Why it’s time to stop putting lipstick on a pig and start building better practices.
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 piece, 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tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what are the results of using legacy and outdated practices with no evidential support?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 stepping on progress, and implement the best practices available.
Like many investigators who began their careers decades ago, I learned the traditional techniques that were considered the gold standard of the profession. Armed with Reid technique training and other legacy methods, I confidently walked into interview rooms believing I could spot deception through body language, that aggressive questioning would crack the toughest subjects, and that a good confession was the ultimate prize. For years, I used these techniques successfully — or so I thought.
The uncomfortable reality? Many of us built our early careers on methods that modern science has proved to be not just ineffective, but potentially harmful. False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. This isn’t about throwing stones at our past selves; it’s about acknowledging that when we know better, we must do better.
The investigative community has access to more research on interviewing and interrogation than ever before. The evidence is overwhelming: there is now a solid scientific evidence base for the “expert” evaluation of disputed confession cases in judicial proceedings. We’ve learned that traditional interrogation approaches, particularly those focused solely on obtaining confessions, carry significant risks and dangers.
Recent research has identified specific techniques that increase the likelihood of false confessions. Some investigators apply interrogation strategies that minimize the legal seriousness and consequences of the crime, and these techniques are known to increase the risk of false confessions. Similarly, techniques that exaggerate consequences or use threats and promises create the same dangerous outcomes. There are still plenty of training providers and organizations promoting these harmful practices.
The scientific community has responded with ample alternatives. Science-based investigative interviewing offers an alternative to coercive interrogation, based on scientifically proven means of obtaining reliable, actionable evidence and information through open-ended questions, empathetic communication, and rapport building.
Here’s where the conversation gets uncomfortable but necessary. When research clearly demonstrates that certain techniques produce unreliable results and can lead to false confessions and wrongful convictions, continuing to use those methods isn’t just professionally irresponsible — it’s ethically indefensible.
I’ve spent over four decades in federal, state, and private sector investigations, teaching at institutions like the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy, and training investigators across the country. The question I ask every professional in our field is simple: if your current methods have been scientifically proven to be less effective and potentially harmful, what justification exists for continuing to use them?
This isn’t about putting lipstick on a pig by slightly modifying outdated techniques. It’s about fundamentally transforming how we approach our most critical investigative tool: the interview.
Modern science-based investigative interviewing is built on cognitive science, psychology, and empirical research rather than assumptions, tradition, and folklore. Quality science-based interviewing practices emphasize systematic, evidence-driven approaches that maximize information gathering while minimizing the risk of false confessions.
Unlike legacy methods focused on breaking down subjects, science-based techniques emphasize:
Transitioning to science-based interviewing requires systemic change. Research identifies eight critical factors for successful implementation, including leadership that will encourage institutional change toward science-based approaches; a legislative framework that allows new interview approaches; a mindset or cognitive style among investigators that is open to new techniques; a knowledge base to apply the appropriate methods; an organizational training and knowledge regime; quality assurance mechanisms; and a corresponding skill set among investigators.
This comprehensive approach ensures that change isn’t superficial, but transformational.
Let’s address the elephant in the room: resistance to change. I’ve encountered it in training sessions across the country. “This is how we’ve always done it.” “My techniques work.” “I can tell when someone’s lying.” These statements reflect natural human tendencies to defend our expertise and resist admitting our methods might be flawed and outdated.
But here’s what I’ve learned through decades of experience and continuous education: admitting our techniques need improvement doesn’t diminish our expertise — it enhances it. The most dangerous investigator is one who stops learning. In my own case, I’ve had to admit my failings and then spend the last nine months rebuilding ninety percent of my training. Frankly, with the developments in this field, I expect to be updating training consistently for the rest of my career. Doing otherwise would compromise my ethics and integrity.
Consider this: if a medical professional continued using treatments that research had proven ineffective or harmful, we’d question their competence and ethics. The same standard applies to our profession.
Organizations ready to embrace science-based interviewing should start with these essential steps:
Every false confession represents a catastrophic failure of our justice system. An innocent person’s life is destroyed while the actual perpetrator remains free. When we have the knowledge and tools to reduce these tragedies, using them becomes a moral imperative.
But even beyond wrongful convictions, ineffective interviewing techniques waste resources, compromise investigations, and undermine public trust. In my work with clients, I’ve seen how poor interviewing practices can destroy employee morale, expose organizations to legal liability, and fail to uncover critical information needed to protect stakeholders.
Organizations that have embraced science-based interviewing report impressive results. Research demonstrates that investigators trained in evidence-based techniques like the Strategic Use of Evidence approach achieve significantly better outcomes with reduced risk of false confessions.
The evidence is clear: these methods work. They produce more reliable information, reduce legal risks, and align with our profession’s ethical obligations.
As someone who has trained thousands of investigators and witnessed the evolution of our profession, I can say with certainty that we’re at a crossroads. We can cling to legacy methods that research has shown to be problematic, or we can embrace science-based techniques that make us more effective and ethical professionals.
The choice seems obvious, but it requires courage — courage to admit our past methods were flawed, courage to invest in comprehensive retraining, courage to change organizational cultures that resist innovation. This is where change is good, and not for change’s sake.
For those of us who’ve built careers on traditional techniques, this transition isn’t just professional — it’s personal. It requires acknowledging that techniques we’ve used for decades may have caused more harm than good. That’s a difficult pill to swallow, but it’s necessary medicine for our own health, and for our profession’s.
The research exists. The training is available. The techniques are proven. The only question remaining is whether we’ll have the professional integrity to implement them.
The time for wholesale transformation is now. Our profession, our stakeholders, and our society deserve nothing less than our commitment to science-based excellence.
The investigators who thrive in the coming decades will be those who embrace science-based methods today. Those who resist will find themselves not just outdated, but ethically compromised.
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 is positioned to custom-tailor 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 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.