Research shows fewer than one in ten interviews receive adequate planning. Here's why that's a crisis for our profession — and a practical framework for fixing it.
During my training sessions, I ask a simple question: “How many of you adequately plan your interviews?” Hands tentatively rise — maybe 30% of the room. When I probe deeper about what “adequate planning” actually means, that number drops dramatically. The truth is uncomfortable but undeniable: research shows that fewer than one in ten interviews receives adequate planning. This is a dismal statistic, and from my three decades in the field, I know it's accurate.
As General Dwight Eisenhower famously observed, “In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” My son, an Army aviator, put it even more directly: “A pound of planning is worth a ton of execution.” Yet despite knowing this, we consistently shortchange the planning phase — and our interview outcomes suffer for it.
Have I “winged” interviews? Absolutely. And the results were always commensurate with the investment up front — which is to say, disappointing…or just plain bad! We plan enough to know where we're going, who we're talking to, and why, but often not much more. This handicaps our ability to elicit the greatest quantity and quality of information from interviewees.
The paradox is this: we recognize the interview is important enough to warrant our time and attention, yet we don't invest proportionately in preparation to ensure success. If the interview matters enough to conduct, doesn't it matter enough to plan properly and completely?
A groundbreaking 2025 study using the Delphi method with 21 international experts on investigative interviewing established gold-standard templates for planning suspect interviews, focusing specifically on how to structure open-minded objectives and avoid prejudicial cognitive biases. This research confirms what many practitioners intuitively know but fail to implement: effective interviewing demands rigorous, systematic planning.
The study's findings are particularly relevant because they address a critical problem: confirmation bias in investigative interviews occurs when interviewers enter the interview room with fixed beliefs about the suspect's involvement and then unconsciously seek information that confirms rather than challenges those beliefs. This is amplified by a lack of sufficient planning.
Here's a crucial insight that research consistently demonstrates: we plan extensively regarding the elements of the case, but we invest far less effort in understanding the person we're going to interview. Both sides of this equation demand equal attention.
Most investigators excel here. We review evidence, understand the allegations, know the timeline, and identify inconsistencies. This is essential groundwork. But it's only half the equation.
This is where planning often fails. Yet understanding the individual sitting across from you is equally critical. Consider these questions:
Who is this person? Have you done everything possible to figure out who they are? What might motivate them? What makes them "tick?" Have you explored social media, consulted supervisors, or spoken with trusted contacts?
What establishes rapport with them specifically? Research shows people prefer talking to those they perceive as similar to themselves. Have you maximized your ability to identify common ground? What are their interests, background, communication style, pressures they're facing?
I've seen cases where the interviewee essentially posted their motivation — and thus the key to understanding their behavior — right on Facebook. Whether it's financial pressure, family illness, or a broken relationship, the information is often there for those who invest time looking.
This dual-focus planning is what separates adequate preparation from excellence.
Based on research and decades of field experience, effective interview planning must address these core areas:
The gold-standard template developed by international experts emphasizes structuring interview objectives to encompass relevant hypotheses while maintaining an open-minded approach. This means:
This approach directly counters confirmation bias by forcing you to actively consider alternatives.
Throughout the investigative process, always consider: What made this person do what they allegedly did? Attempt to view the situation through their eyes, not yours. Minimize your bias. If you can place yourself in their circumstances, you'll be much better equipped to understand their perspective and demonstrate genuine empathy — which research shows facilitates truthful disclosure.
Interviewees bring fears into the interview room: fear of consequences, fear of judgment, fear of disclosure to family or employers. The better prepared you are to address these fears and refocus them on hope for resolution, the more effective your interview will be. When you and the interviewee can work toward understanding as a joint project, rapport deepens and truthful disclosure becomes more likely.
What style of interview approach will you use? Have you strategically considered the best approach for this particular person and situation? How much evidence do you possess, and what effect will that have on your strategy? Are you prepared to adjust and adapt based on the interviewee's responses?
Based on your case analysis, what denials might the interviewee offer? How will you address them? Understanding this in advance is critical because once a lie is verbalized, we face what psychologists call "irrational commitment" — people feel compelled to defend and elaborate on their initial lie.
Research on confirmation bias in child sexual abuse interviews demonstrates that preliminary assumptions significantly affect interviewer behavior and outcomes, showing how critical it is to prepare responses to expected resistance without becoming accusatory.
The more planning you invest in anticipating denials, the better positioned you'll be to recognize and address them before they become entrenched — ideally, before they're even verbalized.
Here's a fact that many practitioners don't fully appreciate: the most effective science-based interviewing techniques require extensive planning to work properly.
The Cognitive Interview, for instance, demands careful preparation about the memory demands you'll place on the interviewee and the optimal questioning sequence. Research 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.
Similarly, the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique — which research shows can improve deception detection accuracy from 56% to over 85% — is fundamentally a planning-based approach. SUE's effectiveness depends entirely on pre-interview preparation: identifying potentially incriminating information the suspect may not know you possess, planning strategic questions, and determining the optimal sequence for evidence disclosure.
Without proper planning, these techniques lose much of their power. You can't strategically deploy evidence if you haven't strategically analyzed it first. You can't facilitate memory retrieval if you haven't planned how to minimize contamination.
Effective planning doesn't require hours for every interview, but it does demand systematic attention. Here's a practical framework:
Planning shouldn't end when you enter the interview room. Effective planning continues as you develop rapport and learn who this interviewee truly is. Research on cognitive biases suggests that investigators should actively seek counter-opinions on their theories and avoid operating in echo chambers that fuel confirmation bias. Be prepared to adjust your plan based on what you're learning in real time.
When you invest adequately in planning, the effects are transformative:
The research is clear, and field experience confirms it: the interview's success is largely determined before you ever walk into the room.
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.
Make strategic planning a non-negotiable part of your interview preparation. When you do, notice the effect on your ability to completely elicit the greatest quantity and quality of information from interviewees. The investment of time in planning always yields returns in interview effectiveness.
As my son the aviator reminds me: "A pound of planning is worth a ton of execution." In investigative interviewing, this isn't just wisdom — it's science.
The science is clear: how we respond to questions is just as important as the questions we ask. Master the Time/Responsibility Continuum, and you'll transform potentially disruptive interviewee questions into opportunities to build rapport, maintain control, and facilitate truth-telling.
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.
In my next article, I'll explore how specific science-based techniques — including the Cognitive Interview and Strategic Use of Evidence — require specialized planning to maximize their effectiveness.