top of page
Writer's pictureC. Edward

Accusatorial vs. Science-Based Interview Techniques: Which Yields Better Results? 

In law enforcement, the interview and interrogation methods employed can significantly impact the outcomes of investigations. Effective interview and interrogation styles are crucial for obtaining accurate, reliable information, influencing legal outcomes, investigative decisions, and public trust. The RAND Corporation notes that interviews are the most important component of a successful investigation. This article will compare two prominent interview and interrogation techniques: accusatorial and science-based interview paradigms. We will explore the nuances, strengths, and weaknesses of each approach, we will explore why science-based methods are increasingly being advocated for their superior ability to yield higher-quality information, a higher quantity of information, minimize the risk of false confessions, and future-proof modern law enforcement.


Understanding Accusatorial Interview Styles 

Characteristics of Accusatorial Methods 

Accusatorial interviewing, often used in the United States, is characterized by its

Science-based methods equals community trust
Science-based methods are a better fit for sound investigations, community trust, and justice

confrontational and guilt-presumptive nature. The primary goal is to obtain a confession from the suspect. Techniques employed include psychological manipulation, such as presenting false evidence and creating a sense of inevitability about the suspect’s guilt. Interrogators aim to establish control over the suspect through dominance and pressure tactics. These methods often involve closed-ended, confirmatory questions that limit the suspect's responses. The process typically begins with direct confrontation where the suspect is accused and then proceeds to elicit a confession through strategies that minimize the perceived consequences of admitting guilt (minimization). While these methods can be effective in securing confessions, they carry a high risk of inducing false confessions because of the psychological pressure applied to the suspect. 


Techniques and Outcomes 

Accusatorial interrogation techniques revolve around techniques established in the 1950s, which emphasize isolation, confrontation, and persuasion. Interrogators often start by accusing the suspect of the crime, leveraging evidence—whether real or fabricated—to create an atmosphere of inevitability. Techniques such as maximization and minimization are commonly employed. Maximization involves exaggerating the severity of the situation, while minimization downplays the crime's seriousness, suggesting leniency in exchange for a confession. 


In a recent review of police academy curriculum, much of it was found loaded with outdated accusatorial tactics and unproductive communication practices. The following phrases are samples taken directly from a presentation: "move in and put more pressure on," "signs of weakening," "block the denial then immediately re-accuse," and "you can mislead suspects about the facts." The stated goal of an interrogation was to get the truth, which was in one curriculum is defined as an "interrogation resulting in a confession," under the belief that "no one would confess to something they didn't do." There was no distinction for juveniles, mentally challenged individuals, or special circumstances.


The outcomes of these accusatorial methods are mixed. While they can be effective in obtaining confessions, studies have shown a significant downside: the increased risk of false confessions. The psychological pressure and manipulative tactics can lead innocent individuals to confess to crimes they did not commit, as they perceive it as their only escape route from an intolerable situation. This raises ethical and legal concerns, impacting the reliability of the confessions, and case information, obtained through accusatorial methods. 


Critique of Accusatorial Methods 

Accusatorial methods face substantial criticism due to their inherent risks and ethical issues. One of the primary concerns is the high risk of false confessions. Psychological pressure and manipulative tactics can coerce innocent individuals into confessing to crimes they did not commit. An article from the Journal of Law and Human Behavior by Kassin et al. (2010), highlights how an accusatory interrogation style, along with other factors, influences confessions and false confessions.


Accusatorial techniques often create an adversarial atmosphere, damaging rapport between the interrogator and the suspect. This can lead to resistance rather than cooperation, reducing the overall effectiveness of the interrogation. Ethical concerns also arise from the use of deceit and psychological manipulation, which can be seen as compromising the suspect's rights and dignity. Consequently, these methods can undermine public trust in law enforcement and the legal system, calling into question the legitimacy of the case information and confessions obtained through such means. 


Furthermore, there may often be no opportunity for a second interview if facts, evidence, or circumstances change, making rapport-building crucial. Relying on accusatorial methods and going for a confession can be a "hail mary" play but it is more often than not, a poor investigative strategy. Instead, using questioning techniques with productive questions and through “funnels” allows investigators to conceal their objectives, when needed, gather information naturally, and maintain rapport. Science-based approaches not only preserve the credibility and reliability of the obtained information but also ensure the integrity of the investigation and avoid tainting future interviews. 


Accusatorial methods can have a detrimental impact on long-term investigations. The adversarial nature of these techniques often leads to a breakdown in rapport and trust between the investigator and the suspect. This can result in limited cooperation in future interactions, making it difficult to gather further information or corroborate evidence. Moreover, coercive tactics will taint the long-term investigation process impacting community trust, causing potential witnesses or informants to be less willing to come forward due to fear of similar treatment.


Exploring Science-Based Interview Styles 

Characteristics of Science-Based Methods 

Science-based interview methods prioritize rapport-building, open communication, and cognitive techniques to elicit accurate information. These methods, such as the Cognitive Interview and the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), focus on understanding the interviewee's perspective and encourage cooperation rather than confrontation.


Techniques include the use of open-ended questions, allowing suspects to narrate events in their own words, and avoiding leading questions that could bias their responses. 

The approach is grounded in psychological principles that enhance memory recall and reduce stress, making it easier for suspects to provide reliable information. Interviewers are trained to use active listening, immediacy behaviors, and create an environment where the interviewee can share information freely. This method aims to gather high-quality information by minimizing the risk of false confessions and ensuring that any admissions are made voluntarily and truthfully. Research supports that science-based methods lead to better outcomes in terms of both the quality and quantity of information obtained, and they do NOT decrease the number of confessions. 


Techniques and Outcomes 

Science-based interview techniques include the Cognitive Interview and active listening, both of which emphasize ethical practices and psychological principles. The Cognitive Interview involves techniques such as context reinstatement, varied recall, and focused retrieval to enhance memory accuracy. Interviewers encourage subjects to recall events in different sequences and from various perspectives, which aids in uncovering more detailed and accurate information. 


Active listening is a crucial component of effective interviewing and interrogation. It involves fully concentrating, understanding, reflecting, and remembering what the interviewee says. This approach builds and sense of empathy and rapport, reducing the interviewee's anxiety and increasing their willingness to share information. 


Accusatorial versus science-based methods
Accusatorial versus science-based methods

These techniques result in higher-quality information and a reduction in the risk factors that are seen in false confession cases. Additionally, studies show that subjects are more likely to provide truthful and comprehensive accounts when they feel respected and not pressured. The outcomes of these methods are not only ethically superior but also more effective in achieving reliable investigative results through the quantity and quality of information procured. 


Benefits of Science-Based Methods 

Science-based interview methods offer numerous benefits, primarily in terms of accuracy and ethical standards. One significant advantage to the entire criminal justice system is the reduction in false confessions. By focusing on rapport-building and open-ended questioning, these methods minimize psychological pressure and manipulation, making it less likely for innocent individuals to confess falsely. 


Additionally, science-based techniques enhance the quality and quantity of information obtained. Methods like the Cognitive Interview have been shown to improve memory recall, enabling interviewees to provide detailed and accurate accounts. These techniques also foster a cooperative environment, encouraging suspects to share information willingly. 

Psychologically and ethically, science-based methods are superior, promoting respect for the interviewee. This improves the interviewee's environment and bolsters public trust in law enforcement practices. Research including findings from the Journal of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law by Russano et al. (2024), supports the effectiveness and reliability of science-based interview techniques. 


Comparative Analysis 

Key Differences in Interview & Interrogation Styles

The primary differences between accusatorial and science-based interview methods lie in their approach, techniques, and outcomes. Accusatorial methods are confrontational, aiming to obtain a confession through psychological manipulation and pressure. Techniques involve presenting false evidence and using closed-ended questions that corner the suspect into admitting guilt. These methods can lead to false confessions and false information due to the high stress and coercion imposed on the interviewee. 

In contrast, science-based methods prioritize rapport-building and open communication. They use cognitive techniques and open-ended questions to enhance memory recall and reduce stress. The goal is to gather accurate and reliable information rather than merely securing a confession. 


Outcomes also differ significantly. Accusatorial methods often result in lower-quality information and higher risks of false confessions. Conversely, science-based techniques yield better-quality information and fewer false confessions. These differences underscore the ethical and practical advantages of adopting science-based methods in law enforcement and intelligence settings. 


Case Studies and Empirical Data 

Empirical data and case studies provide compelling evidence for the effectiveness of science-based interview methods over accusatorial techniques. For instance, a meta-analysis by Meissner et al. (2014) compared the two approaches across various studies. The results indicated that science-based methods, such as the Cognitive Interview and the PEACE model, produced higher-quality information and significantly fewer false confessions. 


Field studies conducted by the FBI’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) also support these findings. Their research demonstrated that science-based methods lead to more accurate and comprehensive information disclosure, as well as increased cooperation from interview subjects. Additionally, empirical data from psychological journals corroborate these results, highlighting the ethical and practical superiority of science-based techniques. 


Notable case studies, such as those investigated by the Innocence Project, further illustrate the pitfalls of accusatorial methods, showcasing numerous wrongful convictions due to false confessions. These data collectively emphasize the absolute need for a paradigm shift towards science-based interviewing in law enforcement practices. 


Implications for Practice 

Adoption of Science-Based Interview Methods 

The adoption of science-based interview methods in law enforcement is crucial for improving investigative outcomes and maintaining public trust. These methods, underpinned by psychological and cognitive principles, offer a more ethical and effective approach to not just suspect interviews, but all interviews. Law enforcement agencies should prioritize training programs that focus on techniques like the Cognitive Interview and Science-Based Interviewing. 


Empirical evidence, including research from the FBI’s HIG, demonstrates the practical benefits of these methods. Agencies that have adopted science-based approaches report higher-quality information gathering and reduced instances of false confession risk factors. Moreover, these techniques foster a non-adversarial relationship between investigators and suspects, encouraging cooperation and truthfulness. 


Implementing science-based methods can also address ethical concerns, ensuring that suspects' rights and dignity are respected throughout the interview process. This shift not only enhances the credibility of law enforcement within their respective communities but also strengthens the overall integrity of the criminal justice system. It is imperative for agency executives to integrate these evidence-based practices into their standard operating procedures and begin introducing the more effective science-based methods to their departments and offices. 


Training and Implementation 

Effective training and implementation of science-based interview methods are essential for their successful adoption in law enforcement. Training programs should focus on key techniques such as rapport-building, cognitive interviewing, and the use of active listening. Programs like those conducted by Insight & Integrity have shown real-world



results, in the most serious cases such as homicides, gang crimes, sexual assaults, and shootings. Science-based interviewing equips investigators with practical skills grounded in scientific research that are more effective and ethically grounded. 


Implementation requires a structured approach, including initial training sessions followed by ongoing support, continued education, and evaluation. Interactive exercises, role-playing, and real-world simulations can enhance learning outcomes. Additionally, integrating feedback mechanisms helps continuously improve techniques and adapt them to various scenarios. 


Real-world effectiveness has been demonstrated in multiple agencies that have adopted these methods. For instance, feedback from practitioners indicates higher levels of cooperation and more accurate information retrieval. By institutionalizing science-based techniques, law enforcement agencies can ensure that their investigative practices are both ethical and effective, ultimately leading to more reliable legal outcomes. 


The Future of Police Interviews

Embracing Information Supremacy

The future of police interviews lies in the concept of information supremacy, which emphasizes both the quality and quantity of information gathered. Advances in technology, such as body-worn cameras (BWC) and interview room cameras, now allow for real-time transcription and searchable transcripts. These innovations, combined with sophisticated police records management systems (RMS) and analytical tools, are revolutionizing investigative activities. Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to play a crucial role in creating actionable intelligence, providing real-time dashboards, and delivering data directly to investigators' handheld devices. Science-based methods, which prioritize ethical and effective interviewing techniques, are future-proof for agencies ready to commit to modernizing their investigative practices.


Body worn cameras and A.I.
Body-worn cameras capture real-time data
Moving from Legacy Methods to Modern Innovations

Comparing legacy accusatorial methods to modern science-based techniques is akin to comparing an old car to a new one. The accusatorial methods, which have been in use for over seventy years, are outdated and often less effective. They rely on confrontation and psychological pressure, which can lead to false confessions and unreliable information. Alternatively, science-based methods are continually tested through the scientific methods with the latest research and field studies. These methods offer improved communication features and outcomes, making them adaptable for both the most violent crimes and the most sensitive of situations. Just as a new car provides enhanced safety, efficiency, and performance, science-based interview techniques offer a more ethical, reliable, and effective approach to modern policing. Why stick with "the way we have always done it" when the new methods provide such clear benefits?


Winds of Change

Recently, California and Kansas have adopted science-based interview and interrogation practices at the state level, signaling a movement towards more ethical and effective interrogation techniques. Legislatures in several other states are beginning to outlaw the use of false evidence ploys and lying to juveniles during interrogations. These changes mark a crucial step forward in protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring the justice system's integrity. States are moving away from these outdated and harmful practices by adopting science-based methods and mandating changes.


Conclusion 

Recap and Final Thoughts 

In summary, comparing accusatorial and science-based interview methods highlights the clear advantages of adopting the latter. Accusatorial techniques, characterized by their confrontational and manipulative nature, often lead to false confessions, false accounts, and lower-quality information. In contrast, science-based methods, such as the Cognitive Interview, rapport building, and active listening, prioritize ethical practices and psychological principles, resulting in more reliable and comprehensive information. 


The benefits of science-based methods are well-documented through empirical studies and case analyses, showcasing their effectiveness in real-world applications. These techniques not only improve investigative outcomes but also uphold the ethical standards expected in modern law enforcement by the communities they serve. 


As law enforcement agencies continue to adopt evidence-based methods, integrating science-based interviews is essential for maintaining public trust and enhancing the integrity of the criminal justice system. Adopting these practices ensures that investigations are conducted fairly, ethically, and more effectively by future-proofing agencies for technological advances. All of these factors lead to more accurate and just legal outcomes. 


Call to Action 

Law enforcement agencies must take decisive steps to transition from accusatorial methods to science-based interview techniques. This shift is not only vital for improving the accuracy of information gathered but also for upholding ethical standards and public trust. Agencies should prioritize comprehensive training programs that focus on cognitive interviewing and Science-Based Interviewing, ensuring that all investigators are well-equipped with these more effective, evidence-based practices. 


Policymakers and leaders within the criminal justice system should advocate for the adoption of science-based methods through updated policies and guidelines. Funding should be allocated to support the training and continuous professional development of law enforcement professionals in these techniques. By committing to this transformation, law enforcement can enhance the integrity of their investigations, reduce the incidence of false confessions, and foster a justice system that is both fair and reliable. Now is the time to embrace science-based methods and ensure that future investigations are conducted with the highest standards of accuracy and ethics. 


Bibliography

Brandon, S., & Wells, S. (2019). Science-Based Interviewing. BookBaby.


Brandon, S. E., Wells, S., & Seale, C. (2018). Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1496


Catlin, M., Wilson, D. B., Redlich, A. D., Bettens, T., Meissner, C. A., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2023). PROTOCOL: Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: An update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(1), e1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1314


Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., Houston, K. A., Russano, M. B., & Horgan, A. J. (2013). Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing accusatorial and information-gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.03.002


Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024). High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Fbi.gov. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/high-value-detainee-interrogation-group


Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6


Meissner, C. A. (2021). “What works?” Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the investigative interviewing research literature. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3808


Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D. J., Brandon, S. E., Wells, S., Kleinman, S. M., Ray, D. G., & Jones, M. S. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of a 5-day training on science-based methods of interrogation with U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement investigators. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, 30(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000422

Comments


bottom of page