Difference Between Interview vs. Interrogation: Understanding Investigative Interviewing

When does an interview become an interrogation? Learn the difference between an interview vs an interrogation and what your business can and can’t do when conducting a line of questioning.

Table of Contents

Difference Between Interview vs. Interrogation: Understanding Investigative Interviewing

Jobs in law enforcement, human resources, corporate management, and legal all require interviewing skills. New employees must be vetted, conflicts must be resolved, missing items must be located, and sometimes, criminal investigations must be conducted.

Anyone in a higher position should have the proper interviewing skills to handle these high-pressure situations and to do so delicately. But when does an interview become an interrogationWhat is investigative interviewingCan anyone in a corporate environment conduct an interview?

Learn the difference between an interview vs an interrogation and what your business can and can’t do when conducting a line of questioning. Decide what to ask, how to ask it, and when to escalate the issue to an outsourced organization like law enforcement.

Interested in Investigative Interviewing for Corporate Environments?
Interview and Interrogation Training

The Basics: Difference Between an Interview and an Interrogation

The general difference between an interrogation and an interview is that an interview is an informal process, whereas an interrogation is a formal questioning of a person in relation to a crime or wrongdoing.

You can interview anyone about almost anything to collect data, learn something new, and evaluate someone’s knowledge on a subject. An interrogation, however, is verifying already gathered information and can be viewed as a confrontational encounter to gather a confession.

In a corporate position? Here’s what you need to know: In corporate environments, it is very important to only interview, not interrogate, employees or customers. An interrogation can be seen as an accusation and is very serious. Interviews are informal, casual, and aim only to gather information.

Going Deeper: Interview vs Interrogation in Corporate Environments

Interview vs Interrogation Techniques (And How Investigative Interviewing Plays a Role)

During an interview, the key is to be calm throughout the encounter and obtain new info. Everyone should be casual, feel open to talking freely, and have a conversational tone between all parties. A rapport should be built and everyone should feel relaxed and at ease.

Interview Techniques Include:

  • Being calm
  • Open to hearing the interviewee talk freely
  • Refraining from any leading questions
  • Avoiding the use of any declarative or suggestive statements

During an interrogation, accusations are often made and answers are being sought. The one conducting the questioning may theorize aloud about what happened, how it happened, and why. Direct questions or statements are made in the hope of eliciting specific responses from the interviewee. It is generally a much more controlled environment.

Interrogation Techniques May Include:

  • Asking leading questions or making declarative statements
  • Using true or false information to get the truth from the subject
  • Being confrontational
  • Applying assumed guilt or motive to the subject

Investigative Interviewing aims to find all information needed to piece together an event or sequence of events. The interviewer uses interviewing techniques while carefully choosing their questions and intently listening to what the interviewee is saying or omitting.

Investigative Interview Techniques:

  • The interviewee should speak for the majority of the conversation
  • The engagement allows for a natural, narrative tone
  • No accusations are made
  • The interviewer listens to pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs to piece together the story
Investigative Interview vs Interrogation Tactics

Investigative Interview vs Interrogation Tactics

The goal of an investigative interview is piecing together a complete story, with thorough details, of what happened during an incident.

The goal of an interrogation is to confirm details you may already know or suspect.

An investigative interview aims to get a complete picture of an incident through interviews. The interviewer does not become aggressive or use declarative statements. With the intent of finding out all details, interviewers will be open, calm, and inquisitive. Quick thinking, an impartial attitude, and thought-out questions will help achieve all goals.

Interrogations aim to confirm details one already suspects or knows. Interrogation tactics are more confrontational, less conversational, and use suggestive language with the subject. The interrogator will suspect guilt and possibly use this guilt to help elicit the response they suspect.

A corporate investigative interview should always be open-ended, honest, and casual. Biases are left outside of the conversation and the interviewer must really listen to what is being said to them. Small hints may help an interviewer put together a complete story that is more detailed than the interviewee initially shares. This interview tactic of complete thoroughness and full details allows for a more honest and transparent interaction that helps all parties achieve their goals of truth and conclusions.

Legal Interrogation vs Investigative Interviewing

For those in legal positions in corporations, or simply delicate positions like human resources who may need to report or work with legal, knowing the difference between a legal interrogation and investigation interviewing is important.

Employees have many rights that protect them in their employment. While a legal interrogation is mostly considered completed by law enforcement officials, employers must be careful not to interrogate their employees and violate their rights.

Investigative interviewing is about allowing a subject to speak freely, share details, and terminate the interview whenever they wish. Employees do not have to sign anything as put forth by their employer, are allowed to ask for legal representation, and may have witnesses available. It is a legal process and poses no blame or guilt on a subject. (Law-Tech Consultants, LLC is not a law firm and readers are advised to seek legal counsel before conducting any interviews, interrogations, etc.)

What is the Difference Between an Interview and Interrogation in Law Enforcement

For law enforcement officials, interviews vs interrogations have clear lines and boundaries they are taught to follow.

Interviews are often done with witnesses or people who may have been involved or know of the crime being investigated.

Interrogations are almost always conducted with suspects or persons with a motive or cause to be involved in the crime.

Police Interview vs Interrogation Methods

Police interviews may use investigation interviewing, cognitive interviewing, or active listening methods to help get the most out of their interviews.

  • Investigative interviewing methods focus on listening to key details in the subject’s account, including picking up on nuanced uses of “this vs that”, “hers vs theirs”, and so forth to determine the accuracy of the statements
  • Cognitive interviewing methods involve all five senses of the subject, having them recall certain sights, smells, or sounds and retelling the events in a different order to help with clarity
  • Active listening methods reflect back on what the subject has said, so they feel heard and the information is confirmed as it is received


Police interrogations do not necessarily involve more aggressive methods for confirming either suspected or known information, but the goal of the interaction shifts as shared details may result in formal prosecution. Familiar police interrogation methods include good cop bad cop, bait questioning, and bluffing.

  • Good cop, bad cop is an interrogation method that helps the suspect bond with the “good cop” who is more friendly and personal, while the “bad cop” is more confrontational with the questioning
  • Bait questioning asks about hypothetical evidence or events that do not exist or did not happen in order to determine the credibility of the suspect
  • Bluffing is an interrogation method that looks to deceive the subject into believing the officer knows something they do not, in order to get the desired information out of the suspect (Frazier v. Cupp)

Interrogation vs Interview in Criminal Investigations

In a criminal investigation, law enforcement must carefully navigate an interview vs an interrogation. Interviews are informal and do not violate anyone’s rights – all persons may leave as they wish and, most commonly, may have other witnesses present.

Before an interrogation, a subject must have their Miranda rights read to them. Interrogations are often recorded, to be used as evidence when closing a case and following through with a charge or conviction.

While law enforcement may be more aggressive in an interrogation, interviews must be casual and often friendly. Interrogations seek to get an answer or a confession, while interviews are only to obtain information.

Difference Between Suspect Interrogation and Witness Interview

A suspect interrogation will aim to get a confession out of the subject. Miranda rights will have been read, the interrogation may be recorded, and leading questions or declarative statements may be used. The suspect may be restricted to long questioning and will be urged to comply at all times.

A witness interview pieces together the events of the incident and gathers new information without a suspect already in mind. Open-ended questions are presented, the process is informal, and the interviewee may leave or terminate the questioning at will as they wish.

Conclusion: Interview and Interrogation Comparison

Be Prepared to Put Investigative Interviewing to the Test

Interviews, whether in a criminal investigation or as part of a corporate line of questioning, are informal, casual, and seek to gather information. Interviewers can use different interview methods, like investigative interviewing or active listening, to put together all the details of the incident. Being friendly, removing bias, and listening more than questioning are key aspects to make for a professional and productive interview.

Interrogations are possibly aggressive, suggestive, and seek to obtain a confession of a crime from a suspect. Corporate professionals are urged to always refrain from interrogations and get law enforcement involved when needed. During an interrogation, law enforcement can read a suspect their rights, record the statements for further review later, and make a definitive decision of guilt using answers and evidence to make their charge.

Law enforcement and corporate professionals both have avenues to enhance and hone their interviewing skills to get more out of their questioning with witnesses. At Law-Tech Consultants, we offer investigative interviewing for both businesses and police to help get the most you can from your conversations.

See our schedule to find a class near you or request your own class for your organization. 

Frequently Asked Questions

When is an interview used instead of an interrogation?
Interviews are used with witnesses to piece together the event of an incident. This may include a timeline, persons involved, various details, and similar matters. Interviews can be done with anyone about almost anything – the purpose is to seek new information, where-as an interrogation is used to confirm information already acquired.

Are interviews and interrogations both legal procedures?
Interviews can be done by anyone about almost anything. It is informal and casual and is not considered a legal procedure. An interrogation is a legal line of questioning that can incriminate a suspect in a crime and should be done only by law enforcement. (Law-Tech Consultants, LLC is not a law firm and reader’s are advised to seek legal counsel before conducting any interviews, interrogations, etc.)

Can an interview turn into an interrogation?
Yes, an interview can turn into an interrogation. When the subject is not allowed to leave, when the questions are accusatory, or when the interviewer poses leading statements with mentions of guilt or intent, an interrogation starts to take place. This can be a violation of rights and interviewers are urged to consult their legal counsel to learn the difference and to respect their subjects and protect their line of questioning.

Recent Posts