The Basics

Science-based interviewing is a modern, evidence-informed approach to investigative interviewing. Unlike outdated police interrogation methods that rely on deception, coercion, or a presumption of guilt, science-based interviewing prioritizes truth over confessions. It’s grounded in decades of research in psychology, cognitive science, and criminal justice—and it’s quickly becoming the gold standard in law enforcement.

Whether you’re a police officer, or just a true crime junkie, understanding what science-based interviewing is and why it matters can help you spot the difference between ethical, effective investigations and the high-risk, outdated practices of the past.

Why Traditional Interrogation Techniques Are a Problem

For decades, many police agencies in the U.S. relied on accusatory, guilt-presumptive interrogation techniques often starting with a so-called Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI). Officers were trained to believe they could detect deception based on things like eye contact, fidgeting, posture changes, or hesitation in speech. But here’s the problem: those cues are not scientifically valid indicators of lying. Study after study has shown that people, even trained professionals, are no better than chance at detecting deception using these methods. In other words, the entire foundation of the BAI is built on pseudo-science.

Despite this, officers were taught to make high-stakes decisions, such as whether to accuse someone or begin an intense interrogation based on these unreliable signals. Once a person was (often incorrectly) judged to be deceptive, the interrogation would shift into an accusatory phase, sometimes involving prolonged questioning, false evidence ploys, and psychological pressure. These tactics have led to hundreds of documented false confessions, many later exposed through DNA exonerations or independent post-conviction investigations. What began as a faulty assumption often spiraled into a life-altering injustice.

These outdated practices weren’t just risky, they were also unnecessary. They damaged public trust, exposed agencies to liability, and often focused more on getting a confession than getting the truth.

But it’s easy to see why the old techniques were so appealing. Deception detection sounds exciting, almost like a superpower. Who wouldn’t want to learn how to “spot a liar” just by watching their body language or analyzing a pause in their speech? Those tactics felt intuitive, dramatic, and gave investigators a sense of control. But here’s the catch: they don’t actually work. The science is clear, those so-called signs of lying are unreliable and misleading. While science-based interviewing may not feel as flashy, it’s grounded in something much more powerful than intuition: evidence. And when the stakes are this high people’s freedom, reputations, and lives accuracy matters more than theatrics.

What Makes Science-Based Interviewing Different?

Science-based interviewing is rooted in research, ethics, and critical thinking. It doesn’t assume guilt. It doesn’t rely on trickery. And it doesn’t need a “gotcha” moment to be effective.

Instead, science-based interviewing emphasizes:

1. Building Rapport
A cooperative, respectful tone helps elicit more accurate and detailed information. The research is clear: people are more likely to talk openly when they feel heard, not pressured.

2. Cognitive-Based Techniques
Methods like the Cognitive Interview help witnesses and suspects recall information more clearly and completely, without introducing bias or contamination.

3. Open-Ended Questioning
Instead of leading or closed questions, science-based interviewing uses open prompts to let subjects tell their story in their own words. This reduces contamination and increases the quality of information gathered.

4. Strategic Use of Evidence
Evidence is not used to trap or trick a suspect. It’s disclosed strategically and transparently only when it serves to clarify contradictions or gather more accurate information.

5. Non-Coercive Environment
Science-based interviews avoid isolation, extended duration, and psychological pressure. This reduces the risk of false confessions and improves the integrity of the investigation.

Who Is Using Science-Based Interviewing?

Progressive law enforcement leaders across the U.S. are already embracing this modern method. One example is El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson in California who publicly announced the adoption of science-based interviewing practices for his agency. As reported by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, Pierson recognized that old-school interrogation methods were not only risky but also incompatible with constitutional policing and public trust. Other law enforcement agencies who have adopted science-based interviewing include investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department, Wichita Police Department, and it is now becoming part of the curriculum for California’s core training courses for new detectives.

Nationally, training providers like Savage Training Group and Project Aletheia are teaching officers and investigators how to move beyond the accusatory mindset and adopt proven, ethical interviewing methods.

What Are the Benefits of Science-Based Interviewing?

Less Risk of a False Confessions
The risk of a wrongful conviction drops when interviews are designed to gather accurate information not just confessions. While keeping the wrong people out of jail is obviously vital, convicting the wrong person means the actual person who committed the crime is still free.

Increased Investigative Accuracy
Investigators get more reliable, detailed information that can actually move cases forward.

Higher Public Trust
When communities see police agencies prioritizing the truth, trust improves. There are dozens of TV shows and Netflix documentaries that show actual interrogation room videos; any police agency concerned with their public image should make sure they are using ethical techniques.

Lower Legal Liability

Agencies reduce their exposure to lawsuits and scandals tied to coerced confessions or misconduct.

Better Outcomes in Court
Judges and juries are more likely to trust interviews that were conducted ethically and transparently. When interrogators lie to a suspect (which is legal to do in most cases), the jury may wonder what else the interrogator is lying about. That’s why using a technique that avoids deception helps investigators build trust with the jury.

Is Science-Based Interviewing Just for Cops?

No. While it’s a critical skill for police officers, detectives, and federal agents, the principles of science-based interviewing are useful for corporate investigators, and anyone who interviews people in high-stakes situations. The methods are flexible and scalable, but the goal is always the same: gather accurate information in a fair and ethical way.

How Can I Learn More or Get Trained?

If you’re in law enforcement, you don’t need to wait for a policy change to start doing better interviews. Courses like the Science-Based Interviewing class offered by Savage Training Group and Project Aletheia are available for agencies ready to upgrade their investigative practices. Whether you’re looking to host a course, attend in person, or bring in expert-led instruction, there are modern training options ready to go.

Final Thoughts

Science-based interviewing is more than just a trend. It’s a shift away from coercion and toward truth-seeking. In today’s world, where body-worn cameras, public scrutiny, and ethical standards matter more than ever, there’s no room for tactics that belong in the past.

It’s time for investigators everywhere to start asking better questions – backed by science.