FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY Flashcards
The top-down approach to offender profiling
The top-down approach originates in the USA from the work of the FBI.
They used data from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
It is also known as the typology approach because the profilers who use this method match what is known about the crime and the offender to pre-existing templates. Murderers and rapists are categorised as either organised or disorganised which helps the investigators fill in the gaps.
Organised offenders tend to have planned the crime, targeted individuals, they might have a type of victim and their crime is more precise and controlled (with fewer clues left behind). They tend to be professionals and more socially functional and might be married.
Disorganised offenders are the opposite; they show little evidence of planning, they are spontaneous, spur of the moment, the body is often still at the scene. They tend to have lower IQ and be less socially functional. An FBI profile is constructed by first collecting the evidence, classifying the crime scene as either organised or disorganised, reconstructing the crime (mapping out the sequence of events) and then generating a profile of the offender (background, age, physical characteristics).
The top-down approach to offender profiling A03
A03 This method is still used by the FBI and has widespread support in the field. There is also evidence for the organised type offender (from Canter’s analysis of 100 murders) but this evidence does unfortunately not support the existence of the traits associated with the disorganised offender. This undermines the top-down classification system.
Another limitation of this method is that it only applies to particular crimes (ones that give away the mind of the killer involving cult-like behaviours or fantasies. This is very limiting because it is not effective for crimes such as burglary which is unlikely to reveal much about the offender.
Many psychologists also argue that the organised/ disorganised distinction is based on outdated models of personality. It assumes that offenders have a pattern of consistent behaviours whereas more recent thinking on this topic is that we do not have stable traits but that we are influenced by external factors which are constantly changing. This suggests that this method has poor validity.
Additionally, the original sample used to develop the categories were quite unrepresentative and the methods used to gather data were also questionable. The self-report data from serial killers relies on them telling the truth and accurately recalling details and 36 is far too small a number to develop a whole classification system. Overall the top-down approach should be viewed with caution.
The bottom-up approach to offender profiling
The aim of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling is to generate a picture of the offender (their characteristics, their routine behaviour, their social background) from the evidence within the crime scene.
It does not have fixed typologies like the top-down approach, it is more data- driven. It is closely linked with the work of Canter. The bottom-up approach uses investigative psychology which matches details from the crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory.
Patterns that occur or co-exist across crime scenes are used to generate data about the offender. One example of the way this works in the concept of
Interpersonal coherence. This is the way in which an offender behaves at the scene. How they interact with the victim may indicate how they act in everyday life.
Another is forensic awareness. This focusses on those who have been the focus of police attention before. Their behaviour may denote how mindful they are of covering their tracks. Another technique that is part of the bottom-up approach is geographical profiling. This is based on the location of the offender’s crimes and how this can be used to estimate where they are based and also where they are likely to commit future crimes. Geographical profilers use maps to plot the locations of known crimes and they work on the assumption that offenders will operate in areas known to them (their base may be in the middle of this area).
Canter proposed two models of offender behaviour as part of his circle theory.
The marauder (someone who operates in close proximity to their home base) and the commuter (someone who is likely to have travelled a distance away from their home). Usually the pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around their usual home. As more crimes occur the investigators are more able to determine factors such as mode of transport, employment status, age etc.
The bottom-up approach to offender profiling A03
Evidence does seem to support investigative psychology. Canter and Heritage conducted a content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using a computer program finding correlations across patterns in behaviour. Consistent behaviours were found including impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim. These behaviours appeared in different patterns in different offenders which suggests the top-approach and its focus on rigid templates may not be valid and that the bottom-up approach is more useful as it can identify patterns.
Evidence also supports geographical profiling. Canter again analysed 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the USA. It was found that the home base of the killer was consistently located in the centre of the circle created by the body disposal sites. Supporting Canter’s circle theory.
Canter argues that the bottom-up approach has a more scientific basis than the top-down approach as it is more driven by evidence and theory than hunches. It also has a wider application than the top-down approach because it can be used on a number of offences including burglary which the top-down approach cannot. It is therefore more useful.
There have however been failings of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling. For example the case of the murder of Rachel Nickel, police pursued the wrong man and ruled out the real offender because he was slightly taller than the profile stated. Examples such as this suggests that offender profiling will not be 100% accurate and should only be used as a guide for police.
Eysenck’s criminal personality
Eysenck put forward the criminal personality as an explanation for crime.
Eysenck proposed 3 dimensions of personality; introversion/extraversion, neuroticism/ stability and finally psychoticism/ socialisation.
The criminal personality is neurotic extravert with high scores of psychoticism. He claimed that personality has a biological basis and is with us from birth in the nervous system that we inherit. Therefore, the criminal personality has a biological basis that is expressed psychologically.
Extraverts have an underactive nervous system which means they seek excitement and are likely to engage in risk taking behaviours (which may include criminal behaviour) they also do not condition easily so do not learn from their mistakes.
Neurotics are nervous, jumpy and anxious their instability means that they can overreact to stressful situations and are unpredictable.
People with high levels of psychoticism are high in testosterone, they are cold, unemotional and aggressive (meaning harming others would not be difficult).
Personality types are stable and measured with Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI), a form of psychological test.
Psychological explanations of offending
Eysenck’s criminal personality A03
Eysenck conducted research supporting his own theory. He tested over 2000 male prisoners with the EPI and compared them with a control group. It was found that prisoners had higher scores on than controls on measures of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. Strengthening his theory of a criminal personality.
However, Farrington conducted a review study which included the findings from several similar studies and found that although offenders did tend to score highly on psychoticism. They did not score higher on E and N. There is also little evidence from EEG measures on the differences between E and I for their cortical arousal. This casts doubt on the idea of a biological basis for personality differences as Eysenck claimed.
Some have also accused Eysenck of cultural bias in his research. Bartol studied Hispanic and African-American offenders and they were found to be significantly less extravert than a control group. This suggests that Eysenck’s original work lacks generalisability and is only applicable to certain cultural groups.
The idea of a criminal personality is based on the assumption that personality is stable and measurable. Many now believe that this is not the case, in fact we may change on a daily basis depending on who we are with and the situation we find ourselves in. There may in fact be no true self which makes us criminal or not but which is a significant contradiction to Eysenck’s ideas.
Cognitive explanations for offending
Cognitive explanations for offending explain offending as a results of dysfunctional thought processes.
There are 2 elements to this approach; levels of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions.
Kohlberg developed the theory of levels of moral reasoning. He said that there are 6 stages of moral development in 3 levels. Each stage is more mature than the last. Criminals have less developed and less mature moral reasoning than non-criminals.
Level I is the pre-conventional level (where criminals are), this level involves decisions being made based on a need to avoid punishment and gain reward. So criminals may commit a crime because they are focusing on whether they will get away with it and whether it offers some reward for them.
Most adults are at the conventional level (level II) where the focus of moral decision making is on norms and rules. The most mature level is post-conventional (level III) where decisions are based on our own ethical principles which might involve questioning established rules.
A03. - There is evidence for Kohlberg’s levels. Palmer and Hollin compared offenders (of both genders) to aims that there should be 2 and not 3 levels; mature (conventional) immature (pre-conventional). They claim that post conventional thinking is culturally biased because it is based on western ideals and did not reflect a “natural maturational stage” so perhaps Kohlberg’s theory is not valid for this reason.
