ignore: the more I tried to force movement, the more resistance I created. I also contemplated that common sense dictated why this didn't work, and frankly, this isn't how I would want to be treated to comply.
At first, I chalked it up to difficult subjects. Then to bad luck. Then to the idea that "some people just won't talk."
But the truth was harder to swallow: I was creating the very resistance I was trying to overcome.
That realization didn't feel good. But it opened the door to something better.
Around the same time, the research began to shift. Not in small ways — in foundational ways. Studies from Laurence Alison, Christian Meissner and so many others were showing that rapport, trust, and autonomy weren't "soft skills." They were the conditions under which accurate information actually emerged.
And then came the ORBIT research.
When Laurence Alison and his team analyzed real counterterrorism interviews, they didn't find what many expected. They didn't find that pressure cracked people open or that dominance produced cooperation. They found the opposite.
They found that interviewer behavior — not subject disposition — predicted information yield. They found that respect, curiosity, and autonomy opened doors that confrontation slammed shut. They found that even high-value subjects responded to relational behaviors, not force.
Reading that research didn't just challenge my assumptions. It explained my experience.
It gave language to what I had been feeling in the room but couldn't articulate: people talk when they feel understood, not controlled.
Even now, with years of science-based interviewing behind me, I still feel the tug of those old instincts. When someone hesitates, when they deflect, when they shut down — the urge to push is still there. That's what conditioning does. It doesn't disappear just because we've learned something new.
And I see the same thing everywhere I train.
Good practitioners — smart, capable, well-intentioned — fall back into legacy tactics because:
It's not a lack of skill. It's a lack of exposure.
And that's where the real shift begins. It is a shift I experience every time I teach. I ask: is this science-based, or am I pulling this off a dusty shelf of legacy practice?
There's a concept that sits at the heart of this transformation — a word I didn't have early in my career, but one that now shapes everything I teach and everything I do in the interview room, and frankly, in life.
Evocation is the opposite of pressure. It's the opposite of assumption. It's the opposite of the "fixing reflex" that drives us to push instead of understand.
Evocation is the disciplined practice of drawing out the person's own motivations, concerns, and internal logic — not supplying it for them. It's the shift from "I need you to tell me" to "Help me understand what this means to you."
I didn't know that word when I started. But I knew the feeling of interviews that worked — and they all had the same quality: the person felt safe enough to think, and respected enough to talk.
That's evocation.
And it's the bridge between the science and the human being sitting across from us — and we must construct it.
If you supervise interviewers, manage investigations, or shape training culture, you play a decisive role in whether this shift takes root.
Practitioners don't fall back into old habits because they're stubborn. They fall back because the system around them hasn't changed.
When leaders reward speed over accuracy, certainty over curiosity, or compliance over understanding, they unintentionally reinforce the very behaviors the science tells us to abandon.
But when leaders model humility, curiosity, and evidence-based practice, the entire culture shifts.
Interviewing improves. Outcomes improve. Trust improves. And the profession moves forward.
This article is the beginning of a series — not because the topic is complicated, but because the shift is deep. It touches mindset, behavior, culture, and identity. It asks us to rethink what we were taught and to embrace what the evidence now makes clear.
In the next article, we'll look directly at the mindset behind evocation — the internal stance that makes science-based interviewing possible.
And after that, we'll examine why adversarial instincts fail, even when they feel familiar, and how evocation offers a more effective, ethical, and human alternative.
Interviewing is evolving. The science is clear. The field is changing. And the practitioners who thrive will be the ones willing to evolve with it.
I know, because I had to evolve too. Or should I say, have to keep evolving.
Anderson Investigative Associates is committed to helping practitioners and leaders make that transition — with training grounded in research, informed by experience, and tailored to the realities of the field.
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.