Why Inner Voice and Self Awareness Matter in Investigative Interviewing
Yesterday I had one of those rare light bulb moments where something I had felt for a long time suddenly had research sitting beside it.
I was reading Personality in Investigative Interviewing: Unravelling the Role of Individual Characteristics, Personality Similarity, and Interviewer-Suspect Personality Interactions on Investigative Interviewing Performance and Rapport-Building by Irma Melunovic. The title is a mouthful, but the central idea landed with real force: who the interviewer is matters.
That may sound obvious, but in investigative interviewing we often put most of our attention on models, question types, evidence disclosure, account development, and rapport techniques. All of that matters. Good structure matters. Ethical practice matters. Skill matters.
Yet beneath all of it sits something more personal: the interviewer’s own awareness of how they think, react, listen, judge, and connect.
That is where the inner voice comes in.
The inner voice is not a soft skill
In serious interviewing environments, “listening to your inner voice” can sound vague or even unprofessional. It should not.
I do not mean guessing. I do not mean relying on gut instinct in place of evidence. I do not mean allowing bias to dress itself up as intuition.
I mean paying attention to the quiet signals inside you during an interview:
Why did that answer make me tense?
Why am I rushing this question?
Why do I feel the need to fill the silence?
Why am I assuming this person is being difficult?
Why did rapport feel easier with one person than another?
These questions matter because interviewers are not neutral recording devices. We bring our temperament, habits, preferences, fears, frustrations, and blind spots into the room.
The skilled interviewer does not pretend to be free of those things. The skilled interviewer learns to notice them.
Research can confirm what practice keeps whispering
Reading Melunovic’s work felt like seeing language put around something many practitioners recognise from experience. Interviewing performance and rapport-building are not only affected by technique. They can also be shaped by individual characteristics and by the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee.
That does not mean personality decides everything. It does not mean some people are “natural” interviewers and others cannot improve. It means that the human dynamics of an interview deserve serious attention.
Some interviewers are naturally calm and patient. Some are highly analytical. Some are warm and socially fluent. Some are direct and task-focused. Each of these qualities can help, but each can also become a problem if left unchecked.
A calm interviewer may miss urgency.
An analytical interviewer may over-focus on detail and lose the person.
A warm interviewer may avoid challenge.
A direct interviewer may damage rapport without meaning to.
The trait itself is rarely the whole issue. The issue is whether the interviewer knows how that trait shows up under pressure.
Personality awareness gives interviewers a starting point
This is where awareness of Personality Traits becomes useful. It offers a starting point for reflection before the interview ever begins.
For example, an interviewer who knows they dislike ambiguity can prepare for the discomfort of unclear or partial accounts. Instead of pushing too quickly for certainty, they can hold the space longer and allow the account to develop.
An interviewer who knows they are conflict-avoidant can plan how to challenge inconsistencies respectfully. They can practise phrases that keep the interview fair, calm, and clear.
An interviewer who knows they are highly sceptical can guard against closing down too early. They can remind themselves that disbelief is not analysis, and that curiosity often produces better information than suspicion.
An interviewer who knows they are driven by control can pay closer attention to pace, silence, and the interviewee’s autonomy.
This is not about labelling people. It is about improving control over one’s own behaviour.
The more we understand our defaults, the less likely we are to be ruled by them.
Rapport is built by people, not scripts
Rapport is sometimes spoken about as if it is a technique. Use the person’s name. Sit at the right angle. Start with neutral topics. Show interest. Listen actively.
These behaviours can help, but rapport is more than a checklist.
People often sense when an interviewer is impatient, judging, distracted, or simply going through the motions. They may not be able to name it, but they feel it. The atmosphere changes. Answers become shorter. Trust narrows. The interview becomes harder work.
By contrast, a self-aware interviewer can notice the moment rapport starts to shift.
They might recognise:
“I am becoming irritated, and it is affecting my tone.”
“I have stopped listening because I am planning my next challenge.”
“I am feeling sympathy, and I need to stay balanced.”
“I am reacting to this person because they remind me of someone else.”
That level of honesty is not weakness. It is professional discipline.
Self-awareness helps the interviewer return to the purpose of the interview: to obtain accurate, reliable, and complete information in a fair way.
The danger of mistaking instinct for truth
There is a risk in talking about the inner voice. Some people may hear it as permission to trust every feeling they have in an interview.
That would be dangerous.
A feeling is not a fact. A hunch is not evidence. Discomfort does not prove deception. Confidence does not prove accuracy.
The inner voice should be treated as information about the interviewer’s own state, not as proof about the interviewee.
If I feel uneasy, the first question should not be, “What is wrong with them?” It should be, “What am I noticing, and what else could explain it?”
This pause is vital. It protects against bias. It keeps the interviewer curious. It creates space between reaction and response.
In that space, better interviewing happens.
Training should include the interviewer as a person
Investigative interviewing training rightly focuses on ethics, planning, questioning, listening, disclosure, memory, vulnerability, and legal standards. But the interviewer’s own personality and self-management should sit alongside those topics.
That could include reflective practice such as:
reviewing interviews for tone, pace, and interruption patterns
asking supervisors for feedback on rapport and presence
noticing which interviewees are easiest or hardest to connect with
preparing personal risk points before high-stakes interviews
keeping a reflective log after interviews, not just a procedural record
This kind of work does not need to be overly complicated. It simply needs to be honest.
Before an interview, an interviewer might ask:
What do I need to be aware of in myself today so that I can listen properly?
That one question can change the quality of the interview.
Good interviewing starts before the first question
The light bulb moment for me was not that personality matters. I already felt that. The moment came from seeing research give weight to the idea that the interviewer’s individual characteristics are part of the interviewing process, not separate from it.
Good investigative interviewing is not only about what we ask. It is also about how we listen, how we manage ourselves, and how we respond when the interview takes an unexpected turn.
The inner voice is not there to replace training or evidence. It is there to draw attention to what is happening inside us while the interview unfolds.
When we listen to it carefully, question it properly, and keep it in its rightful place, it can make us better interviewers.
The work begins before we enter the room. It begins with knowing ourselves well enough not to get in the way of the truth.
Comments