The PEACE Model of Investigative Interviewing: Principles and Evidence
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The PEACE model is a five-phase framework for investigative interviewing designed to obtain accurate, detailed, and reliable accounts from suspects, witnesses, and victims while maintaining procedural fairness. Its name stands for Planning and Preparation; Engage and Explain; Account, Clarification and Challenge; Closure; and Evaluation. The central aim is to test information responsibly, develop investigative leads, and preserve the quality of evidence. The framework does not require an admission of guilt to count an interview as successful.
The model is particularly important because an interview can change the evidence it is supposed to collect. A question may support recall, introduce an assumption, pressure a person toward agreement, or expose a contradiction that merits investigation. The College of Policing's current investigative interviewing guidance, updated October 8, 2026, treats professional conduct, preparation, accurate accounts, questioning, safeguards, and evaluation as connected parts of one process.
This guide explains the five PEACE phases, the psychological principles behind them, their practical use with different interviewees, the actual strength of the scientific evidence, and the limits of transferring UK-derived practice to American legal settings.
What is the PEACE model?
PEACE is a structured process for conducting and reviewing an investigative interview. It provides a sequence for preparing, opening, developing, closing, and evaluating a conversation in which the interviewee may have information relevant to an investigation. The framework was introduced in England and Wales in 1992 and has subsequently influenced information-gathering interview practice internationally. The model is described in UK policing guidance and in the 2024 Campbell systematic review.
A PEACE interview is built around an investigative question rather than a predetermined confession. Interviewers seek the person's account, probe details, test explanations against other evidence, and record discrepancies without assuming that a disagreement establishes dishonesty. These principles apply differently to a person recalling an event, a witness who may have been mistaken, and a suspect who has legal rights that govern questioning.
The letters describe the overall structure, not five interchangeable tactics or a standardized psychometric instrument. PEACE produces an interview record and investigative information. It produces no diagnostic score, numerical probability of guilt, calibrated deception prediction, or independent legal determination.
The five phases of PEACE investigative interviewing
P — Planning and Preparation
Planning begins with the objectives of the interview and a review of available material. Investigators identify what is already known, what remains uncertain, which alternative accounts are plausible, and which facts can later be checked independently. Preparation includes choosing an appropriate setting, arranging recording and interpretation when needed, assessing welfare and communication requirements, and understanding the applicable legal procedure.
A sound interview plan organizes topics without scripting every response. It distinguishes established facts from allegations, inferential assumptions, and gaps. It also anticipates exculpatory possibilities. For example, footage indicating that a person entered a building at 8:15 p.m. may support questions about a visit; it cannot by itself establish what the person knew, intended, or did inside. Good planning preserves several potential explanations until the evidence is evaluated.
Preparation is not a cosmetic administrative stage. The College of Policing explicitly describes it as a major determinant of interview quality. A small exploratory study of 15 UK high-stakes interview strategies found weaknesses in specificity and coordination, illustrating how easily a formal framework can coexist with poorly developed operational plans. That sample does not estimate failure rates for every police force or every PEACE interview.
E — Engage and Explain
The interviewer establishes a professional relationship, explains their role, identifies participants, clarifies the interview's purpose and process, and checks that the person understands how the conversation will proceed. The interviewee should know what to expect, including recording, breaks, relevant rights, and opportunities to correct an account.
Rapport in this context means respectful and attentive communication that helps people participate and provide information. It can include an appropriate conversational opening, active listening, straightforward language, recognition of distress, and patience with pauses. It does not mean cultivating a false personal relationship or pretending that investigators have abandoned their investigative role. The FBI's research publication collection documents an extensive research program on rapport and science-informed interviewing.
Engagement must respond to the interviewee's communication needs. A person using a second language, a frightened witness, a minor, and a suspect with a communication disability may require different arrangements. Providing accommodations and qualified assistance can improve the fairness and interpretability of the interview record. These measures concern individual functioning and context; neither diagnosis nor atypical communication establishes deception.
A — Account, Clarification and Challenge
The substantive phase begins by giving the interviewee space to describe events in their own words. Open prompts such as 'Tell me what happened after you arrived' can elicit a narrative before the investigator turns to more specific questions. The interviewer then organizes the account into topics, clarifies chronology and meaning, probes potentially checkable details, and returns to matters the person omitted or found difficult to describe.
Free recall and follow-up questioning serve different purposes. A broad question can reveal what the person spontaneously remembers or wishes to report; a specific question can clarify locations, dates, conversations, or sequences. A leading or forced-choice question may introduce information that the person did not supply, especially where memory is uncertain. Official UK guidance explicitly differentiates open-ended, specific-closed, forced-choice, multiple, and leading questions.
The 'challenge' component is often misunderstood. Investigators may present independently obtained material, explore apparent inconsistencies, request clarification, and invite the person to explain an alternative interpretation. The scientific objective is to test propositions against evidence while preserving an accurate record of what information originated from which source. A discrepancy can reflect error, misunderstanding, memory change, concealment, or an investigator's faulty assumption. Its meaning remains to be determined.
Evidence disclosure requires particular care. If a person learns a nonpublic detail from an investigator, subsequent repetition of that detail cannot automatically count as independent knowledge. A well-documented interview records when and how case information was introduced, what the interviewee said beforehand, and what changed afterward. The significance of staged disclosure depends on the investigative purpose and the jurisdiction's disclosure rules.
For witnesses and victims, questioning also requires sensitivity to source memory, uncertainty, previous conversations, media exposure, and the possibility of suggestion. For suspects, questioning must preserve the legal safeguards applicable to the setting. A free narrative is an investigative technique; it is not a waiver of any legal right.
C — Closure
The interview closes through an orderly review rather than an abrupt stop when the investigator has obtained an expected answer. The interviewer checks significant points, allows corrections, asks whether the person wishes to add information, addresses appropriate questions, and explains next steps to the extent permitted.
A careful closing summary is a procedural checkpoint. It gives the interviewee an opportunity to distinguish what they actually meant from the interviewer's interpretation. Disagreements with the summary should be recorded rather than silently rewritten into agreement. The College of Policing's PEACE guidance treats closure as planned, structured, and responsive to clarification.
Closure is particularly valuable when a complex account contains multiple people, locations, or timelines. It can expose transcription errors or ambiguity before those errors become permanent features of the case record.
E — Evaluation
After the interview, investigators examine the information, the outstanding investigative questions, and the quality of their own performance. They compare the account with evidence obtained independently, identify new lines of inquiry, consider what still needs corroboration, and decide whether additional interviewing is justified.
Evaluation should address process as well as content. Did the interviewer begin with an open account? Were questions understandable? Was contradictory evidence examined fairly? Were accommodations offered? Were breaks and rights properly handled? Did the interviewer reveal facts before the interviewee supplied them? Was the complete interaction recorded? This review turns PEACE from a mnemonic into an accountable professional practice.
The evaluation phase is also where organizational supervision matters. In a study of 174 recorded real-life suspect interviews from six forces in England and Wales, PEACE training alone was not associated with statistically detectable improvements across the measured interview-performance outcomes, whereas an interview-supervision policy was associated with aspects of performance. This observational finding does not establish that PEACE training is ineffective; it identifies implementation and supervision as essential research questions.
Why information-gathering interviewing can work: the psychological mechanisms
Open questions support less-directed recall
An interviewer who starts with an allegation or proposes specific details may narrow the range of responses before the person's own version has been elicited. Beginning with open questions makes it easier to identify which facts, uncertainties, and descriptions originate with the interviewee. This is a quality-control principle, not a claim that spontaneous recall is always accurate.
Memory is reconstructive and depends on what was perceived, retained, and retrieved. Even a sincere person may confuse timing, sequence, peripheral details, or source. Interviewers therefore examine internal coherence and external corroboration without equating confidence, fluency, or emotional intensity with accuracy. The distinct psychological science of trauma-related remembering is discussed in our Trauma and Memory article.
Rapport can encourage cooperation without guaranteeing truth
A respectful interaction may reduce avoidable interpersonal resistance and increase willingness to explain events. However, rapport is a relational and communication process, not a lie detector. People may cooperate while mistaken, withhold information for understandable reasons, or communicate in ways unfamiliar to the interviewer.
A 2025 systematic review of interpersonal-skills training identified 26 studies; 13 reported positive training effects and 13 reported limited or no effects. The authors emphasized variations in definitions and measurement, mock-interview versus field settings, and the lack of long-term follow-up. Training someone to appear friendly is therefore an inadequate proxy for demonstrably better information quality.
Alternative hypotheses reduce premature closure
An interviewer who assumes guilt before questioning may ask only questions that reinforce an accusation and dismiss information supporting another explanation. PEACE-style preparation and evaluation can help investigators distinguish the initial hypothesis from what the interview actually establishes.
This is an application of hypothesis testing to a high-stakes setting. An alibi, inconsistency, or partial admission should be evaluated against independent records and alternative interpretations. A useful interview may reveal that an allegation was mistaken or that the available evidence cannot support a conclusion. Those are valid investigative outcomes.
Lower-pressure approaches can reduce confession-related errors
Accusatorial questioning can create incentives for short-term compliance: a person may seek escape from fatigue, perceived consequences, or a threatening situation. Information-gathering approaches aim to collect the account and test facts without turning confession into the immediate performance target.
The American Psychological Association's 2022 Resolution on Interrogations of Criminal Suspects identifies risks associated with false-evidence presentations, promises of leniency, lengthy interrogation, and vulnerable suspects. These are evidence-based risk considerations; the causal effect of any individual exchange must still be analyzed in its circumstances.
Evaluation separates the interview from the final conclusion
A high-quality interview is one source of evidence. A statement may be reliable on some details and uncertain on others. The investigator's task is to compare assertions with independent observations, documents, physical traces, and other accounts, while considering whether information was contaminated during the interview itself.
The reliability of the process and the legal weight of a statement are different questions. Courts apply rules about rights, admissibility, and evidentiary value. Psychological research informs these matters but does not decide them.
What does the scientific evidence actually show?
Stronger support exists for the wider information-gathering approach than for every PEACE component
The most important distinction in evaluating PEACE is between evidence about a broad family of information-gathering interviews and direct tests of PEACE as a five-phase training-and-practice package. These literatures overlap, yet they measure different interventions and outcomes.
The 2024 Campbell systematic review by Catlin and colleagues synthesized 29 independent experimental studies from 27 articles, primarily involving college students in U.S. laboratory paradigms with known ground truth. In the combined analyses, accusatorial approaches were associated with higher odds of false confession than information-gathering approaches (odds ratio 4.41; 95% confidence interval 1.77–10.97). Information gathering also produced more true confessions than direct questioning (odds ratio 2.43; 95% CI 1.29–4.59). The difference in true confessions between information-gathering and accusatorial approaches did not reach conventional statistical significance.
Those odds ratios describe comparisons between experimental conditions. They are not probabilities that an identified real-world suspect will confess falsely, and they do not supply sensitivity, specificity, or case-level prediction for PEACE interviewing. The result supports the relative advantages of information-gathering approaches within the studied designs, not a universal claim that a specific PEACE interview will elicit accurate information.
The earlier Meissner and colleagues meta-analysis examined five field studies and 12 experimental studies. It distinguished field confession outcomes, where researchers typically could not establish whether a confession was true or false, from laboratory conditions in which ground truth was known. That distinction remains fundamental: confession frequency alone is a poor measure of investigative accuracy.
Direct field research reveals a training-to-practice gap
The Clarke, Milne, and Bull field study coded 174 actual suspect interviews. Interview performance was generally average, and measured differences between officers who had and had not received PEACE training were limited. A supervision policy showed associations with stronger performance in parts of the interview. Because officers and forces were not randomly assigned to all organizational conditions, those associations cannot by themselves establish what caused an outcome.
A 2021 systematic review of 30 studies of investigative-interview training found highly variable effects across course types and evaluation measures. Basic skills could improve following brief training, while sophisticated questioning and genuine rapport-building were more difficult to establish. Courses with repeated training sessions produced the most consistent improvements. This evidence supports practical investment in coaching, assessment, and follow-up rather than reliance on a one-time workshop.
A 2025 systematic review further showed mixed outcomes for interpersonal-skills training and highlighted methodological weaknesses such as self-report measures, simulated interviews, and limited long-term observation. These findings caution against equating training certificates with verified interviewing competence.
The Vaughan, Milne, and Dalton analysis of 15 interview strategies in serious UK investigations found organizational planning weaknesses. Its exploratory design and small sample make it a warning about implementation quality rather than a population-wide estimate.
What remains uncertain?
Research does not establish a single effect size for PEACE as an entire model across all police forces, nations, populations, offenses, and outcomes. It remains difficult to observe ground truth in real criminal investigations, isolate components of a multistage interview, and determine whether an improved account causes a just legal outcome. Field settings also involve case selection, variable supervision, differing rights, and different interviewee vulnerabilities.
A careful evidence summary therefore says that PEACE is an authoritative operational framework, information-gathering interviewing is supported by systematic-review evidence on important experimental outcomes, and the fidelity and effectiveness of PEACE implementation depend on training quality, supervision, legal context, and case-specific conditions. Claims that PEACE has been proven infallible or that its use alone prevents wrongful convictions go beyond that evidence.
PEACE and false confessions: why the difference matters
A confession is a person's statement accepting responsibility; its truth is an evidentiary question. A false confession is an admission to conduct the person did not commit. The risk of such an outcome is shaped by both individual and situational conditions, including questioning methods, duration, vulnerability, expectations, and available safeguards. A clinical diagnosis, stress response, or behavioral style alone cannot establish whether a statement is true or false.
The APA's 2022 resolution recommends complete audiovisual recording of custodial interviews of felony suspects with a neutral camera view, considering limits on interview duration, avoiding false-evidence and leniency-related risks, and providing additional protection to vulnerable suspects. Those are professional policy recommendations for criminal justice practice, not a nationwide American statute.
An interview oriented toward gathering information lowers some risk pathways by permitting alternative explanations, making the source of case details visible, and reducing pressure to agree. Yet procedural compliance with PEACE does not certify a confession as true. Investigators and courts must examine whether nonpublic information came independently from the suspect, whether the account withstands corroboration, and whether the interview complied with the law.
A false negative is also possible in ordinary investigative terms: a witness may fail to remember useful information, an interviewer may overlook an important lead, or an accurate account may be discounted. PEACE is concerned with both the danger of accepting unreliable statements and the danger of failing to gather relevant evidence. It is not a diagnostic classification system with a validated false-positive or false-negative rate.
PEACE interviews with witnesses, victims, and suspects
The same five-phase architecture can organize different kinds of interviews, but the substantive questions and safeguards change with the person's status and needs. Witnesses may have incomplete observations or uncertainty about identity. Victims may need information about protection, support, and procedural next steps. Suspects may be exercising a legal right to silence or receiving advice from counsel.
For witness accounts, interviewers commonly begin with free recall and then probe details while minimizing suggestion. The College of Policing guidance describes how free recall, open prompts, and focused follow-up can be combined. The PEACE model is an overarching interview structure; the cognitive interview is a more specific collection of memory-retrieval techniques that may be used within an appropriate interview. Neither term should be treated as interchangeable with the other.
For suspect interviews, investigators may challenge an account with reliable contradictory evidence and ask for an explanation, while complying with applicable rules on cautioning, legal assistance, recording, disclosure, breaks, and vulnerable persons. A denial is a response that must be evaluated, not by itself a sign that PEACE failed.
For children and other people requiring adapted interviewing, the interviewer must consider developmental level, comprehension, linguistic accessibility, possible influence from adults, and the risks of repetitive or leading questions. Specialist child-interview protocols may be required. The PEACE mnemonic does not replace those protocols or the law governing them.
Legal safeguards: PEACE, PACE, and American practice
PEACE and PACE refer to different things. PEACE is the psychological and operational interviewing framework. In England and Wales, PACE commonly refers to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its accompanying codes of practice. The legal framework governs issues such as detention, suspect treatment, cautioning, and recording. Investigators use PEACE within the rules that apply to them; the interviewing model itself is not legislation.
The College of Policing's official practice guidance discusses PACE-related procedures and the role of legal advisers, while the UK Home Office's interviewing-suspects guidance explicitly requires its covered investigators to use the PEACE planning structure. These UK requirements cannot be assumed to govern police interviews in every U.S. state.
In the United States, rights and admissibility issues depend on federal and state law, the setting of the interview, custody and questioning status, and the applicable judicial decisions. An agency may adopt information-gathering techniques or train investigators in science-based rapport and questioning without formally implementing the full UK PEACE model. The FBI describes its High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group as a program developing lawful, science-informed interviewing methodology; this is evidence of a related American practice initiative, not proof of nationwide PEACE adoption.
Internationally, the Méndez Principles on Effective Interviewing provide a wider human-rights-informed framework for accurate information gathering and safeguards. They share important values with information-gathering approaches while constituting a distinct set of principles, not an alternative spelling or official sixth PEACE stage.
What a well-run PEACE interview looks like
Consider a hypothetical inquiry about a stolen laptop. The investigator has a building access log showing a person's badge was used and CCTV showing a person with a bag. Neither record conclusively identifies who took the laptop or what happened after entry.
During planning, the investigator separates the access-log fact from the allegation of theft and records several explanations: authorized entry, badge sharing, incorrect identification, ordinary belongings in the bag, and possible unauthorized removal. The plan includes the interviewee's rights, any need for an interpreter, and open questions about the visit.
During engagement, the interviewer explains the interview process and the purpose of the questions. During the account stage, the person is invited to describe the day and movements in their own words. The investigator then clarifies the sequence, asks about the badge, and discusses the CCTV with accurate attribution. If the account conflicts with a reliable record, the interviewer asks for clarification rather than declaring that the conflict proves guilt.
At closure, the interviewer checks the summary and records corrections. During evaluation, investigators verify the person's account using records, other witnesses, and physical evidence. The outcome might support the allegation, undermine it, or leave the issue unresolved. The purpose of this illustration is to show how the five phases organize inquiry; it is not a validated script or a formula for inferring guilt.
Interview quality: how should PEACE implementation be evaluated?
The quality of an investigative interview requires more than completion of five checkboxes. Useful review criteria include preparation quality, an accurate explanation of rights and purpose, understandable language, an opportunity for uninterrupted narrative, proportionate and nonleading probes, fair handling of conflicting evidence, welfare safeguards, documentation of information disclosure, orderly closure, and reflective evaluation.
Results should be examined across several levels. Interview-process measures ask whether recommended behaviors occurred. Information-yield measures examine relevant and checkable details. Accuracy measures require some independent ground truth and a clear definition of error. Investigative-outcome measures ask whether the interview advanced a fair and effective inquiry. Legal-outcome measures consider admissibility and downstream decisions, which are influenced by many forces beyond the interview.
A high count of words, admissions, or confessions is not inherently proof of quality. Nor can a single score for apparent rapport establish that an account is truthful. The 2021 training review and 2025 interpersonal-skills review both demonstrate why performance measures and long-term monitoring deserve attention.
Supervision should involve meaningful feedback on real interview behavior, not only trainees' confidence in their skills. Ideally, evaluators distinguish recording and procedural compliance, question quality, treatment of alternatives, and the degree to which the interview generated verifiable rather than contaminated information.
Limitations, ethical concerns, and fairness
PEACE does not remove the fundamental asymmetry between an investigator with official authority and an interviewee who may fear consequences. A respectful manner can coexist with coercion if the setting, duration, threats, or implied promises are inappropriate. Interviewers must therefore evaluate the full interaction, including what happened before and after a recorded session.
The model depends on context-sensitive communication. Translators, disability accommodations, cultural differences, literacy, trauma responses, and varying familiarity with legal institutions can affect the meaning of apparent hesitation, brevity, disagreement, or eye contact. None of those behaviors reliably identifies guilt. Effective fairness review asks whether the person could understand questions and respond meaningfully under the procedures used.
Published comparisons of confession methods do not establish that a particular approach performs equally across every demographic group. Calibration and subgroup-error reporting are central when researchers make predictions; PEACE is not itself a predictive tool, and its evaluations typically use interview-quality and outcome measures instead. Research on demographic fairness remains an important unresolved area rather than an entitlement to assume equal performance.
There are also organizational risks: confirmation bias in case selection, incomplete recording, poorly supervised interviews, excessive dependence on scripts, and post-interview summaries that erase uncertainty. Ethical practice requires documentation, correction, critical review, and respect for the legal position of the person being interviewed.
PEACE versus the Reid technique, the cognitive interview, and rapport-based interviewing
The PEACE model organizes an investigative interview around information gathering, fair challenge, and review. Accusatorial interrogation techniques, including those commonly discussed under the Reid label, require their own evidence assessment because their purposes, questioning strategies, and legal contexts vary. A direct comparison must examine particular behaviors and outcomes rather than assume every interview bearing either label is performed identically. The 2024 Campbell review compares broad experimentally defined styles, not every version of the Reid technique with every correctly implemented PEACE interview.
The cognitive interview is a set of memory-retrieval techniques associated primarily with witness interviewing and the elicitation of episodic detail. It may fit inside the account phase, subject to appropriate training and safeguards. Rapport-based interviewing emphasizes the interpersonal quality of interaction, which can support multiple stages of PEACE but is not a complete replacement for planning, evidence testing, closure, or evaluation.
These distinctions preserve the canonical question answered by this article: what PEACE itself requires and what the evidence supports. Detailed debates about the Reid technique, cognitive interviewing, false confessions, and rapport are separate subjects for focused articles.
Common misconceptions about PEACE
One misconception is that PEACE prohibits challenging a person's story. The account phase expressly includes clarification and challenge; the issue is how the challenge is conducted and documented. Another is that PEACE is limited to suspects. It also provides structure for interviews with witnesses and victims, with the relevant legal and developmental adaptations.
A third misconception is that an interview conducted politely must be reliable. Accuracy depends on memory, independent corroboration, the source of information, and procedural conditions. Conversely, a person's refusal to answer does not prove deception.
Finally, calling PEACE 'evidence-based' should not mean every component has been isolated in a randomized field trial. The framework incorporates established professional guidance and psychological principles, while direct research on its entire implementation has documented mixed training outcomes and significant methodological limits.
Frequently asked questions
What does PEACE stand for in investigative interviewing?
Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain, Account (including Clarification and Challenge), Closure, and Evaluation. Those five phases constitute the interview structure described in UK professional practice guidance.
Is the PEACE model an interrogation technique?
It is an investigative interviewing framework. It can organize suspect questioning, but its primary objective is reliable information gathering rather than inducing a confession. Its structure also applies to witness and victim interviews.
Is PEACE used in the United States?
American investigators may use related information-gathering methods and science-informed questioning. The FBI's HIG program develops such approaches. The UK PEACE framework should not be described as a uniform, legally mandatory interviewing system throughout the United States.
Does PEACE reduce false confessions?
Experimental reviews favor information-gathering approaches over accusatorial approaches on false-confession outcomes. In the 2024 Campbell review, accusatorial conditions yielded higher odds of false confession relative to information-gathering conditions. The review does not provide a PEACE-specific guarantee for any individual interview.
Is the PEACE model scientifically validated?
Its information-gathering principles have meaningful empirical support, and PEACE is an established professional framework. Direct studies of its implementation show that training fidelity, supervision, and performance vary. Validation claims must identify the measured outcome and research design.
Can the interviewer confront contradictory evidence?
Yes. Clarification and challenge are part of the account phase. Contradictory evidence should be introduced accurately, with attention to how disclosure could influence the interviewee's account.
Is PEACE the same as PACE?
No. PEACE names an interviewing framework; PACE commonly refers to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and associated legal codes in England and Wales. The laws governing interviews depend on jurisdiction.
Can PEACE be used to interview children?
The general sequence may help structure a specialist interview, but the child's developmental needs and the governing child-interview protocol take precedence. Specialist training and legal protections remain necessary.
Does rapport make someone tell the truth?
Rapport may support communication and participation. It is not a validated indicator of truthfulness, and a friendly conversation can still contain memory errors, concealment, or inaccurate assumptions.
How do investigators know whether a PEACE interview succeeded?
They evaluate procedural fairness, the quality and checkability of information, the handling of alternatives, safeguards, and subsequent independent corroboration. Confession alone is not a sufficient success metric.
Related articles
For a close comparison of the purposes and questioning methods, read Investigative Interviewing vs. Interrogation. Our Rapport-Based Investigative Interviewing article examines interpersonal process and training, while The Reid Technique addresses research on accusatorial methods. For the wider forensic context, see Legal Psychology; for remembering under stressful circumstances, read Trauma and Memory. A dedicated article on false confessions will be linked after its English page is published.
Related Articles
References
Akca, D., Dion Larivière, C., & Eastwood, J. (2021). Assessing the efficacy of investigative interviewing training courses: A systematic review. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557211008470.
American Psychological Association. (2022). Resolution on interrogations of criminal suspects. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/interrogations.
Catlin, M., Wilson, D. B., Redlich, A. D., Bettens, T., Meissner, C. A., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. E. (2024). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1441.
Clarke, C., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing suspects of crime: The impact of PEACE training, supervision and the presence of a legal advisor. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.144.
College of Policing. (2026, October 8). Investigative interviewing: Authorised Professional Practice. https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-interviewing/investigative-interviewing.
Ericsson, S., Stenlund, T., Nyström, M., Öman Ekervhén, L., & Davis, P. (2025). A systematic review of interpersonal skills training for police investigative interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2025.2592246.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2026, August). Research publications on interviewing and interrogation. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/research-publications-on-interviewing-and-interrogation.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2026). High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/high-value-detainee-interrogation-group.
Home Office. (2025). Interviewing suspects. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/interviewing-suspects/interviewing-suspects-accessible.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6.
Méndez Principles initiative. (2021). Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and information gathering. https://mendezprinciples.com/.
Vaughan, M., Milne, R., & Dalton, G. (2024). An analysis of interview strategies in high-stakes crime investigations in the UK: Are they fit for purpose? The Police Journal, 97(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X231181330.