Experienced practitioners' perspectives on when, why, and how to confront during investigative interviews

Confrontation has traditionally been viewed as an accusatorial component of investigative interviewing, yet practitioners frequently encounter situations in which directly addressing discrepancies is necessary. The present mixed-methods study examined experienced practitioners' perspectives on when, why, and how confrontation should occur and evaluated a proposed framework of constructive confrontation organized around tone, timing, and technique. Law enforcement practitioners ( N = 165) responded to open-ended questions and experimentally manipulated interview scenarios varying presence/absence of rapport (tone) and whether it was early or late in the interview (timing). Practitioners overwhelmingly endorsed approaches to confrontation that were grounded in objective evidence, delayed until sufficient information had been gathered, and implemented in ways that preserved rapport and cooperation. Delayed confrontation was consistently preferred over immediate confrontation and was perceived to preserve relational benefits while reducing anticipated relational and informational risks. Qualitative findings emphasized strategic information gathering, relationship management, and evidence-based decision making as central implementation strategies. These findings provide an empirical foundation for “constructive confrontation” as a broad approach to confrontation within an investigative interview, helping interviewers resolve discrepancies while maintaining rapport.