Interviewing is a cornerstone of criminal and regulatory investigations, as the information obtained from suspects, witnesses, and victims often determines case outcomes. Numerous interviewing frameworks exist or have evolved over the past 50 plus years. These range from accusatorial approaches aimed at obtaining confessions (exemplified by the Reid Technique in the U.S.) to information-gathering approaches focused on eliciting accurate and comprehensive accounts (such as the PEACE model developed in the U.K.).
Similarly, specialized protocols like the Cognitive Interview (CI) for witnesses and the NICHD protocol for child interviews have been developed to improve memory recall and communication during interviews. This article provides a comparative assessment of major investigative interviewing frameworks – including PEACE, NICHD, the Cognitive Interview, Conversation Management, SUE techniques, the Reid Technique, and others. The sources include peer-reviewed research and professional/government publications since 1980. Key evaluation criteria include how ‘effective’ or ‘successful’ interviews are defined (accuracy, completeness, reliability, cooperation, legal admissibility, case outcomes), the methodologies used to evaluate these frameworks, comparative performance findings, regional differences in practice, and summary tables comparing frameworks across common metrics.
Major Investigative Interview Frameworks Overview
Reid Technique (Accusatorial Approach)
Developed in the U.S. in the mid-20th century (and widely used from the 1970s onward), the Reid Technique became the standard law enforcement interrogation framework in North America. It is an accusatorial method, traditionally used with suspects once investigators believe the suspect is likely guilty. Many U.S. police departments and federal agencies have trained their officers in Reid, though its dominance has begun to wane in recent years due to concerns about false confessions. (Canada also used accusatorial methods historically, though some agencies there have shifted toward PEACE-like models in the 2000s.)
The Reid Technique is built around a three-stage process : (1) a factual analysis phase (review evidence, identify likely suspects), (2) a behavior analysis interview (a non-accusatory interview to observe the suspect’s demeanor and “behavioral cues” to deception), and if suspicion remains, (3) an interrogation phase designed to obtain a confession . The interrogation phase is highly confrontational. Investigators are taught to firmly assert the suspect’s guilt, interrupt denials, and use psychological tactics. Two common tactics are minimization – offering face-saving justifications and downplaying the seriousness of the offense – and maximization – exaggerating evidence strength or potential consequences to make denial seem futile. The interrogator often alternates between these, creating stress and pressure to confess. Deceptive techniques are allowed in U.S. law; for example, lying about evidence or implying leniency is common. The goal is to make the suspect perceive that confessing is in their interest.
In the Reid framework, traditionally a “successful” interview is one that produces a confession or incriminating statements from the suspect. The effectiveness was measured by confession rates. Indeed, Reid can be effective at eliciting confessions from guilty individuals. However, extensive research has implied that the same tactics can induce false confessions from innocent suspects, especially vulnerable individuals, due to the intense psychological pressure. As evaluation metrics have shifted toward accuracy and reliability (not just volume of confessions), the Reid Technique has been heavily scrutinized. Later sections will detail how accusatorial methods compare to information-gathering methods on outcomes like true vs false confession rates.
PEACE Framework (Information-Gathering Approach)
Developed in the early 1990s in the U.K. (adopted across UK police forces by 1993) as an ethical, evidence-based alternative to confession-driven interrogations. Now used or adapted in several other countries (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, many European nations) that have officially adopted similar information-gathering interview methods. The acronym stands for the five stages of the interview: Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluation. The PEACE framework consists of Cognitive interviewing and Conversation Management models
PEACE emphasizes obtaining accurate, truthful information rather than extracting confessions at any cost. Interviewers are trained to be fair and open-minded, build rapport, and use open-ended questions to elicit the interviewee’s account, probing for detail and clarifications without coercion. Confrontational tactics (threats, false evidence ploys, minimization/maximization themes) are explicitly avoided. Instead, investigators encourage suspects to provide their narrative and will challenge inconsistencies by disclosing evidence calmly, not aggressively. The model is non-accusatory, and suspects are treated as sources of information rather than targets for accusation. Recording of interviews is standard, ensuring transparency and admissibility.
A “successful” PEACE interview produces a comprehensive and reliable account that can be investigated and tested against evidence. Confessions are welcomed if truthful but are not the sole goal; an interview is deemed effective if it yields reliable, detailed information that advances the investigation. Notably, research has found that PEACE is just as effective as accusatorial methods in eliciting true confessions from guilty suspects, while dramatically reducing false confessions. (Detailed comparative results are discussed later.) This focus on information quality aligns with modern investigative priorities and human rights standards.
Cognitive Interview (CI)
The Cognitive Interview was developed in the 1980s by psychologists Ed Geiselman and Ron Fisher as a method to improve eyewitness recall in investigative interviews. It was born from cognitive psychology research on memory retrieval and was refined into the Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) in the 1990s (adding elements like rapport building and communication guidelines). The CI is widely used in the U.K., parts of Europe, and many other regions for interviewing cooperative interviewees; its use in the U.S. is recommended in guidelines (e.g., the Department of Justice’s guidelines for eyewitness interviews) but implementation has varied by jurisdiction. Components of the CI have also been adapted for interviewing suspects (with added techniques like asking the suspect to recall events in reverse order to detect deception), though the primary application is with witnesses.
The Cognitive Interview is an information-gathering technique grounded in cognitive principles of memory. It has several phases for witnesses , typically: (1) Introductory/rapport, (2) Open-ended narration (the witness is asked to freely recall the event in as much detail as possible without interruption), (3) Probing follow-up questions (interviewer uses open-ended and then specific questions to clarify and expand on details), (4) Review (going over the account, possibly asking the witness if anything was left out), and (5) Closure . Key cognitive techniques include context reinstatement (asking witness to mentally reinstate the context of the event, e.g. how they felt, the environment, which can cue memories) and varied recall (retrieving the memory from different perspectives or in different orders, such as recalling in reverse chronological order). The CI encourages the witness to do most of the talking (target ~80% witness talking). Interviewers are trained to avoid leading questions and instead facilitate the witness’s own memory search. By maximizing the witness’s cognitive recall processes and minimizing interviewer interruptions, the CI seeks to gather more complete and accurate information than a standard Q&A interview.
An effective Cognitive Interview yields a much richer and more detailed account of the witnessed event than standard interviewing, without compromising accuracy. Indeed, meta-analyses have shown the CI can extract substantially more correct details (on the order of ~30% more) compared to typical police interviews, with only a small increase in minor errors and no increase in confabulated (fabricated) details. In other words, witnesses recall more factual information while maintaining high accuracy. Successful CI outcomes are measured by metrics like the number of correct details recalled, errors, and new investigative leads generated. The CI’s focus is on completeness and accuracy of the account, aligning with the broader goal of solving cases (as one policing principle states, “a major factor that determines whether or not a crime is solved is the completeness and accuracy of the witness account” ). This framework has been validated in both lab and field settings and is considered one of the most evidence-backed interviewing techniques in policing to date.
Conversation Management (CM) Model
The Conversation Management (CM) model, developed by Dr. Eric Shepherd in the early 1980s, is an investigative interviewing framework designed to assist interviewers in managing difficult conversations with uncooperative or resistant interviewees. It is particularly suited for suspect interviews where rapport is low, trust has not yet been built, or the interviewee is adopting a defensive, hostile, or minimal response style. CM focuses on the interviewer’s ability to establish control of the conversation in a non-confrontational way, promoting openness while retaining fairness and legal compliance.
At its core, CM operates on the principle that conversation is mutually regulated — both the interviewer and interviewee contribute to shaping the interaction. The model teaches interviewers to use structured phases of an interview to manage this dynamic:
(1) Engage – create a professional, courteous environment;
(2) Explain – clarify the purpose of the interview and establish ground rules (including honesty and accuracy);
(3) Account – facilitate the interviewee’s narrative through open-ended questions;
(4) Challenge – appropriately address contradictions or evasions using evidence; and
(5) Closure – summarize key points and ensure procedural fairness.
The utilization of the Strategic Use of Evidence technique to decide what evidence to reveal and when enhances the challenge phase of Conversation Management.
Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is an interviewing technique developed by researchers in the 2000s that focuses on how and when investigators disclose evidence. This strategy increases the cognitive load on deceptive suspects and often exposes lies (because the suspect may contradict the known evidence). Research has shown SUE can improve the ability to distinguish truthful from deceptive statements without resorting to accusatorial tactics. It integrates well into the information-gathering frameworks like PEACE and is used in some European police training programs to enhance the “Challenge” phase of an interview.
The CM model also advocates careful notetaking, as the ability to accurately summarize and check understanding is critical for managing the conversation effectively. CM provides interviewers with a structured yet flexible approach, ensuring that even when an interviewee is evasive or difficult, the interviewer remains calm, professional, and focused on information-gathering rather than confession-seeking.
ORBIT Interviewing Model
The ORBIT (Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques) model is a modern, evidence-based framework for investigative interviewing that focuses on analyzing and improving interpersonal behavior in interviews, particularly within counterterrorism, high-stakes security settings, and serious crime investigations. Developed from research funded by the UK Home Office (Alison, Alison, Noone & Christiansen, 2013), ORBIT integrates psychological theories of interpersonal behavior with practical interviewing techniques.
ORBIT is not a distinct method of interviewing but rather a framework for coding, analyzing, and improving interviewer performance, focusing on how well an interviewer builds rapport, maintains control, and ethically manages resistance or hostility. It draws heavily on the Interpersonal Circumplex Model, which maps behaviors along two key dimensions: affiliation (warmth vs. hostility) and control (dominance vs. submission). Effective interviewers maintain high levels of affiliation (respect, empathy, cooperation) while exercising appropriate control (assertiveness, managing the structure of the interview).
ORBIT seeks to employ statements that signal empathy and respect (affiliation), while setting clear expectations (control). ORBIT has also emphasized the use of adaptive interviewing techniques such as adaptive interpersonal regulation, where interviewers modulate their style depending on the interviewee’s behavior.
ORBIT is used both as a training tool (developing interviewer skill) and as an evaluation framework (coding real interviews to assess ethical and effective practice). It is closely aligned with the PEACE model but adds a behavioral science layer that helps agencies ensure interviews are both lawful and psychologically sound. It provides evidence that ethical interviewing techniques grounded in rapport and respect lead to greater information disclosure, improved cooperation, and reduced risk of false information or disengagement.
NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol (Child Interviews)
The NICHD protocol was developed in the 1990s by researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with international colleagues. It provides a structured framework for forensic interviews of children in cases of alleged abuse or other crimes. Since its development, it has been adopted or studied in multiple countries (including the U.S., Israel, the U.K. in adapted forms, Canada, and others) as a model for conducting child-friendly, evidence-based interviews. The protocol has informed many training programs for child advocacy center interviewers and police.
The NICHD protocol is a highly structured interview guide that operationalizes research-based best practices for interviewing children. It consists of phases such as:
(1) Introductory/Rapport-building (getting to know the child, explaining ground rules like telling the truth, and encouraging detailed responses),
(2) Practice narrative (children are prompted to describe a neutral event to practice providing narrative detail),
(3) Transition to substantive topic (non-suggestive introduction of the topic of concern, e.g. “Do you know why I came to talk to you?”),
(4) Free narrative (the child is encouraged to describe what happened in their own words with minimal interruption), and
(5) Follow-up questioning (open-ended invitations and cued prompts to elicit more information about the reported incident, with more specific questions only if necessary), followed by closure.
The hallmark of NICHD interviews is the heavy use of open-ended prompts (“Tell me more about that,” “And then what happened?”) to facilitate free recall, and the strict avoidance of suggestive or leading questions. Interviewers using NICHD are trained to minimize the use of option-posing and yes/no questions, especially early in the interview, because open prompts elicit more accurate and detailed responses from children. The protocol also emphasizes pacing the interview according to the child’s developmental level and ensuring the child’s comfort to reduce trauma.
The primary goal is to obtain a forensically accurate and detailed account from the child in a single interview, maximizing information about possible abuse while minimizing trauma and contamination of the child’s memory. A successful NICHD interview is measured by both the quality of interviewer behavior (e.g. proportion of open-ended vs. closed questions) and the quality of information elicited (e.g. number of details provided by the child about the event). Decades of research have shown that the NICHD protocol significantly improves both. Trained interviewers use far more open-ended questions and elicit substantially more detailed and coherent responses from children than they did prior to training. For example, one field study in Canada (Quebec) found that after NICHD training, interviewers used 3 times as many open prompts and obtained more details (with the average details per prompt rising from 3 to 5) compared to their own pre-training interviews. Controlled studies likewise indicate dramatic improvements in interview quality and informativeness when NICHD is employed – “no other technique has been proven to be similarly effective” in eliciting accurate information from child victims. By maximizing free-recall, NICHD interviews aim to increase the accuracy of children’s statements (children’s responses to open questions tend to be highly accurate), which in turn supports appropriate case decisions (e.g. whether there is evidence to substantiate abuse). In sum, NICHD’s effectiveness is defined by obtaining as complete, accurate, and detailed a narrative as the child can provide, in a manner that stands up to scrutiny in court and reduces the need for multiple interviews.
Other Frameworks and Notable Techniques
Beyond the major frameworks above, several other interviewing approaches have been developed or used in the U.S. and Europe. A few examples include:
Step-Wise Interview (Canada)
A structured protocol for child interviews developed in the early 1990s in Canada. It shares similar phases with NICHD (rapport, truth-lie discussion, free narrative, general to specific questions, closure) and aims to maximize information while minimizing trauma. The Step-Wise approach has been widely used in Canada and also influenced practice in parts of the U.S. and UK. However, unlike NICHD, it has not been as rigorously evaluated; one laboratory study found Step-Wise yielded more free-recall information than a play-based interview for children, but generally the empirical support is limited. It is considered a “best practice” framework, though more recent guidance (e.g. in the U.S.) often favors the NICHD or similar protocols.
Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) Guidelines (England/Wales)
First issued in 2002 (revising earlier 1992 guidelines) and still in use (2011 edition), ABE is not a single protocol but official guidance for interviewing vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children. It incorporates many principles of the Cognitive Interview and NICHD approach. ABE interviews are typically video-recorded and involve an open narrative phase followed by appropriate questioning, aligned with the PEACE framework for planning and conducting the interview. Evaluations of actual ABE interviews have found mixed adherence – interviewers generally follow the structure but sometimes still ask too many specific questions. Nonetheless, ABE has institutionalized the expectation of non-leading, victim-centric interviews in the UK, and serves as a benchmark for “successful” witness interviews (success meaning a detailed, coherent account on video that can serve as the witness’s evidence-in-chief in court).
Kinesic Interview/Behavior Analysis
The Kinesic method, used by some in the U.S., involves observing a subject’s verbal and non-verbal behavior for signs of deception or truthfulness. It is more of a technique than a full framework – often combined with accusatorial approaches. Kinesic interviewing relies on the premise that stress and deception will produce observable cues. However, scientific research has debunked many claims of reliably reading deception from behavior (people are generally only around chance level at detecting lies). Thus, purely behavior-based approaches are now viewed as less effective. Modern best practices caution against over-reliance on supposed “deceptive behaviors” and instead focus on evidence-based strategies (like those above) for obtaining and verifying information.
Defining “Effective” or “Successful” Interviews
Before comparing frameworks, it’s important to clarify how effectiveness is defined in investigative interviewing literature. Traditionally, law enforcement often equated a “successful” interrogation with obtaining a confession. However, research and modern practice emphasize more nuanced and quality-focused metrics. An effective investigative interview is generally defined as one that elicits accurate, complete, and reliable information that furthers the investigation or case.
Key operational definitions and criteria include:
Accuracy and Reliability of Information:The information obtained should be truthful and factually correct. In practical terms, this means the interviewee’s statements can be corroborated by evidence or later proven true, and false information is minimized. Effective interviewing aims to gather accounts “as free as possible from error or defect”. For suspects, reliability also implies that any confession corresponds to actual guilt (no false confessions). In research, accuracy is often measured by comparing interview statements to known facts (e.g. in lab studies) or by expert ratings of statement credibility.
Completeness and Amount of Relevant Information:A successful interview produces a comprehensive account, maximizing the detail and scope of information about the event in question. For eyewitnesses, this could be the number of correct details recalled about a crime; for suspects, it could include new investigative leads or admissions; for victims, a full narrative of the incident. In policing, completeness is crucial because the thoroughness of an account can determine if a case is solved. Interviews that yield more pieces of accurate information (while avoiding contamination) are considered superior.
Voluntariness and Cooperation:The interviewee should provide information willingly (even if prompted skillfully by the interviewer), rather than through coercion or compulsion. An interview is effective when it maintains the interviewee’s cooperation and communication, which often correlates with rapport and ethical treatment. This matters for legal admissibility (e.g. coerced statements may be thrown out in court) and for practical reasons (a cooperative subject is more likely to keep talking and reveal useful details). Thus, frameworks that promote rapport and open dialogue are valued for keeping suspects or witnesses engaged.
Admissibility and Legal Soundness:From a legal perspective, an interview is only “successful” if the information obtained can be used in court. Techniques that respect legal safeguards (e.g. Miranda rights in the US or ensuring the suspect’s rights under the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act) and avoid undue coercion produce statements that are admissible as evidence. For example, a confession obtained via threats or promises may be ruled inadmissible – rendering the interview outcome effectively useless. Effective frameworks therefore incorporate legal and ethical standards so that the outcomes (statements/confessions) stand up in court.
Case Outcomes:Ultimately, effectiveness can be viewed in terms of whether the interview moves the investigation forward – e.g., leading to the correct suspect being charged, aiding in a conviction of the guilty or exoneration of the innocent, or otherwise contributing to justice. While many factors influence case outcomes, interview performance is often critical. Metrics here might include clearance or conviction rates attributable in part to interview evidence, or, conversely, the incidence of miscarriages of justice linked to poor interviewing (such as wrongful convictions due to false confessions). A truly effective interviewing framework maximizes the likelihood of just outcomes, obtaining true information that helps solve the case, while avoiding errors that could derail justice.
In summary, an investigative interview’s success is not judged simply by whether someone confessed or how quickly the interview ended, but by the quality of information obtained – its truthfulness, thoroughness, and utility. As one set of international principles puts it, “Effective interviews gather accurate and reliable information to discover the truth of matters under investigation.” This modern understanding informs how different frameworks are evaluated against each other.
Part 2 - Methodologies Used in Evaluating Interviewing Frameworks and Comparative Evaluations – TBC
