Researchers and practitioners have employed a variety of methodologies to assess the effectiveness of investigative interviewing techniques. Each approach provides different insights into how an interview framework performs.
Laboratory Experiments (Controlled Studies)
One common method is the lab experiment or simulation. Researchers recruit participants (often college students) to play the role of witnesses or suspects in a mock scenario. For suspect interrogation studies, a typical design is the “mock crime” paradigm: some participants commit a staged wrongdoing (or are led to believe they did), then everyone is interrogated under different techniques (e.g. one group with an accusatorial method, another with an information-gathering approach). Because the experimenters know who is truly guilty or innocent, they can measure outcomes like the rate of true confessions and false confessions under each technique. For example, a well-known study using a cheating scenario found 0% of innocent participants falsely confessed under a PEACE-style interview, whereas 50% falsely confessed under a Reid-style interrogation. Such experiments allow precise comparisons of tactics while having a ground truth to judge accuracy. They have been synthesized in meta-analyses: a 2024 Campbell systematic review pooled 29 laboratory studies (1996–2023) on suspect interrogations, enabling robust comparisons of confession outcomes across techniques (discussed below). Laboratory studies are also used for witness interviewing research: e.g. showing participants a simulated crime video and then interviewing them with either a standard interview or Cognitive Interview to measure differences in recall accuracy. Lab studies offer high internal validity and the ability to measure otherwise unknowable quantities (like false confession rates, since real innocence/guilt is known in the study).
Field Studies (Real-world Observation)
Field research involves examining actual investigative interviews conducted by police or investigators, often before and after some training or policy change. For instance, investigators might analyze recordings or transcripts of suspect interviews prior to implementing a new framework and then again afterward to see if practices and outcomes improved. The U.K.’s adoption of the PEACE model was evaluated through such field studies – e.g., Clarke and Milne (2001) conducted a national evaluation of PEACE training by reviewing taped interviews of suspects by officers who had undergone the training. They found improvements in interviewing skills and the amount/quality of information obtained post-training. Field studies of the Cognitive Interview have also been done. Police in Florida were trained in CI and gathered more information from actual witnesses compared to untrained officers. Similarly, the NICHD protocol’s impact has been measured in the field by comparing real child interviews conducted by the same interviewers before and after NICHD training (as in the Quebec study cited earlier, which matched 83 pre-training vs 83 post-training interviews). Field studies provide ecological validity – they show how techniques work in practice, with real suspects and witnesses. They can measure things like the number of relevant details obtained suspect cooperation, duration of interviews, and case outcomes (e.g. did the case proceed to charges). However, a challenge is that ground truth is often unknown (except in resolved cases or in judging consistency with evidence) – for example, one can measure how many suspects confessed, but not how many of those were true or false in the field, barring independent proof.
Case File and Archival Analyses
Researchers sometimes analyze case files or large datasets of investigations to find patterns related to interviewing. For example, one might examine wrongful conviction case files to see the role interrogation practices played (this is how it’s known that false confessions contributed to ~12% of known wrongful convictions in the U.S.). Other archival studies might compare, say, conviction rates or clearance rates before vs. after an agency changes its interview training program. These approaches can link interview practices to ultimate outcomes in the justice system (charges, convictions, etc.), though teasing out causation is difficult.
Surveys and Interviews of Practitioners
Another method is asking investigators themselves about their practices and perceptions. Large-scale surveys have compared attitudes in different countries, for instance, a multi-country study surveyed 185 interrogators from the U.S., Canada, and Europe (including UK/Norway etc.) about their approach (accusatorial vs information-gathering orientation). Such surveys can reveal regional differences (e.g. U.S. officers historically report more use of confrontation, whereas those in UK/Europe report using more rapport-based techniques). They also uncover to what extent training (like PEACE) has been adopted and believed in by practitioners. However, self-reports may not always match actual practice.
Government and Independent Reviews
Particularly for major reforms, official bodies have commissioned evaluations. The U.K. Home Office, for example, published evaluation reports on the PEACE model rollout. Children’s advocacy centers in the U.S. have occasionally published “best practices” reviews or outcome statistics for their forensic interviewing programs. Independent commissions (like royal commissions or expert panels) have reviewed interrogation methods considering high-profile cases and made recommendations (e.g. a British Royal Commission in the 1980s helped prompt PACE Act reforms to interrogation). These often synthesize research and case studies to judge effectiveness in a broader sense.
Each methodology has strengths and limitations. Lab studies excel in isolating cause and effect (e.g., definitively showing a technique causes more false confessions), whereas field studies and case reviews demonstrate real-world applicability and identify practical issues (like officers struggling to implement a technique). In this report, findings from all these sources are combined to compare frameworks on common metrics. Wherever possible, peer-reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews are cited for the most reliable aggregated evidence. Individual studies (whether experimental or field) illustrate specific points with concrete data.
Comparative Evaluations: Suspect Interviewing Frameworks (Accusatorial vs Information-Gathering)
Suspect interviewing methods are often categorized into two broad paradigms: accusatorial (e.g. Reid Technique and similar, historically common in the U.S.) and information-gathering (e.g. PEACE model and related techniques, used in the U.K. and many other countries). Extensive research in the past few decades allows for a direct comparison of their effectiveness on key outcomes like true confessions, false confessions, and information yield.
True vs False Confessions
Perhaps the most critical metrics for suspect interrogations are the rates of true confessions (guilty suspects confessing) and false confessions (innocent suspects falsely confessing). An ideal method maximizes true confessions while minimizing false ones. The 2012 and updated 2024 systematic reviews by Meissner et al. and Catlin et al. addressed this by aggregating dozens of studies. The clear finding is that information-gathering approaches outperform accusatorial ones in producing a better balance of true to false confessions. According to the 2024 Campbell review, information-gathering techniques (like those used in PEACE) “increase the number of true confessions and decrease the number of false confessions” compared to both accusatorial and even simple direct questioning. Accusatorial methods, by contrast, tend to elicit more false confessions on average. The differences are striking across 29 lab studies, accusatorial approaches produced significantly higher false confession rates than information gathering ones. Notably, the false confession rate under accusatorial tactics was roughly 4.5 times higher than under information-gathering in the meta-analysis (odds ratio ~4.4). Direct comparisons in controlled experiments illustrate the point: in one study (using the Russano et al. paradigm), 0% of innocent participants subjected to a PEACE-style non-coercive interview falsely confessed, versus 50% of innocents interrogated with the Reid-style accusatorial approach despiteboth methods getting similar confession rates from the truly guilty. This experiment mirrors the general consensus: PEACE-type interviews drastically reduce false confessions while securing confessions from the guilty at rates comparable to Reid.
Why the difference? Information-gathering interviews foster a more narrative account and allow suspects to exonerate themselves with details (or truthfully confess) without feeling trapped by deception. Accusatorial interrogations create a high-pressure environment where even innocents may confess to escape the situation. As a result, jurisdictions that have adopted PEACE have seen far fewer documented false confession cases compared to historical U.S. experience.
Quality and Quantity of Information
Beyond confessions, suspect interviews can yield investigative information (new leads, partial admissions, location of evidence, etc.). Information-gathering approaches tend to collect more information overall from suspects. Under PEACE, the interviewer encourages the suspect to talk at length; even if a suspect does not fully confess, they might divulge partial truths or details that can be followed up. Research indicates PEACE-trained officers gather more relevant information from suspects than those using traditional methods. In the U.K.’s evaluation, PEACE interviews led to higher quantity and quality of information from suspects, which is crucial for solving crimes. Accusatorial approaches, in focusing narrowly on extracting an admission, might short-circuit this process – once a confession is obtained, the interrogation often ends, possibly missing details only the suspect knew. Also, suspects under accusatorial pressure may say the minimum or simply agree with the interrogator’s story, yielding less investigative detail. Thus, from an information gathering standpoint (number of facts learned, new evidence identified), PEACE-style interviews have an advantage. In short, PEACE interviews prioritize eliciting the suspect’s full account, whereas Reid’s approach often prioritizes getting “Yes, I did it”. The former naturally produces a richer narrative.
Effects on Case and Legal Outcomes
The ultimate utility of an interview method also shows in whether it produces usable evidence. In jurisdictions using PEACE, virtually all suspect interviews are recorded on video, preserving the integrity of the suspect’s statement for court. Because coercive tactics are avoided, the resulting admissions or statements are less likely to be ruled involuntary. In the U.S., meanwhile, there have been numerous cases where confessions obtained via Reid-style tactics were later challenged or thrown out due to evidence of coercion or falsehood. From a legal admissibility perspective, information-gathering methods are safer – they create a clear record and fewer grounds for defense challenges (no threats or promises to contest). Additionally, presenting a jury with a confession obtained in a calm, rapport-based interview may appear more credible than one from an aggressive interrogation. On the other hand, a criticism of information-gathering approaches was whether they might reduce confession rates from guilty suspects (who might simply deny if not broken down). However, studies have refuted this concern: guilty suspects confess at similar rates under PEACE as under Reid. In fact, some studies suggest information-gathering can increase guilty confessions by building trust and giving suspects an opportunity to explain themselves (leading them to talk more and sometimes incriminate themselves without a direct “I did it” statement). The Campbell review found information-gathering had an edge in true confession rate over accusatorial, although the biggest gain was over very minimal questioning approaches.
Interview Duration and Cooperation
Information-gathering interviews (like PEACE) often take a more patient, dialogue-driven course, whereas accusatorial interrogations can be very prolonged but narrowly focused on getting a confession. There is some evidence that PEACE interviews, while thorough, do not necessarily take longer than Reid interrogations to reach an outcome; in some cases, they may even be shorter and more efficient because suspects volunteer information sooner when not on the defensive. In terms of suspect experience, suspects generally report lower stress and higher perceptions of fairness in information-gathering interviews. This cooperative atmosphere can have ancillary benefits: for example, a cooperative suspect might be more willing to plead guilty later (having felt they were treated fairly and already told their story) – which aligns with the principle that “an early admission” can benefit the criminal justice system by saving resources.
In summary, when comparing accusatorial and information-gathering suspect interview frameworks, the evidence strongly favors the information-gathering approach (PEACE and similar) on metrics of investigative effectiveness and justice. It matches or exceeds accusatorial methods in eliciting truthful confessions and yields far fewer false confessions. It also gathers more usable information and produces statements that hold up better in court. These findings have led many experts and agencies to call for a paradigm shift in interrogation practices, advocating moving away from Reid-style techniques toward PEACE or other science based interviews.
Comparative Evaluations: Witness Interviewing Techniques (Standard Interview vs. Cognitive Interview)
Eyewitnesses and victims are interviewed not to obtain confessions, but to gather their memories of events. Here the comparison is often between the standard interviewing practices that police historically used (which might involve a free-form or question-answer approach with varying levels of leading questions) and the structured Cognitive Interview (CI) approach (including its enhanced versions) that was introduced to improve recall. Effectiveness is judged by how much information is obtained and how accurate that information is. Research since the 1980s, including multiple meta-analyses, provides a clear picture: the Cognitive Interview consistently outperforms standard interviewing in eliciting more information without significant loss of accuracy.
Amount of Information (Recall Yield): The Cognitive Interview’s primary advantage is in the sheer volume of correct details recalled. Because CI uses memory-enhancing techniques and encourages open-ended narration, witnesses tend to report many more facts than they would under a typical interview. The first major meta-analysis (Köhnken et al. 1999) found about a 30% increase in correct details from CI compared to control interviews. A follow-up meta-analysis covering 25 years of research (Memon et al. 2010) confirmed this: CI produces a large and significant increase in correct details recalled. This effect has been replicated across over 65 experiments in the lab and several field studies. For example, if a standard interview yields 40 correct facts on average, a Cognitive Interview might elicit around 50–55 correct facts from the same witness. This can include additional descriptions of perpetrators, vehicles, actions, or other critical evidence. Importantly, CI is designed to tap into memory in multiple ways (context reinstatement, recalling from different orders/perspectives, focusing intensely on sensory details, etc.), which helps witnesses retrieve details they might otherwise overlook or consider irrelevant. The completeness of witness accounts is greatly improved. In practical terms, more information can lead to more leads for investigators and a fuller picture of the crime.
Accuracy and Error Rates
A concern whenever trying to draw out more information is: are we getting more accurate information, or just more information including inaccuracies? The Cognitive Interview has been scrutinized for this. The evidence shows that while CI can slightly increase the number of errors (incorrect details) a witness recalls, the increase in errors is very small relative to the increase in correct details. Memon et al. (2010) found a small uptick in errors, but crucially no difference in confabulations (totally made-up details) between CI and standard interviews. Essentially, witnesses don’t become more likely to fabricate under CI; they mostly provide additional true details, with a minor proportional increase in mistakes. The overall accuracy rate (percent of recalled details that are correct) often remains similar between CI and standard interviews, because both correct and incorrect details may increase somewhat. However, because CI yields so many more facts, the absolute number of correct details far outweighs the few extra errors. For investigative purposes, this is a net win, especially if investigators can later corroborate details. In sum, CI improves quantity of information with negligible impact on accuracy. For example, one study reported that witnesses in CI gave 35% more correct details than controls, with only an 8% increase in errors, and no change in confabulations. With proper training, interviewers also avoid leading questions in CI, which helps maintain accuracy.
Memory and Communication Techniques
Another angle of comparison is the method itself. A standard police interview of a witness in the 1980s often consisted of the officer asking a series of specific questions (“What did he look like? What did he do then? Did you see a weapon?”) which can fragment the witness’s recall and impose the officer’s structure on the account. In contrast, the Cognitive Interview’s phased approach is more witness-centered and cognitively sophisticated. This not only yields more information, but witnesses frequently report that CI made them mentally relive the event, jogging memories they wouldn’t have recalled otherwise. For example, techniques like having the witness sketch the scene or recall the events backward are absent in a standard interview but are integral to CI. These impose a cognitive load that can also incidentally help in spotting if someone is lying (though for genuine witnesses, it mainly serves to retrieve more detail).
Applicability Across Ages and Cases
The CI has proven effective across different witness populations. Intriguingly, research indicates that older adult witnesses (seniors) benefit even more from Cognitive Interview techniques than younger adults. Older witnesses typically recall fewer details than younger ones under standard conditions, but the cognitive aids in CI help bridge that gap, possibly by providing more retrieval cues for their memory. This is important given an aging population and the frequency of older victims of crime. CI has been applied not just to eyewitnesses of crimes, but to victims recounting traumatic events and even to other contexts like accident investigations. Its adaptable, and enhanced versions include establishing rapport and addressing the emotional state of interviewees, which standard interviews historically gave less attention to.
Field Implementation and Outcomes
In field practice, many police agencies that train officers in Cognitive Interviewing have reported positive outcomes. For example, the UK mandated training in CI for detectives in the 1990s, and surveys of officers showed they believed it yielded better witness statements (though they acknowledged it takes more time and effort). Field experiments have found that detectives trained in CI gathered significantly more information in actual cases than those without CI training. One real-world trial in Florida showed a 63% increase in new facts obtained from witnesses after detectives were trained in CI, compared to their old interviewing style. Importantly, those facts were later verified to be accurate, contributing to case resolution. The CI technique is also credited with improving the quality of evidence such that some cases that might have remained unsolved (due to scant information) were solved thanks to detailed witness recollections.
Limitations
No technique is without challenges. Cognitive Interviews do take longer on average than a quick standard interview because of the extensive narration and multiple recall attempts. They also require a high level of training and skill – not all officers apply all components of the CI correctly or fully (some research observed that in the field, officers sometimes skip certain steps due to time pressure or forget to use some mnemonics). Thus, the effectiveness of CI in practice depends on interviewer proficiency. Another consideration is witness fatigue, cognitive techniques can be mentally taxing, so interviewers must know when a witness is too tired to continue effectively. Despite these practical issues, the consensus is that CI, when well-executed, is markedly superior to standard interviewing for witnesses in terms of investigative value.
In essence, the Cognitive Interview has proven to be a major advancement over standard interviewing, yielding substantially more information without compromising accuracy. This makes investigations more effective and reduces the chances of missing critical evidence from witness testimony.
Comparative Evaluations: Child Forensic Interview Protocols (NICHD vs. Others)
When it comes to interviewing children, especially in abuse or witness situations, the techniques must be adapted to children’s cognitive and communicative abilities. The NICHD protocol is the most extensively studied child interviewing framework, but other guidelines like the Step-Wise interview and various local protocols (Corner House, Child First, etc. in the U.S., and Achieving Best Evidence in the UK) are also used. The key issues in child interviews are maximizing detail and accuracy while minimizing suggestiveness and trauma. Here we compare NICHD with more traditional or alternative approaches.
Quality of Interviewer Questions
A fundamental measure in child interviews is the proportion of open-ended versus leading questions. Open-ended invitations (e.g. “Tell me everything that happened”) are known to elicit more accurate and richer responses from children, whereas specific or leading questions (e.g. “Did he touch you there?”) can yield brief or potentially contaminated answers. Studies evaluating NICHD have consistently found that it leads to major improvements in interviewer questioning practices. Interviewers trained in NICHD use far more open-ended prompts and far fewer leading or suggestive questions than before training. For example, in one field evaluation, use of open prompts tripled, and use of more focused questions halved under NICHD. Other techniques that lack a structured protocol often see interviewers, even well-intentioned ones, default to more specific questioning, especially if the child is initially quiet. The Step-Wise guidelines also encourage open-ended first, but research suggests that without the level of scripting and training of NICHD, interviewers sometimes drift into specific questions sooner. Overall, NICHD sets a high standard: one review concluded that “controlled studies have repeatedly shown that the quality of interviewing reliably and dramatically improves when interviewers employ the NICHD Protocol”, and no other technique has matched its effectiveness in this regard.
Amount and Detail of Information from Children
The ultimate goal is to get the child to share as many factual details about their experience as possible, in their own words. NICHD’s effectiveness is evident in the greater number of details children provide. In multiple field studies (USA, UK, Israel, Canada), children interviewed with the NICHD protocol gave significantly more narrative details about alleged abuse than those interviewed pre-protocol or with other methods. For instance, the average number of “forensically relevant details” obtained can increase substantially – one study in Israel found NICHD interviews yielded 2–3 times more details from young children regarding abusive events compared to non-protocol interviews. These details often include critical information like what exactly was done, where, how many times, etc., which are essential for evidence. By contrast, interviews that rely more on closed questions might only get yes/no or very brief answers (“Did X happen? – Yes.” without elaboration). The Step-Wise approach, being similar in philosophy, also aims to maximize details through a gradual interview process. A lab comparison in 2003 found that children in Step-Wise interviews recalled more free-narrative details than those in a toy/doll-facilitated interview, indicating it does improve narrative recall. However, the Step-Wise has not been subject to the same breadth of empirical validation. It’s widely assumed to be effective since it aligns with best practices, but NICHD has the data to back it. In practice, many Step-Wise interviews likely resemble NICHD ones in outcome when done by skilled interviewers, but consistency might vary.
Accuracy and Reliability
With child testimony, accuracy is paramount because children are suggestible. The NICHD protocol’s heavy reliance on the child’s free narrative is designed to preserve accuracy – details that children volunteer in free recall tend to be highly reliable (children rarely fabricate spontaneously in detail; most false content comes from suggestive prompting). Research supports the idea that NICHD interviews, by minimizing suggestive questions, result in statements that are more internally consistent and corroborated by external evidence at higher rates than statements from less structured interviews. Cases where NICHD is implemented have seen improved corroboration rates (i.e., independent evidence supports the child’s statements), though measuring this is complex. Other protocols like ABE or Step-Wise, if followed rigorously, also aim for accuracy, but NICHD’s structured script ensures critical safeguards (like a scripted transition and no introduction of names or terms the child hasn’t mentioned) which ad-hoc interviews might miss. In essence, the more the interview relies on the child’s own words, the higher the accuracy tends to be. Any approach (NICHD, Step-Wise, ABE) that prioritizes open questions and avoids leading is likely to produce reliable accounts; NICHD just systematizes this to a greater degree.
One concrete measure is the reduction of “suggestive prompts” – NICHD nearly eliminates them; many non-protocol interviews unfortunately still contained a notable percentage of suggestive or risky questions, according to content analyses. Fewer suggestive prompts correlate with fewer contradictions and less recantation later.
Trauma and Child Well-being
While harder to quantify, an effective child interview should minimize additional trauma. Protocols like NICHD and Step-Wise include rapport building and neutral topics to make the child comfortable. A chaotic or aggressive interview can traumatize a child or shut them down. By providing structure and support (e.g., telling the child they can correct the interviewer, or that it’s okay not to know answers), NICHD and similar frameworks create a child-friendly environment. Success here can be seen in children’s engagement: NICHD interviews tend to keep children talking longer and more comfortably. In contrast, poorly conducted interviews might see children withdraw or simply acquiesce to suggestions. Professional guidelines (like ABE in the UK) stress the importance of the child’s needs at closure and not pushing a child beyond their comfort. All these factors contribute to an interview being considered successful beyond just evidentiary value.
Outcomes in Investigations
The true test is whether using a given protocol improves case outcomes (e.g., appropriate action taken against offenders, or clearing the innocent). There is evidence that jurisdictions adopting NICHD have seen increases in substantiation rates for abuse cases, likely because interviews gather better evidence to substantiate true allegations while filtering out cases where no abuse occurred (as children are less likely to be misled into false claims). In one study, more charges were filed in cases investigated with NICHD interviews than before, presumably due to stronger victim statements. Achieving Best Evidence guidance in the UK similarly was intended to improve the quality of evidence such that more cases could go to trial with the child’s video interview as testimony. While many factors play into case outcomes, high-quality interviews are a necessary foundation for success in court for child abuse cases.
Both the NICHD and Step-Wise approaches aim to achieve effective child interviews which means a child provides a detailed, accurate, and credible account of their experience in a single interview, enabling investigators and courts to act on that information. NICHD’s edge lies in its strong research foundation, which has quantified its benefits (more details, better interviewer behavior). Step-Wise and similar frameworks, while logically sound and widely applied, highlight the importance of ongoing research: indeed, the field increasingly incorporates NICHD findings into all interview models (for example, many Step-Wise trainings now include NICHD techniques or even use the NICHD protocol but still call it “step-wise”). In practice today, there is convergence – interviews with children in the U.S., Canada, and Europe all emphasize open-ended free narrative, avoid suggestion, and follow a phased structure; differences are often in how strictly scripted the protocol is and how well interviewers stick to it.
The U.S. has historically relied on the Reid Technique for interrogations and had less centralized control over police practices (with thousands of agencies, each with their own policies). Thus, any changes have been slower and patchier. However, the past two decades have seen significant movement. Influential research (much of it by American psychologists) on false confessions, along with DNA exoneration cases, raised awareness that traditional interrogations can go badly wrong. Some law enforcement leaders began to acknowledge the need for change. The FBI and other federal agencies in the post-9/11 era, especially with the creation of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), invested in research on non-coercive techniques, effectively validating approaches very similar to PEACE. The HIG’s findings and other training efforts have started to filter into mainstream policing: for example, federal agents now receive training on rapport-based techniques and cognitive interviewing for suspects. The FBI’s official Law Enforcement Bulletin notes that PEACE is as effective as Reid in obtaining confessions from the guilty, without the drawbacks, signaling a shift in mindset even within the FBI.
That said, many U.S. police officers still use accusatorial methods to some degree, and the transformation is ongoing. The U.S. legal system still permits deception in interrogations (except in a few states that recently banned lying to minors). Recording of interviews is not federally mandated, though many states now require recording of serious suspect interrogations. These differences mean that while Europe has largely institutionalized investigative interviewing, the U.S. is in a reform phase with a mix of old and new techniques in practice. Surveys around 2017–2018 showed American and Canadian interrogators were more accusatorial on average than their European/Australasian counterparts, but younger officers and those aware of research were trending toward information-gathering styles.
In summary, Europe (and many allied countries) have largely converged on science-led interviewing frameworks (PEACE for suspects, Cognitive for witnesses, structured protocols for children) since the 1990s, whereas the U.S. is beginning the process of catching up after recognizing issues with its traditional methods.
Conclusion
Over the past four decades, the field of investigative interviewing has undergone a transformative journey, guided by empirical research and hard lessons from real cases. This comparative evaluation highlights that frameworks such as the PEACE model, the Cognitive Interview, and the NICHD protocol have brought substantial improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of information obtained during interviews. These improvements ultimately enhance justice. These information-gathering approaches have proven their worth against older, confession-driven techniques like the Reid Technique, showing that it is possible to obtain the truth effectively without coercion or deception. In suspect interrogations, information-gathering methods achieve comparable true confession rates while virtually eliminating false confessions. In interviewing cooperative witnesses and victims, cognitive techniques extract significantly more relevant facts with high accuracy. And in the highly sensitive realm of child interviews, structured protocols grounded in research (like NICHD) enable even young children to provide coherent, court-worthy accounts of their experiences.
Crucially, we see that defining “success” in interviews has shifted: quality of information – its truthfulness and thoroughness – is paramount, rather than simply obtaining a confession or a statement by any means. Effective interviews are those that stand up to scrutiny and lead to correct outcomes. The literature consistently operationalizes effectiveness in terms of accurate and complete recall, cooperative engagement, and legal soundness, and the comparative evidence reviewed aligns with these values. Frameworks that prioritize rapport, open-ended inquiry, and ethical practices not only meet humanitarian standards but also produce better investigative results than accusatorial or suggestive methods.
Methodologically, the body of evidence comes from a robust mix of laboratory experiments, field evaluations, and case analyses, lending confidence to conclusions. Lab studies with known ground truth have been especially illuminating in quantifying the risks of certain techniques (e.g. false confession rates), while field studies confirm that these findings carry over to real police work. It’s telling that whenever agencies have implemented and properly trained in these modern frameworks, the outcomes have been positive, indicating the research is not just academic but practically viable. Of course, training and maintenance of skills remain an ongoing challenge; an interview framework is only as good as the interviewer’s ability and willingness to apply it. Continuous professional development and quality assurance (e.g., reviewing interview recordings for adherence to best practices) are recommended in the literature to ensure these frameworks realize their full potential.
In conclusion, the accumulated peer-reviewed and gray literature since 1980 makes a compelling case for widespread adoption of frameworks like PEACE, NICHD, and the Cognitive Interview across all investigative contexts. These approaches have been evaluated from every angle – theoretical soundness, laboratory efficacy, field effectiveness, legal outcomes – and have proven superior in obtaining the truth. By comparing them to traditional methods, we see not only how they improve outcomes (e.g., by reducing false information and increasing detail) but also why – they align with fundamental principles of memory and communication, and they uphold the dignity of those being interviewed, which in turn fosters truth-telling. As agencies continue to implement these methods, we can expect further refinements (such as new techniques for specific challenges like interviewing traumatized persons or leveraging technology for self-administered interviews). The trend, however, is clear and likely irreversible: the era of third-degree and manipulative grilling is giving way to the era of the professional, ethical, and effective investigative interviewer, to the benefit of justice worldwide.
Sources:
Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National Evaluation of the PEACE Investigative Interviewing Course. London: Home Office. [Summary of findings available: PEACE model led to higher quality and quantity of information from suspects] .
Memon, A., Meissner, C., & Fraser, J. (2010). “The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340–372. [Meta-analysis showing CI increases correct details with minimal errors] .
Lamb, M. et al. (2007). “Structured forensic interview protocols improve the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD protocol.” Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11-12), 1201–1231. [NICHD protocol effectiveness: open prompts and more details] .
Meissner, C. et al. (2012). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews. [Original systematic review; found info-gathering superior to accusatorial in false confession rates].
Catlin, M., et al. (2024). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: An update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(1). [Latest meta-analysis: info-gathering increases true confessions, decreases false confessions] .
Hood, B. & Hoffman, L. (2019). “Current State of Interview and Interrogation.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. [Practitioner overview comparing Reid vs PEACE vs Cognitive, noting PEACE’s success and ethical advantages] .
Snook, B., et al. (2010). “Reforming investigative interviewing in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52(2), 215-229. [Discussion of moving from Reid to PEACE in Canada; notes PEACE equally effective at confessions] .
Ministry of Justice (UK) (2011). Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Guidance). [UK government guidelines for witness interviews, emphasizing open-ended questions and video recording].
Cyr, M. & Lamb, M. (2009). “Assessing the effectiveness of the NICHD protocol in French-speaking Quebec.” Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(5), 257-268. [Field study: NICHD training tripled open-ended questions, yielded more details] .
Milne, R. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. [Early work formulating principles of complete and accurate witness accounts] .
Brandon, S. et al. (2018). “ACCUSATORY AND INFORMATION-GATHERING INTERVIEW AND INTERROGATION METHODS: A Multi-Country Comparison.” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 315-326. [Survey of international practices; highlights widespread adoption of info-gathering in UK/Europe vs accusatorial in US] .
Dunk, M. (2017). The tendency of Reid and PEACE interrogation techniques to elicit true and false confessions: A variation of the Russano et al. (2005) paradigm. [Undergraduate thesis; reported 0% false confessions under PEACE vs 50% under Reid in a controlled study] .
Schreiber Compo, N. et al. (2012). “Interviewing witnesses and victims.” Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing. [Review of cognitive interview and related techniques in practice].
Powell, M., Fisher, R., & Wright, R. (2005). “Investigative interviewing,” in Handbook of Forensic Psychology. [Discusses various interviewing models across jurisdictions].
