Narrative or Accusatory? One Builds a Case. One Breaks It.

by Stan B. Walters The Lie Guy®
ORCID: 0009-0002-1063-0519

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

Investigators often describe narrative and accusatory interviewing as simply different interviewing techniques. They are much more than that. They represent two fundamentally different investigative philosophies. One is designed to gather and evaluate information. The other frequently begins with the objective of obtaining admissions or confessions. That difference influences not only the quantity of information collected, but also its quality, reliability, and ultimately its value as evidence. Research over the past several decades has consistently demonstrated that these approaches produce very different investigative outcomes.

Narrative Interviewing Produces More Investigative Information

One of the enduring misconceptions in interviewing is the belief that deceptive people reveal too many details. In reality, people attempting deception often do the opposite. They minimize details, omit context, avoid specifics, and simplify events because every additional detail creates another opportunity for contradiction, verification, or discovery.

Narrative interviewing capitalizes on this reality. Rather than restricting responses through a series of narrow or leading questions, investigators encourage subjects to construct a complete account in their own words. As the narrative develops, additional sensory, contextual, temporal, and behavioral details naturally emerge. Research has shown that information-gathering approaches can produce substantially more investigative information—sometimes approaching 60% more detail—providing investigators with significantly greater opportunities to corroborate, challenge, and evaluate the reliability of the account.

Confirmation Bias Begins with the Assumption

Confirmation bias rarely develops because investigators intentionally ignore the truth. More often, it begins when investigators become convinced they already know it.

Once investigators conclude the subject is guilty, the purpose of the interview gradually changes. Instead of exploring what happened, the interview begins searching for evidence that supports the existing conclusion. Questions become narrower. Alternative explanations receive less attention. Information inconsistent with the investigator’s theory is more easily discounted, while answers supporting that theory receive greater weight.

The concern is not simply the use of leading questions. The greater concern is that the interview slowly stops functioning as a process of discovery and becomes a process of confirmation.

Narrative interviewing approaches the interview differently. Rather than attempting to confirm an existing hypothesis, investigators encourage subjects to provide a complete account before systematically testing, comparing, corroborating, and evaluating the information obtained.

Control Can Produce Compliance…and Contamination

Many accusatory interviewing approaches seek to establish and maintain psychological control throughout the interview. One common method involves presenting investigative facts, disclosing evidence, or communicating information intended to convince the subject that continued denial is futile.

The strategy is understandable. If subjects believe investigators already know everything, they may become more willing to cooperate.

However, every investigative fact introduced by the interviewer becomes information the subject now possesses. If those same details later appear in the subject’s statement, investigators face an important evidentiary question: Did the subject possess that knowledge independently, or did the interview itself provide it?

That distinction matters. Investigators are attempting to determine what the subject knows—not what the interview inadvertently taught them. Once those two sources of information become difficult to separate, both the reliability of the statement and the strength of the resulting evidence may be diminished.

Conclusion

Investigative interviewing is not simply about obtaining answers. It is about obtaining answers that can be tested, corroborated, and defended. Every question influences not only what a subject says, but also the quality and reliability of the information investigators collect. Narrative interviewing is designed to maximize information while minimizing avoidable investigative error. In the end, the objective is not merely to obtain a statement—it is to build the strongest possible case on the most reliable evidence.

© Copyright 2026 by Stan B. Walters All Rights Reserved

Brief excerpts may be quoted with attribution and a link to the original article. Reproduction, redistribution, or use in training materials requires written permission.

Related Video:
Inside the Interview Room (ITIR) #44 – “Narrative or Accusatory: One Makes the Case. One Breaks It”
Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/5P6xT9zpw7Q