Workplace investigations often require navigating sensitive and highly personal issues, especially when allegations involve sexual misconduct, bullying, violence, or identity-based harassment. Legal professionals and investigators are increasingly called upon to adopt trauma-informed practices that recognize the profound impact trauma can have on individuals’ memories, behaviors, and participation in the investigative process.

Overlooking the impacts of trauma on interview subjects weakens (and often lengthens) the investigative process — it heightens defensiveness, limits disclosure, and erodes trust, which ultimately undermines the quality of the information obtained. This is why trauma-informed investigative skills are not simply “nice to have,” despite how politicized the term has become. They keep investigations on track, strengthen the quality of the information obtained via interviews, reduce escalation, and produce clearer, more reliable data for decision making. This article distills key principles and actionable strategies for conducting trauma-informed investigations, drawing on over a decade of experience in the field.

Understanding Trauma and Its Prevalence

Trauma is any disturbing experience that results in significant fear, helplessness, or other disruptive feelings, often with long-lasting effects on a person’s functioning and worldview. It can arise from threats to life or limb, severe injury, witnessing violence, or other deeply distressing events. Studies estimate that at least half of U.S. adults have experienced a major traumatic event.

Not all stressful experiences are traumatic for every person; factors such as age, gender, and relationship to the perpetrator can influence how an event impacts someone. However, trauma may shape how individuals present and recall events. For investigators, when conducting interviews, it’s crucial to shift from a mindset of “What is wrong with them?” to “What happened to them?”

Trauma’s Impact on Memory and Behavior

Trauma fundamentally alters how the brain records and recalls events. The amygdala — the brain’s “alarm system” — takes over during traumatic incidents, prioritizing sensory and emotional information over linear details. As a result, trauma survivors may have fragmented memories, gaps in recall, or make inconsistent statements. They may also display a range of emotional responses, from detachment to agitation.

Investigators must understand that these responses are not necessarily signs of evasiveness or dishonesty, and may be someone’s natural response to trauma. Adopting a trauma-informed lens helps ensure that interviews are conducted with sensitivity and that credibility is evaluated fairly.

Trauma-Informed Interviewing: Setting the Stage

The first minutes of an interview are critical for establishing trust and psychological safety. A calm, respectful introduction—one that doesn’t feel rushed or overly formal—can help interviewees feel comfortable and more willing to share meaningful information. Minor gestures, something as simple as genuine small talk or allowing the interviewee to choose their seat, can put a witness at ease and empower them.

Interview location also matters. Privacy, quiet, and a neutral setting are essential, especially for those who have experienced trauma. Virtual interviews can offer comfort and control, but investigators should confirm that witnesses have access to a private, safe space to participate.

Transparency and Tone

Before substantive questioning, explain the investigative process in plain language. Be transparent about what will happen and what the interviewee can expect; this will help reduce uncertainty and build trust. Allow interviewees to ask questions, and answer them meaningfully.

While empathy is key, it is important to remain neutral. Avoid statements that imply partiality or offer personal comfort, such as “I’m very sorry this happened to you,” or “Can I give you a hug?” Instead, use phrases like “I know this might be difficult to talk about,” or “It sounds like this was a very difficult experience.” This lets you acknowledge the interviewee’s pain without compromising your impartiality.

Effective Questioning Techniques

Trauma-informed interviewing emphasizes open-ended questions that invite narrative responses. Begin broadly; for example, you can say, “Tell me what happened that day,” and ask clarifying questions later. Avoid interrupting, repeating questions, or seeking gratuitous details that may re-traumatize the interviewee.

Key strategies include:

• Establishing and maintaining rapport: Greet the interviewee warmly, be transparent about your role and the process, and engage in active listening throughout the interview.
• Asking open-ended questions: Invite detailed narratives rather than short answers. For example, “What are you able to tell me?” or “Can you tell me more about…” allow the interviewee to share their experience in their own words and order.
• Minimizing interruptions and unnecessary questions: Allow the interviewee to speak at their own pace, avoid repeating questions, and focus only on details necessary for the investigation.
• Prefacing sensitive questions: When asking about difficult topics, explain why the information is needed and reassure the interviewee that their discomfort is understandable. (“I don’t mean to embarrass you, but it would be helpful for me to know more details about…”)
• Encouraging honesty: Let interviewees know it is acceptable to say, “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember,” rather than guessing under pressure.

Useful questions include:

• “What do you remember about…?”
• “What else happened?”
• “Tell me what was going through your mind at that point.”
• “Do you recall what you were hearing/seeing/smelling/feeling at that time?”
• “Can you tell me about the impact this has had on you?”
• “Is there anything else that you haven’t told me that you think would be important for me to know?”

Credibility Assessments Through a Trauma Lens

Trauma can manifest as inconsistent statements or an atypical demeanor. Investigators must be cautious not to misinterpret these signs as evidence of dishonesty. Instead, consider trauma’s impact when weighing credibility. Demeanor and consistency should be assessed in context, and minor inconsistencies may warrant less weight if trauma is present.

For example, a trauma survivor may present with a flat affect, avoid eye contact, or seem combative, all of which could be misread as evasiveness. Inconsistent statements are also common among trauma survivors due to the way traumatic memories are stored and recalled. Investigators should acknowledge these factors in their findings, balancing them against other evidence and motives.

Final Takeaways

Trauma-informed workplace investigations require open-mindedness, compassion, and a commitment to minimizing harm while maximizing the quality of information gathered. Investigators should give interviewees time and space, watch for signs of fatigue, and offer breaks. The goal is to reduce re-traumatization, strengthen findings, and maintain the integrity of the investigative process.

By integrating trauma-informed practices, legal professionals can conduct more effective, fair, and humane workplace investigations, benefiting both the individuals involved and the organizations they serve.