When Comfortable Methods Become Dangerous Habits

“I’ve been doing it this way for 25 years. I know it works.”
That statement sounds reassuring, particularly when it comes from an experienced investigator. But does repeating a method for 25 years establish its effectiveness, or does it simply make the method comfortable? The greatest danger with outdated investigative interviewing methods isn't always that they fail. It's that investigators may never recognize when those methods are compromising the reliability of the information they collect.

Experience is unquestionably valuable in investigative interviewing, yet experience can also create vulnerabilities investigators seldom recognize. Familiar techniques may be mistaken for reliable practices, accumulated experience may produce unjustified confidence, and professional habits may become resistant to evidence that challenges their effectiveness. The danger isn't necessarily a lack of investigative experience. It is the possibility that years of experience have made questionable practices feel unquestionably right.

When Familiarity Becomes False Confidence
Investigators develop interviewing habits through repetition. Certain questions, interview sequences, and approaches become second nature. Over time, those familiar routines require less conscious effort, allowing investigators to concentrate on other aspects of the interview. This efficiency can be beneficial, but it presents a problem when investigators begin equating familiarity with effectiveness. A technique may appear successful because a subject talks, provides incriminating information, or even confesses. Yet none of those outcomes independently establishes that the information obtained is accurate or reliable. Cognitive psychology offers a useful explanation. Through experience, people develop schemas, mental frameworks that help organize information and interpret new situations. These frameworks allow investigators to recognize potentially important patterns, but they can also create expectations that influence what investigators notice, how they interpret responses, and which questions they ask. An investigator who has encountered similar cases may begin interpreting the current interview through the lens of previous experiences before sufficient information has been collected. The resulting questions may become increasingly focused on confirming an anticipated explanation rather than exploring alternative possibilities. Experience should improve the questions investigators ask, not determine the answers they expect.

When Confidence Becomes Cognitive Resistance
Consider an investigator who has conducted hundreds of interviews using a particular technique. Over the years, that investigator has obtained admissions, developed cases, and received professional recognition for successful investigations. When confronted with scientific research questioning the reliability of certain aspects of that technique, the immediate response may be, “That’s not how it works in the real world.” Such reactions are not necessarily deliberate attempts to dismiss science. They can reflect the psychological difficulty of reconciling new information with beliefs reinforced through years of professional experience. Research on confirmation bias and belief perseverance demonstrates how existing expectations can influence the evaluation of new evidence. In investigative interviewing, the consequences can be particularly significant because the investigator's methods may influence the information being collected. Leading questions can introduce details that originated with the interviewer rather than the interviewee. Premature accusations may alter responses, while confirmation-driven questioning can emphasize incriminating information and neglect alternative explanations. When subjects respond in ways investigators anticipate, those responses may reinforce confidence in the method even though the apparent success has not been independently evaluated. This creates a potentially self-reinforcing cycle in which familiar practices produce expected results, and expected results are interpreted as proof that the practices are effective. Repetition makes a method familiar. It doesn't make it reliable.

When Experience Meets Evidence
The solution is not to abandon professional experience but to subject familiar methods to the same critical examination investigators should apply to evidence. Experienced interviewers possess valuable knowledge about communication, case development, and the practical demands of obtaining information. That knowledge becomes more useful when combined with intellectual flexibility, scientifically supported interviewing practices, and a willingness to test assumptions. One practical starting point is distinguishing observation from interpretation. A subject's hesitation, for example, is an observable behavior, but interpreting that hesitation as deception requires evidence beyond the behavior itself. Investigators can also reduce the risk of contaminating information by allowing interviewees to provide uninterrupted accounts before introducing specific questions. Appropriate follow-up can then explore contextual, sensory, and other relevant details without unnecessarily supplying information the interviewee has not independently reported. When inconsistencies or missing details emerge, investigators should examine them rather than automatically classifying them as indicators of dishonesty. Memory limitations, misunderstanding, normal cognitive demands, and deliberate information management can sometimes produce superficially similar problems. Careful questioning and comparison with independently established facts help determine which explanations remain plausible. The objective is not to confirm what the investigator already believes but to determine what the information can reliably support.

The Real Measure of Experience
The investigator who has conducted 1,000 interviews unquestionably possesses experience, but conducting an interview the same way 1,000 times does not necessarily represent 1,000 opportunities for professional improvement. Improvement requires reflection, meaningful feedback, and a willingness to reconsider established practices when credible evidence warrants change. Investigators should be able to explain not only how they conduct interviews but why their methods are appropriate, what scientific support exists, and how those methods protect the reliability of the information obtained. Professional experience should strengthen investigative judgment rather than insulate familiar practices from examination. After all, the courtroom is not concerned with how comfortable an investigator felt conducting an interview. The important question is whether the information obtained can withstand meaningful scrutiny. Experience explains why you do something. Evidence should determine whether you continue doing it. Because...

Choices made in the interview room eventually play out in a courtroom™.