12 Key Interview Techniques for Investigators

Written By Nathan Meehan Ph.D.

As an investigator, a key part of your job is to talk to people and collect information. Talking to people can be informal (like over a cup of coffee in a cafe) or formal (like in an interview room or "in the booth"). In both instances, how you speak to people directly impacts whether they’ll open up to you. The right approach can encourage discussion, while the wrong one might cause people to shut down.

People may choose to speak with you for various reasons, sometimes because they are obligated to, and other times because they want to. For instance, a criminal suspect may engage with you to attempt to clear their name or to gauge what you already know.

There’s no single "best" interview technique. The right approach depends on who you’re speaking with, whether the matter is related to a criminal offense, and what the goal of the interview is. Beyond the basics of establishing rapport and treating people with respect, the techniques you use should be adaptable to each situation.  

A top-down view of a table during an investigation or interrogation scene. One person in a suit is writing notes on a legal pad, while another person's arm gestures above several black and white evidence photos.

Typically, your primary objectives when conducting an interview are to:

  1. Gather information, or

  2. Obtain a confession.  

Detecting deception can also be a helpful skill, but it's not typically the main goal of an interview.

There is a growing body of research that outlines effective strategies for conducting interviews, whether you’re looking to collect facts, establish trust, or uncover key information. We wanted to share these techniques with our readers and this post has become one of our most popular, with more than 5,000 readers last year and almost 8,000 readers since it was published.

On a personal note, I have some (emphasis added) research background in this area. In 2014, I had the opportunity to lead a team of practitioners and researchers on a research project focused on intelligence interviewing in corrections. The research was funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), a U.S. Government entity that focuses on developing evidence-based interview approaches. Since then, I have contributed to four research projects, helped develop research-based training, and co-authored academic journal articles on intelligence interviewing techniques.

Second Sight also developed a course on the use of evidence during investigative interviews, which I’ll share more information about later in this post.

For now, I want to share some key interview techniques that can help you improve your communication skills and collect more information, both inside and outside the booth.

Adversarial Versus Information Gathering

Interview styles can be lumped into two broad categories: adversarial methods and information-gathering methods. Adversarial approaches often focus on obtaining a specific piece of information, such as a confession, while information gathering approaches encourage a person to provide everything they know.

Adversarial approaches primarily focus on obtaining confessions, typically in cases where there is already strong forensic evidence indicating a subject’s guilt. These interviews typically involve close-ended questions designed to elicit brief responses, such as “yes” or “no.” Investigators using this method may also apply high-pressure tactics to compel the subject to disclose more information. Adversarial approaches can lead to obtaining confessions, but can also produce negative outcomes, particularly with vulnerable subjects such as children or individuals with mental illness.

Information-gathering methods focus on gaining a comprehensive understanding of an incident, rather than extracting a specific piece of information. These approaches use open-ended questions, worded as neutrally as possible, to encourage the subject to provide a detailed narrative in their own words.

Unlike the adversarial model, information-gathering strategies emphasize building rapport between the investigator and the subject, fostering a more cooperative exchange of information. However, this does not mean that you should avoid challenging a subject when you detect deception. Rather, you challenge them in a way that is non-adversarial. This is a delicate balance that requires skill and tact.

Interview Techniques 

Within the broader framework of investigative interviewing, there are six primary approaches:

  1. Rapport-based interview techniques are non-confrontational and rely on empathy, active listening, and trust-building to encourage cooperation and information sharing during interviews.

  2. Collaboration techniques involve creating a sense of partnership between the interviewer and subject, encouraging cooperation through mutual exchange. These techniques aim to make the subject feel that their communication is valued during the interview process, and may involve offering incentives for subjects who share information.

  3. Context manipulation involves adjusting various factors of the interview environment, such as the physical setting or the investigator’s appearance, to set the tone for the interaction and subtly influence the subject.

  4. Evidence presentation techniques involve revealing pieces of evidence (whether real or fabricated) in a strategic manner, such as through timing and sequencing, to encourage the subject to disclose more information.

  5. Emotion provocation techniques involve using verbal tactics to elicit strong emotional responses (such as fear, guilt, hope, or relief) to influence a subject’s perception of an event and increase the likelihood of a confession.

  6. Confrontation-based methods are typically used when evidence already suggests a subject’s culpability. In these situations, the investigator seeks specific information (e.g., a confession), so the questions tend to be more direct and authoritative.

The next section will delve into each of these approaches in greater detail, providing examples of specific techniques and skills associated with each. Although I have categorized and organized them here, it's important to note that there is significant overlap between the techniques and approaches. The infographic below can help you navigate the information presented in the rest of this blog.

 

Rapport and Relationship Building

Building rapport  is one of the most important aspects of investigative interviews. For our purposes, rapport refers to the relationship between the subject and the investigator during an interview. The stronger the rapport, the more likely someone is to talk.

One easy way to build rapport? Help meet someone's needs: offer something to eat or drink, or give them time to use the restroom. Rapport can also be enhanced by showing cognitive empathy  for the subject, offering them autonomy over what they choose to say (e.g., clearly stating that disclosure is voluntary), or finding shared interests to establish common ground.

An investigator’s communication style and questioning tactics can make or break the conversation.  Rapport-based interview techniques focus on active listening, clear communication, and strong interpersonal skills. The goal is to create an environment conducive to open dialogue. Research shows that these strategies are effective for increasing information disclosure and for obtaining more accurate and detailed testimonies.

Investigators using these techniques show that they are genuinely trying to understand, rather than antagonize or manipulate. By validating emotions and acknowledging the subject’s point of view without judgment, they build trust and encourage openness, making it easier to bridge difficult topics. When people feel heard and respected, they are much more likely to open up. Rapport may also intensify feelings of guilt, responsibility, or remorse, which can motivate individuals to be more forthcoming and cooperate more fully during the interview process. 

Three well-known techniques that support rapport-building are Motivational Interviewing, OARS, and the PEACE model. Each is described in more detail below, along with a few resources for further learning.

1. Motivational Interviewing

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a non-accusatory, empathy-based approach to investigative interviewing that is designed to help people resolve internal contradictions in their own thinking. MI was first developed by substance abuse therapists, and a large body of research supports its effectiveness in reducing substance use. It has since been deployed by experts in a variety of fields.

As described by its founders, MI's central principle is that "motivation to change should be elicited from people, not imposed on them.” In an investigative context, MI is all about creating a conversational and non-judgmental environment that supports subjects in working through their own thoughts, potentially leading them to voluntarily disclose information.

There are five core principles of MI:

  • Acceptance: Treat the subject with unconditional respect, without judgment.

  • Autonomy: Create space for the subject to recognize for themselves why change might be important, rather than pressuring them.

  • Adaptation: Be flexible in your approach; move with the conversation instead of sticking to a rigid script.

  • Empathy: Genuinely try to understand the subject’s point of view.

  • Evocation: Draw out the subject’s own motivations and thoughts in their own words.

MI has been found to be effective in facilitating behavioral change, increasing self-efficacy to regulate behavior, and building positive expectations for success. As an interview technique, MI can help an investigator reduce subject resistance, and increase motivation to cooperate. It can also be useful when engaging individuals with mental illness who may be emotionally dysregulated or resistant to traditional questioning methods. A 2023 study examining interviews with terrorist suspects found that investigators gathered significantly more information when they used MI techniques compared to confrontational methods.

To learn more about using MI as an interview technique, download this Motivational Interviewing 'cheat sheet' courtesy of Rutgers University’s SBIRT program.

2. Open-Ended Questions, Affirmations, Reflections, and Summaries (OARS)

The four key communication skills used to demonstrate active and reflective listening in the MI approach are represented by the acronym "OARS”:

  • Open-ended questions invite the interviewee to share their story in their own words, which helps foster acceptance and trust.

  • Affirmations highlight the interviewee’s strengths, efforts, and past successes, helping to build hope and confidence in their ability to change.

  • Reflections involve repeating or rephrasing the interviewee’s statements to clarify meaning and show understanding.

  • Summaries tie together key themes from the conversation, including insights from past discussions, and help reinforce key points.

The OARS communication skills have been shown to be effective in building rapport and encouraging meaningful dialogue. For example, research shows that open-ended questions can help elicit richer, more meaningful responses, while affirmations are especially effective for helping people open up about more personal or sensitive topics. 

To learn more about applying the OARS principles in investigative interviewing, check out this article on the Méndez Principles, which highlights how rapport- and trust-based techniques can lead to more effective and ethical information gathering.

3. The Peace Model

An alternative rapport-building approach is the PEACE model. It focuses primarily on building rapport but also includes some adversarial elements. The PEACE model consists of five distinct phases: Preparation, Engagement, Account and Clarification, Closure, and Evaluation.

  • Preparation: This phase involves reviewing all available evidence and suspect information. The investigator also determines the objective of the interview and creates a detailed written interview plan outlining what questions should be asked and what evidence will be presented. 

  • Engagement: In this phase, the investigator communicates the objective and expectations of the interview to the subject, encouraging them to share their story in as much detail as possible.

  • Account and Clarification: In this phase, the investigator works to clarify key details and promotes further discussion. In some cases, adversarial techniques, such as close-ended questions or challenging inconsistencies in the subject's account, may be employed during this phase.

  • Closure: During the closure phase, the investigator asks if the subject has any further questions and provides information about the next steps in the process.

  • Evaluation: After the interview, the investigator evaluates the information provided, considers how it fits within the context of other evidence, and determines whether further action is necessary.

A 2023 review of the research highlights growing evidence that the PEACE model outperforms traditional interrogation methods. Compared to more adversarial approaches, interviews conducted using the PEACE model produced more reliable information, had higher confession rates, and fewer instances of false confessions. 

To learn more about the PEACE model, check out this comprehensive practitioner’s guide by the Council of Europe.

 

Collaboration

Collaboration interview techniques are strategic methods that focus on building rapport and fostering a sense of mutual purpose between the investigator and the subject. As part of this process, the investigator tries to help the subject see value in their cooperation (e.g. clearing their name, helping a case), or they might frame the interview as a joint effort to solve a problem.

They might also use simple psychology to persuade the subject. For example, the investigator might offer an incentive for cooperation, or give the person a reason to help out. These gestures can make people feel like they should return the favor, which often leads them to open up and share more information.

Interview techniques that involve collaboration include the Cognitive Interview, the ORBIT model, and the Cylinder Model. Each one aims to make the person feel comfortable enough to share accurate and detailed information. The next sections provide a bit more information about each.

4. The Cognitive Interview

Informed by decades of cognitive health research, the Cognitive Interview (CI) employs special techniques to help improve memory recall. For example, someone might be asked to close their eyes, draw a picture, or tell the story from someone else’s point of view. These small changes can jog the memory and bring out more accurate information, and can be especially helpful when speaking with witnesses or victims.

Research studies support the CI as an effective tool for gathering reliable information. Not only does it increase the amount and accuracy of what people remember, it also uses layered questioning to spot inconsistencies, which can help detect if someone is being dishonest. A 2024 study comparing the CI approach to standard protocol showed that the CI elicited more information overall, and was more likely to elicit new, previously unmentioned information. The new information obtained through the CI was also rated as being more useful. 

To learn more about using the CI when interviewing subjects, check out this presentation from the National Crisis Intervention Training Institute.

5. Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT)

Observing Rapport Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) is a collaborative interviewing approach that accounts for the dynamic and interactionist nature of subject interviews, recognizing that both the interviewer and interviewee influence each other’s behavior.

One aspect of ORBIT focuses on rapport-building strategies such as empathy, respect, empowerment, and open-mindedness, similar to MI. The other aspect is based on interpersonal behavioral models developed by Leary and Coffey, and emphasizes how interviewer behavior can be adaptive (beneficial) or maladaptive (disruptive) to communication. Adaptive communication refers to an interviewer’s ability to adjust their communication style based on the subject’s behavior, emotional state, and the urgency of the situation.

Research shows that ORBIT effectively promotes adaptive behaviors, leading to greater information disclosure during interviews. It can be especially helpful in high-stakes scenarios, or when working with people who may be resistant or difficult to talk to.

For more information on the ORBIT model, see this guide from the Center for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST).

6. The Cylinder Model

Sensemaking refers to how people make sense of their experiences and interactions. In investigative interviews, the Cylinder Model posits that communication works best when the interviewer matches their style to the subject.

The cylinder model characterizes three orientations people have towards interactions: 

  • Avoidant (refusing to talk about or take responsibility for an event),

  • Competitive (arguing or acting defensive), and

  • Cooperative (being willing to talk and make concessions).

Within each orientation, there are three motivational frames:

  • Identity (focus on one's own wants or needs),

  • Instrumental (focus on problem solving), and

  • Relational (focus on establishing a relationship with the other party).

People may communicate with different levels of intensity. For example, someone who is shouting or making demands will find it difficult to switch to a more cooperative or relational frame until their intensity is reduced.

The Cylinder Model has been found to help improve cooperation and rapport in interviews. However, it can be challenging to understand and apply correctly in practice. It requires extensive training and careful integration into interview planning.

To learn more about the Cylinder Model, see this article by the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST).

 

Context Manipulation

Context manipulation refers to altering the objective circumstances of an interview to subtly influence the interaction between the investigator and the subject. The investigator can modify the physical environment (e.g., adjust the temperature or change the lighting) to set the "tone" for the interaction.

For example, two different contexts for the same interview. The first one involves a cold dark room with no natural light, and the interviewee is handcuffed to the desk. The second one involves a warmer room with natural light, and the interviewee is unhandcuffed. Which is likely to result in a more cooperative interview subject?

7. Conceptual Priming 

Conceptual priming is a type of context manipulation that involves exposing an individual to a concept via imagery or words, subtly priming the individual to be familiar with that concept in the future. There are many ways of doing this.

The research on context manipulation has been inconclusive, often showing null or mixed outcomes in terms of increasing cooperation and information disclosure.

To learn more about how context manipulation can impact investigative interviews, check out this article.

 

Presentation of Evidence

Presenting evidence is a powerful interview technique that can influence what information the subject is willing to reveal or withhold. There are multiple facets to evidence presentation: why, what, when, and how. According to research, the timing, manner, and purpose of evidence disclosure are critical factors that can significantly impact suspect responses and interview outcomes.

As described in the figure above, presenting evidence involves several considerations. While we can't cover them all here, it’s important to think about the difference between telling an interview subject about weak evidence versus showing them strong evidence – you will get a different response.

For example, an investigator might attempt to overwhelm the subject with strong (and sometimes false) evidence of guilt right away in the beginning of an interview. Alternatively, they may present pieces of evidence systematically in a way that gradually challenges the subject and reveals inconsistencies in their statements. Timing also plays a role, where different pieces of evidence might be revealed in a specific order.

Some investigators may resort to lying about evidence. This is not an approach that we recommend. First, because it is morally problematic. Second, if the person finds out you lied to them, then the likelihood of that person cooperating again in the future is low. 

There are a several techniques related to the presentation of evidence. One of the most commonly known is Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). Another is the Scharf technique, which pertains to evidence and interviewing more generally. Lastly, the Rapport-based Evidence Presentation Model focuses on using evidence in a way that builds trust and encourages cooperation from the subject. We will describe each in more detail below.

8. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)

Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is a technique designed to elicit an open-ended narrative from the subject, followed by the strategic disclosure of evidence to confront and challenge their account. SUE has been found to be effective in detecting deception and eliciting confessions. In fact, just the awareness that evidence could be presented increases the extent to which guilty subjects confess.

To learn more, check out this 2014 research review on the SUE technique.

9. The Scharff Technique

In the Scharff technique, the investigator demonstrates knowledge of the case and then subtly elicits additional information using five key tactics: a friendly approach, not pressing for information, creating an 'illusion of knowing it all', using confirmations, and ignoring new information that is brought up. Because this technique avoids coercive strategies, it is often referred to as a "friendly" interrogation method.

This approach can be particularly helpful with resistant subjects. Resistant subjects often try to gauge what the investigator already knows, which helps inform the decision about what information to withhold or reveal. When subjects are asked very explicit questions, as is common in some other interview techniques, they may believe the investigator knows little about the situation.

In contrast, with the Scharff technique, the investigator is perceived as more knowledgeable, and strategically reveals information to guide the subject toward previously unknown details.

This interviewing technique has been found to be effective in eliciting new information compared to asking explicit questions. Additionally, the Scharff technique influences subjects to underestimate how much information they have disclosed.

Despite its effectiveness, the Scharff technique can be difficult to implement and is not widely taught. We have included it in this post because it frequently comes up in discussions about interview techniques, so we wanted to make sure you had information on it.

To learn more, read about the current state of the research on the Scharff technique.

10. Rapport-Based Evidence Presentation

As part of a recent Department of Defense contract in collaboration with Dr. Christopher Kelly at Saint Joseph's University, my team at Second Sight developed a course centered around the Rapport-Based Evidence Presentation (REP) model. This model was developed through an extensive literature review, consultations with subject matter experts, and content analysis of interviews. You can learn more about research in this area and the REP model in this literature review on evidence presentation.

The REP Model involves building and maintaining rapport through non-confrontational interview techniques. It involves the gradual presentation of evidence, designed to reduce resistance and increase the subject’s willingness to provide information.

You can learn more about instructor-led training options for the use of evidence on our instructor-led courses page.

 

Emotion Provocation

Emotion provocation interview techniques use psychological strategies to evoke strong emotions (negative or positive) from the subject. The goal is to manipulate their perception of the situation, often to make them feel guilty, fearful, or even empathetic, which can encourage a confession. 

Two common techniques associated with emotion provocation are maximization and minimization.

11. Maximization and Minimization

Maximization and minimization strategies are used to convince a subject that confessing is in their best interest.

Maximization involves scare tactics that aim to convince a subject of the hopelessness of their position. For example, the investigator might exaggerate the consequences of the alleged act or present real or fake evidence (the latter of which is obviously deceptive, and not something we endorse) in an attempt to elicit a confession. Maximization techniques can quickly compel information from resistant suspects and help elicit confessions by using aggressive tactics and emphasizing the seriousness of the situation. However, they also can lead to false confessions or cause some people to become defensive or hostile, reducing the overall effectiveness of the interview.

Minimization is when an investigator essentially downplays the seriousness of an offense. For example, the investigator might make a "justifiable" excuse for the crime, or they may feign sympathy for the subject. Minimizing the seriousness of offense can reduce the subject’s perception of potential consequences and can make a confession seem less daunting. Minimization is advantageous in building rapport and fostering cooperation, but there are risks. For example, some suspects may exploit the relaxed environment to manipulate the interaction and offer inaccurate details.

Emotional provocation and other adversarial techniques can increase information disclosure, but they also have an increased risk  for false confessions compared to rapport-based techniques. This is particularly true for children and people with reduced mental capacity.

To learn more, read about some of the ways that police use language to downplay the seriousness of an offense.

 

Confrontation and Competition

Confrontation-based interview techniques are generally more high-pressure compared to other techniques. As the name implies, questioning strategies in this approach are more confrontational.  One such technique that is historically known for its confrontational nature is the Reid Technique.

12. The Reid Technique

The Reid technique is probably the most widely known interrogation method. Historically, the Reid technique has been the predominant interview technique in the United States, and law enforcement organizations throughout the country have trained in Reid for decades.

The technique occurs in multiple stages. First, non-confrontational questions are used, and the investigator observes the suspect's verbal and behavioral cues for signs of deception. Next, the investigator employs potentially psychologically manipulative interview techniques (e.g., maximization or minimization tactics, which can include deception) to elicit a confession.

This interview technique is often used with people whose culpability is already established based on existing evidence. At this stage, the primary goal of the interview is to secure a confession that can lead to a conviction.

The Reid technique has resulted in many accurate and legal confessions. However, its assumptions about coercion and human behavior may not apply to all situations. Some research suggests that high-pressure tactics can increase the risk of false confessions. Across most settings, rapport-based techniques tend to achieve better outcomes.

To learn more, check out the common types of questions used in the Reid technique.

 

Next Steps

In recent years, empirical support for information-gathering and rapport-building approaches has grown to the point where it now justifies the transition to rapport-based techniques for certain investigative situations.

A substantial body of evidence suggests that information-gathering strategies are effective in eliciting true confessions. According research reviews conducted in 2021 and 2025, rapport-based techniques are more likely to facilitate information disclosure compared to adversarial interview approaches.

This is likely because they help build rapport, which in turn enhances feelings of guilt, responsibility, and remorse. As new evidence continues to emerge, interest in rapport-based interview techniques has never been higher.

In short, a science-based model of interrogation is beginning to replace outdated, ineffective, and often problematic methods. To this end, Second Sight's new course, "Evidence Disclosure in Investigative Interviews," teaches participants how to implement a unique blend of rapport-based and evidence presentation interview techniques to enhance their approach to investigative interviewing.   

Learn how to boost your rapport using communication skills in our companion article: “Enhancing Communication: The Power of Active Listening Skills.” To stay in touch regarding this and other topics from Second Sight, sign up for our mailing list.  

Nathan Meehan Ph.D.
Next

5 Threat And Risk Assessment Approaches for Security Professionals in 2025