Investigative Psychology

Posted by permission of Dr. Thomas O’Connor. Copyright by T. O’Connor.

 

“It is quite a three-pipe problem.” Sherlock Holmes

The phrase “investigative psychology” taken broadly is a term encompassingall the ways that psychology can be used or integrated with the processes and procedures of criminal investigation. Criminal investigation of the kind here is normally the kind done by detectives in police departments. A criminal investigation roughly consists of the following eight steps: 1 – Determine if a crime has been committed, 2 – Verify the jurisdictional and statutory authority before beginning a thorough and systematic inquiry, 3 – Discover all the facts and collect the evidence, 4 – Recover any stolen property, if any, 5- Identify the perpetrator or perpetrators, 6 – Locate and apprehend the perpetrator or perpetrators, 7 – Aid the prosecution by providing evidence of guilt admissible in court, and 8 – Testify effectively as a witness in court. Some of the ways in which investigative psychology can be used broadly include psychological autopsies, polygraphs, forensic hypnosis, facial composites, and assistance with lineups and confessions.

The phrase “investigative psychology” taken narrowly is a term referring to methods of identifying key features of a crime and the likely characteristics of the perpetrator. In short, investigative psychology is profiling, and in some instances, profiling is used to summarize the psychological features of persons who may commit a crime, and in this sense, profiling is prediction. However, investigative psychology is only one of several methods in profiling. The words “investigative psychology” usually refer to the method of profiling developed by David Canter in England between 1985 and 1992. This method is sometimes called investigative psychological analysis, facet theory, or geographic profiling. There are those who claim that it is the only accurate method of profiling, and that David Canter is the founder of profiling. However, it is Kim Rossmo who is usually credited with developing the more widely-used techniques of geographic profiling in 1995. The field of profiling is rapidly evolving, so it may not be wise to make too many sharp distinctions, but it just might be helpful to outline the differences between some frequently confused terms:

• applied criminology — what Hans Gross said all criminal investigation was

• behavioral evidence analysis — Brent Turvey’s profiling method

• clinical criminology — what Israeli schools call the study of insanity

• crime scene analysis— the FBI’s profiling method

• crime scene reconstruction — interpreting what happened at crime scenes

• criminal investigative analysis — what police call victimology-oriented profiling

• criminal personality profiling— what police use with bizarre, sexual cases

• criminalistics— interpreting the minutia (minute details) of crime scene evidence

• facet theory— smallest space analysis; relies on differentiation of patterns

• geographic profiling — Kim Rossmo’s profiling method

• hot spot analysis— the geographic mapping of offender residence/patterns

• investigative process management — Maurice Godwin’s profiling method

• investigative psychology — David Canter’s profiling method

• psychodynamic personality profiling — the CIA’s profiling method

• sociopsychological profiling — Ronald Holmes’ profiling method

The most commonly used profiling methodology appears to be crime scene analysis (the FBI approach), followed by a technique called diagnostic evaluation (which is the interrater agreement level of multiple profilers), followed by the method of investigative psychology (Wilson, Lincoln & Kocsis 1997; Rossmo 2000). The FBI approach is based on a good deal of the jargon and lingo of police investigation as well as the methods of logic found in a loosely-organized, yet old, field calledCrime Reconstruction. The Rossmo approach is based more on the techniques of intelligence analysis, and specifically those tools which lend themselves to the problem of “linkage blindness” where investigators overlook important links between crimes because they are too focused on dissimilarities. Rossmo’s geographic profiling method also uses computer calculations [seeECRI’s Rigel system] to produce topographic maps based on the locations of a series of similar crimes. These maps graph the “jeopardy surface,” or likelihood that some area is the location of the killer’s home or base of operation, and they are then superimposed on street maps where the crimes are pinpointed, and the result can be thought of as a sort of “fingerprint” of the offender’s cognitive map. According to Bartol & Bartol (2004), geographic profiling usually refers to when spatial pattern analysis is conducted to catch one, single, serial offender; and the phrases “geographic mapping” or “hot spot analysis” usually refer to when spatial pattern analysis is conducted to catch multiple offenders.

THE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF PROFILING

Profilers testifying before the courts as forensic expert witnesses can expect to face significant challenges to their credibility as well as the accuracy and reliability of their profiling techniques. Two main challenges seem to have some support in the research literature (Allison et. al. 2002; 2003), and go directly to assumptions at the heart of most profiling theory. Those assumptions are well-known to anyone who has studied profiling, and are also well-known axioms in the lore of investigative psychology:

• the personality of the offender stays the same

• elements of the crime scene reflect the personality

The criticism which involves the first assumption questions whether criminal personality is the same from situation to situation, and the criticism which involves the second assumption questions whether there are such things as “signature” elements left behind at the crime scene which reflect the thought patterns of certain types of offenders. The first criticism may be valid since most profiling techniques rely upon a naive and outdated trait approach to personality theory. Classifying offenders into broad personality types (e.g., organized, disorganized) and then relating those to clusters of sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, sex, marital status) is NOT something that is known for having high predictive validity. A far better approach would be to use more modern personality theories (where the personality is seen as the product of Person x Situation) or for personality-oriented criminological theories to advance. Most such theories in criminology are deadlocked because it has been found that many personality characteristics change (and do not remain stable) during criminal offending because of the influence of drugs, alcohol, anger, other strong emotions, and sometimes the thrill of crime itself. As Bartol & Bartol (2004) put it, there is some evidence that criminal personality remains fairly stable across time (transtemporal consistency), but no evidence that criminal personality remains fairly stable across place (transsituational consistency).

Situational approaches to personality theory would make much more use of the insights from victimology than is currently being done in most profiling. By and large, the field of profiling has not strongly embraced the field of victimology, but it should. Although victimology suffers from some of the same research method limitations as criminology, the absence of victimological insights often leads to major flaws in the development of offender profiles (Jenkins 1993).

An important distinction that profiling ought to make is the distinction between dynamic and static risk factors (Andrews & Bonta 1994). Dynamic risk factors are those which change over time and situation (e.g., attitudes, values, beliefs), and static risk factors are those which don’t change (e.g., sociodemographic characteristics like gender or birth order). In many ways, profiling is about figuring out the connections between dynamic and static risk factors. The standard investigative approach to resolving this is to postulate something called the modus operandi (MO) as a relatively stable dynamic factor, and also to postulate something called the signature, which is seen as a more stable dynamic factor. The criticism which questions whether the crime scene reflects the personality involves the concepts of MO and signature.

Most crime scenes reflect an MO and, to a lesser extent, signature elements. The MO is what’s necessary to complete the crime, and the MO changes as (if) the offender gets more proficient at their crime. The signature (if present) is symbolic communication by the offender which goes beyond what is necessary to commit the crime. Signature may involve evidence that the offender tried to induce some kind of emotional reaction in the victim, violated some personal item or thing belonging to the victim, or in some cases, staged the crime scene to throw off authorities or send a message to authorities. Signature holds the promise of producing much more accurate and reliable profiles than those based on MO alone, but care must be taken in the logic and methodology used (inductive vs. deductive) to generalize about the more dynamic cognitive processes that might be part of the offender’s thinking. Profiling is generally regarded as most effective when there are signs of ritual, either because of some sort of sexual need or fetish, or because of the symptomatic patterns present in certain forms of psychopathology.&nbs

PSYCHOLOGICAL AUTOPSY

Psychological autopsy is a term first coined in 1977 by the Los Angeles Medical Examiner’s Office to investigate suicide cases (Shneidman 1977), and the U.S. military are one of the major consumers of psychological autopsies. This technique is generally more valid and reliable the more it remains focused on the manner and circumstances of death, and does NOT try to generalize or be extended to nondeath situations. The elements involved in a psychological autopsy are as follows:

1. Alcohol and drug history, decedent’s history of dealing with stress, medical history, family medical history, recent stressors in the victim’s life, military history, employment history, educational history, sexual history, dietary history

2. Interpersonal relationships, writings by the deceased, books and music owned by the deceased, web sites visited, phone calls made, recent conversations with friends, acquaintances, relatives, co-workers, and teachers, interests and hobbies shared with others, old and current enemies

3. Reactions by any of the above parties to the victim’s death, especially as to the degree of lethality, as well as the usual questions about early warning signs and who might have intended harm

4. Assessment of intention about the role of the decedent in their own demise, including any sub-intentional, covert, or unconscious role, this obtained by analyzing the pattern of how the victim went about accomplishing their goals or life plans

5. Fantasies, dreams, thoughts, premonitions, fears, or phobias of the victim, socio-emotional mood swings, mental status exam, concentration and judgment abilities, IQ

6. Timeline of events leading up to the day of the deceased’s death

REFERENCES

Alison, L., Bennell, C., Ormerod, D. & Mokros, A. (2002). “The Personality Paradox in Offender Profiling: A Theoretical Review of the Processes Involved in Deriving Background Characteristics from Crime Scene Actions.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8:115-135.

Alison, L., Smith, M., Eastman, O. & Rainbow, L. (2003). “Toulmin’s Philosophy of Argument and its Relevance to Offender Profiling.” Psychology, Crime & Law 9:173-183.

Alison, L., Smith, M. & Morgan, K. (2003). “Interpreting the Accuracy of Offender Profiles.” Psychology, Crime & Law 9:185-195.

Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Arrigo, B. (2000). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Issues andControversies in Crime and Justice. NY: Academic Press.

Axelrod, A. & G. Antinozzi. (2003). The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Criminal Investigation. Indianapolis: Alpha Books.

Bartol, C. & Bartol, A. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Canter. D. & Young, D. (2003). “Beyond ‘Offender Profiling’: The Need for an Investigative Psychology.” Pp. 171-205 in D. Carson & R. Bull (eds.) Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts, 2e. NY: Wiley.

Godwin, M. (2000). Hunting Serial Predators. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Holmes, R. & Holmes, S. (2002). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jenkins, P. (1993). “Chance or Choice: The Selection of Serial Murder Victims.” In A. Wilson (Ed.) Homicide: The Victim/Offender Connection. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Ramsland, K. (2002). The Criminal Mind: A Writer’s Guide to Forensic Psychology. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books. [author’s website]

Ressler, R., Burgess, A., Douglas, J., Hartman, C. & D’Agostino, R. (1986). “Serial Killers and Their Victims: Identifying Patterns Through Crime Scene Analysis.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1:288-308.

Rossmo, K. (2000). Geographic Profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Shneidman, E. (1977). “The Psychological Autopsy,” In L. Gottschalk et. al. (Eds.) Guide to the Investigation & Reporting of Drug-Abuse Deaths. Rockville: HEW.

Towl, G. & D. Crighton. (1996). The Handbook of Psychology for Forensic Practitioners. NY: Routledge.

Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal Profiling. San Diego: Academic Press.

Walker, L. & Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Clinical and Social Psychological Perspectives. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Wrightsman, L., M. Taflinger & M. Linsenman. (2000). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wilson, P., Lincoln, R. & Kocsis, R. (1997). “Validity, Utility and Ethics of Profiling for Serial Violent and Sexual Offenders.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 4: 1-11.