What Is Baiting in an Investigative Interview?

Baiting in an investigative interview is a technique in which the interviewer implies that incriminating evidence exists, without revealing what that evidence actually is, in order to observe how the

By Murder Book Editorial TeamPublished by Gungrounds, the studio making Murder BookPublished 3 October 2026Updated 3 October 2026

Baiting in an investigative interview is a technique in which the interviewer implies that incriminating evidence exists, without revealing what that evidence actually is, in order to observe how the subject responds. The question is designed to be non-accusatory on the surface. For example, an interviewer might ask, "Is there any reason your fingerprints would be found at the scene?" rather than stating that fingerprints were found. The purpose is not to extract a confession directly but to see whether the subject changes their account, hedges, or offers an unsolicited explanation. Research on related approaches, such as the Strategic Use of Evidence technique, suggests that how and when evidence is introduced can meaningfully affect whether liars and truth tellers respond differently. However, baiting alone does not prove deception, and an innocent person may react with surprise, confusion or anxiety.

Key takeaways

A bait question implies the existence of evidence without confirming it, prompting the subject to decide how to respond.
The technique is associated with the Reid method of interviewing, where it traditionally serves as the final question before a decision about whether to move to a more direct interrogation.
Research on the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique shows that withholding evidence until later in an interview can increase the difference between truthful and deceptive responses.
Changing a story after a bait question does not automatically indicate guilt; innocent people may also revise their accounts when they sense suspicion.
Ethical concerns arise when bait questions imply evidence that does not exist, because this can increase the risk of false confessions.

How does a bait question work?

A bait question works by creating a gap between what the interviewer knows and what the subject thinks the interviewer knows. According to practitioners writing in Police1, the question is "a non-accusatory question in which the possible existence of incriminating evidence is implied for the purpose of enticing the subject to change or consider changing his original statements." The bait can refer to real evidence or to evidence the interviewer does not actually have.

The interviewer then watches for several things. Does the subject change their story? Do they pause noticeably before answering? Do they repeat the question back, possibly stalling for time? Practitioners describe these reactions as potentially indicating concern about the evidence, but none of them amounts to proof of deception. An honest person who is anxious about being suspected might react in exactly the same way. For more on why nervousness does not reliably indicate lying, research consistently shows that anxiety alone cannot separate liars from truth tellers.

Where does baiting come from?

The bait question is most closely associated with the Reid technique, a structured approach to interviewing and interrogation developed in the United States. In the Reid method, the interview phase comes before any accusation. The interviewer asks a series of behavioural analysis questions, and the bait question traditionally comes last. If the subject's response suggests possible deception, the interviewer may move to a more confrontational interrogation phase.

The Reid technique has been influential in North American law enforcement training for decades. It is also one of the most criticised methods. Critics, including psychologists such as Saul Kassin, have argued that the technique's reliance on behavioural cues to detect deception is not supported by research, and that its confrontational interrogation phase can contribute to false confessions. The bait question itself sits in the less confrontational interview phase, but if it relies on fictitious evidence, it raises similar concerns about reliability.

What does research say about withholding evidence?

The most relevant line of research concerns the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique, developed by Pär Anders Granhag, Maria Hartwig and colleagues at the University of Gothenburg. The core finding is that the timing of evidence disclosure matters. In a 2005 study published in Law and Human Behavior, Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall and Vrij found that when observers were told to disclose evidence late in an interview rather than early, accuracy in detecting deception rose from 42.9% to 61.7%.

The reasoning is straightforward. A liar who does not know what evidence the interviewer holds may make statements that contradict that evidence. A truth teller, drawing on genuine memory, is more likely to provide an account consistent with the evidence. By holding evidence back, the interviewer creates an opportunity for these differences to emerge naturally. For more on this approach, see how investigators use evidence strategically.

A later development, SUE-Incremental (SUE-I), tested whether disclosing evidence in steps of increasing specificity could strengthen the effect. Research by Granhag and colleagues found that this stepwise approach produced stronger cues to deception, particularly through inconsistencies between the suspect's statements and the disclosed evidence.

How is baiting different from the SUE technique?

Although both approaches involve managing what the subject knows about the evidence, there are important differences.

Feature	Bait question	Strategic Use of Evidence
Evidence basis	May be real or fictitious	Based on real evidence
Goal	Observe whether subject changes story	Measure consistency between statements and evidence
Theoretical basis	Practitioner experience	Peer-reviewed research
Risk of false cues	Higher, because implied evidence may not exist	Lower, because analysis relies on verifiable inconsistencies
Interview context	Typically a single question	A structured interview strategy

The SUE technique avoids fabricating evidence. Instead, it uses genuine evidence strategically to see whether the subject's account aligns with it. This distinction matters because implying false evidence can increase the risk of false confessions, particularly among vulnerable individuals.

Can an innocent person fail a bait question?

Yes. Research on deception detection has consistently found that innocent people can exhibit many of the same behaviours as guilty ones. An innocent person might change their story after a bait question because they suddenly worry that the interviewer suspects them, because they remember a detail differently under pressure, or because they want to appear cooperative. Bond and DePaulo's 2006 meta-analysis found that people judge lies and truths correctly only about 54% of the time, a figure that underlines how unreliable behavioural cues are.

The broader lesson from deception research is that no single response to any question, including a bait question, can reliably distinguish a liar from a truth teller. Vrij, Hartwig and Granhag summarised this in a 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article: the nonverbal cues to deceit discovered so far are "faint and unreliable." For more on why body language is not a reliable lie detector, the evidence is clear.

What are the ethical concerns?

The main ethical concern with baiting is the use of fictitious evidence. When an interviewer implies that evidence exists when it does not, they are deceiving the subject. In some jurisdictions this is permitted during police interviews; in others it is restricted or prohibited. The PEACE model of interviewing, used in England and Wales and several other countries, generally discourages deception by the interviewer.

Even where it is legally permitted, researchers have warned that deceptive interview tactics can backfire. Kassin's research on false confessions shows that presenting false evidence can lead innocent suspects to doubt their own memory, particularly during long interrogations. This makes the distinction between baiting with real evidence and baiting with fictitious evidence practically important, not just academic.

How does Murder Book handle baiting?

Murder Book: The Art of Interrogation, an upcoming narrative interrogation game from Gungrounds, includes Baiting as one of the named techniques in its development materials. The technique menu shown in development screenshots lists Baiting alongside Build Trust, Futility, Bluffing, Demonstration and Confrontation. Players select a technique to apply during an interrogation, and the suspect's response depends on the situation.

The game does not treat any single technique as automatically correct. A bait that works on one suspect might fail on another, and players must weigh what they know against what the suspect might reveal. This reflects the research finding that baiting produces useful information only when interpreted carefully, not taken as proof. Murder Book is in development for PC (Steam) and mobile, with release currently planned for the end of Q2 2027.