Forensic Psychology Flashcards
What is Offender Profiling?
An Investigative method used by police in order to identify potential perpetrators of a crime. Profiles are typically compiled via careful examination of the crime scene and evidence such as witness reports. From this, a hypothesis is generated about the probable characteristics of the offender eg. age, background, occupation. There are two methods of offender profiling.
What are the two types of offender profiling?
. Top-down approach (American approach)
. Bottom-up approach (British approach)
What is the top-down approach?
. The top-down approach was adopted by the FBI in the 1970’s, based on data collected by the FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit following in-depth interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers
. It argues that offenders can be categorised into one of two categories - organised or disorganised
. Organised and disorganised offenders are categorised based on the idea that serious offenders have signature ways of working - ‘modus operandi’ - which correlate with a set of social and psychological characteristics
. Each category has characteristics. If these characteristics later matched with data from a crime scene, investigators could then predict other likely characteristics about the offender - this could then be used to find them
. Data is collected about a murder or serious crime, and then it is decided which category the data is best suited to
What is an ‘organised offender’
. ‘In control’
. The organised offender shows evidence of having planned the crime ahead of time: they seem to have carefully selected the victim, with victims often fitting a certain criteria. They chose private locations, and often keep victims alive for a time after the initial attack, transporting them to these secondary private locations. They use weapons and materials they have brought with them. They tend to leave little evidence at the crime scene, and may hide the body
Organised offenders may torture the victim, and take trophies from the crime scene in order to remember the attack. They also frequently follow media coverage of the crime.
In everyday life, they appear to be socially and sexually competent - they may be married and even have children
They tend to be of normal to high intelligence, but may be low achievers
. Hazelwood and Douglas (1980) suggested that organised offenders are ‘lust murderers’, planning their crimes and specifically targeting their victim. Violent fantasies will often have been carried out on the victim
What is a disorganised offender?
. ‘Out of control’
. Disorganised offenders show little evidence of having planned their crimes: their crimes appear to be spontaneous and spur of the moment. Crime scenes are often chaotic, with a lack of effort to conceal the crime. There is little to suggest that they have carefully selected their victim, though they may share some basic characteristics. Victims are often killed at the place of the initial confrontation, generally quickly and using improvised weaponry.
They don’t tend to take trophies from the crime scene or follow media coverage of their crime
Disorganised offenders are often of limited intelligence, with poor social skills. They likely live alone, often in unskilled work or unemployed. They may have a history of failed relationships. They often live close to where the offence took place.
What steps are involved in constructing an FBI profile?
. Data assimilation - The profiler reviews the evidence eg. photos, pathology reports, witness statements
. Crime scene classification - It is classified as either organised or disorganised
. Crime reconstruction - Hypotheses are drawn about the sequence of events, behaviour of victim etc.
. Profile generation - Hypotheses about the likely offender are made, which may include their demographic or background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc.
What is a strength of the top-down approach - research support?
+ Research support for a distinct organised category of offender - Canter et.al (2004) conducted an analysis of 100 US murders, each committed by a different serial killer. Smallest space analysis (identifies correlations across samples of behaviour) was used to to assess the co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killings. This included: whether there was torture or restraint, whether there was an attempt to conceal the body, the murder weapon used, and cause of death. The analysis revealed a subset of features of many killings, which matched the FBI’s typology for organised offenders. This strengthens the top-down approach, as it demonstrates the validity of the concept of ‘organised’ offenders.
What is a counterpoint for the research support argument - top-down approach?
While research supports the existence of ‘organised’ characteristics, it also suggests that organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive. Godwin (2002) argues that it is difficult to classify killers as a distinct type, as they may have multiple contrasting characteristics. For example, they may have high intelligence and sexual competence, but commit a spontaneous murder and leave the body at the crime scene. This suggests the organised/disorganised categories are too simplistic, and are likely more of a continuum than two distinct typologies.
What is a strength of the top-down approach - applicability?
+ The top down approach has wide applicability, as it can applied to both violent and non-violent crimes - Meketa (2017) reported that top-down profiling has been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states. The method retains the organised-disorganised distinction, but also adds the categories of interpersonal (where the offender knows their victim and steals something of significance) and opportunistic (where offenders tended to be young and inexperienced). This shows the top-down approach to have wider application than initially thought, demonstrating its real world value.
What is a limitation of the top-down approach - poor evidence base?
FBI profiling was developed based on interviews with 36 murderers in the US, 25 serial killers and 11 single or double murderers. 24 of the 36 were classified as organised, and 12 as disorganised. Canter et.al has since argued that this sample was poor, as the FBI did not select a random or large sample. It also contained murderers exclusively, without any other type of violent or non-violent offender. There was also no standard set of questions, meaning each interview was different. In turn, their findings aren’t comparable. This suggests that the top-down approach lacks a scientific basis, challenging its credibility.
What is the bottom-up approach?
. The bottom-up approach is a data-driven approach which aims to generate a picture of an offender (characteristics, routines, social background) through systematic analysis of crime scene evidence. It doesn’t begin with fixed typologies or categories of criminal - the profile is data-driven and emerges as the investigator scrutinizes details of an offence. It is more grounded in psychological theory than the top-down approach. It involves investigative psychology and geographical profiling. Is closely linked with the work of David Canter
What is investigative psychology?
An attempt to apply statistical procedures. alongside psychological theory, to the analysis of a crime scene, with the aim of establishing patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur at a crime scene. Through this, a statistical database can be developed which acts as a baseline for comparison between different criminals and different offences.
Specific details from an offence or series of offences can then be matched against the database to reveal details about an offender and their characteristics. It can also be used to identify a serial offender by seeing if offences are similar and linked
Significant to the theory are: interpersonal coherence, the significance of place and time, and forensic awareness
What is interpersonal coherence?
The idea that the way an offender behaves at the scene, including their interactions with victims, may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations eg. Dwyer (2001) identified differences between rapists, with some more apologetic, and others wanting to maintain maximum control and humiliate their victims. This could tell us about how they interact with women in everyday life
What is meant by the significance of time and place?
Key variable, linked to geographical profiling. The idea that where the crime takes place may indicate where the offender lives
What is forensic awareness?
Where individuals who have previously been subject to police investigation may be aware of their methods. As a result, they might be more mindful of how they ‘cover their tracks’ and behave at the crime scene
What is geographical profiling?
Where information about the location of linked crime scenes is used to make inferences about the likely home or operational base of an offender - known as crime mapping. This is based on the principle of spatial consistency, which is the idea that people tend to commit crimes within a limited geographical space.
It can be used alongside psychological theory to create hypothesis about how the offender is thinking and their modus operandi. It can help investigators determine whether the crime was planned or opportunistic, the criminals mode of transport, employment status etc.
It is the basis of Canter’s ‘circle theory’ (Canter and Larkin 1993). Profiling showed that if a circle was drawn linking all crimes committed by an offender, they were likely to live within that area. The assumption is that offenders will operate in areas familiar to them, so understanding spatial patterns gives investigators a ‘center of gravity’ likely to include a criminals base
Canter and Larkin proposed two categories of offenders - Marauders and Commuters
What is a ‘Marauder’?
A criminal who operates in close proximity to their home base
What is a ‘Commuter’?
A criminal who is likely to have travelled a long distance away from their usual residence
What was the ‘Railway Rapist’ case?
. The case of John Duffy in the 1980’s. Duffy carried out 24 sexual acts on women, and 3 murders, near railway stations in North London. Canter analysed geographical information about the crimes and combined this with details of similar past crimes. Through this, Duffy was able to draw up an accurate picture of the offender who was later identified as Duffy. Canter predicted that he lived in Kilburn (which Duffy had previously), that he had marital problems (separated), that he was small and physically unattractive, he was familiar with martial arts, that he had a need to dominate women (had attacked his wife) and that he had fantasies of rape and bondage (he had previously tied up his wife before sex).
Canter’s predictions helped lead to Duffy’s arrest.
What is a strength of the bottom-up approach - research support for investigative psychology?
+ There is evidence to support the use of investigative psychology - Canter and Heritage (1990) conducted an analysis of 66 sexual assault cases, examining data using smallest space analysis (identifies patterns in offences to see if they are linked). Several behaviours were identified as common in different samples of behaviour, such as the use of impersonal language and a lack of reaction to the victim. Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours, which can help to establish whether several offences were committed by the same person (case linkage). This supports the idea that people are consistent in their behaviour, a key principle of investigative psychology, and shows that it can have practical application in real crimes.
Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US, and found evidence of spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. The location of each body disposal site created a ‘centre of gravity’, presumably because the killers disposed of victims in different areas near their home, forming a circle around it. The effect was especially noticeable for ‘marauders’. This supports the use of geographical profiling in identifying offenders, displaying its practical value.
What is a counterpoint - research support for investigative psychology?
Case linkage is dependent on an existing database of historical crimes, which are in the database because they have been solved. The fact that they have been solved could have been because they were relatively straightforward to link to other crimes. So while investigative psychology may be useful for some crimes, it may be less applicable for crimes with fewer links between them which remain unsolved.
What is a strength of the bottom-up approach - research support for geographical profiling?
Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US, and found evidence of spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. The location of each body disposal site created a ‘centre of gravity’, presumably because the killers disposed of victims in different areas near their home, forming a circle around it. The effect was especially noticeable for ‘marauders’. This supports the use of geographical profiling in identifying offenders, displaying its practical value.
What is a limitation of the bottom-up approach - mixed results from offender profiling?
Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police departments and found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be useful in 83% of cases. However he also found that in only 3% of cases did the use of offender profiling lead to the accurate identification of the offender. This inaccuracy was seen in the Rachel Nickell case, where one suspect was wrongfully accused based on the profile generated by investigators. Meanwhile the actual offender, Robert Napper, was dismissed as a suspect as he was several inches taller than the profile. So while offender profiling can be useful in some cases, it is a limited tool as it does not always lead to the successful capture of a criminal, and could potentially lead to wrongful arrests. This raises concerns in terms of its practical value, and with the ethics of offender profiling, as it can lead to incorrect accusations.
What are the biological explanations of offending behaviour?
. Historical explanation/Atavistic form explanation
. Genetic and neural explanation
What is the Historical explanation for offending behaviour?
Proposed by Lombroso in 1876. He argued that criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ - a primitive subspecies of humans who lacked evolutionary development and were therefore biologically different to ordinary, non-offenders.
Due to a lack of evolutionary development, members of this subspecies were savage and untamed, which made it difficult for them to adapt to society and its norms. As a result, they turn to crime.
Lombroso saw offending as a natural tendency, rooted in the genes. It is innate, so the offender can’t be blamed for their actions.
What is meant by the ‘Atavistic form’?
Lombroso also argued that the offender subtype could be identified by a range of atavistic features. These are biologically determined, physiological markers. They are mainly cranial and facial.
What are some cranial characteristics?
. Narrow, sloping brow
. Strong, prominent jaw
. High cheekbones
. Facial asymmetry
What are some other physical markers?
. Dark skin
. Extra toes
. Extra nipples
. Extra fingers
Other atavistic features:
. Insensitivity to pain
. Use of slang
. Tattoos
. Unemployment
What did Lombroso say about types of offender?
Lombroso suggested certain types of criminal eg. murderer, rapist could be identified by their physical characteristics, which varied from crime to crime.
Murderers - bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears, hawklike nose
Sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen and fleshy lips, projecting ears
Fraudsters - thin and reedy lips
Women who committed crimes of passion had prominent lower jaws
Outline Lombroso’s research:
. Examined the facial and cranial characteristics of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living convicts - all Italian
From this, he concluded that there was an ‘atavistic form’, and that all these features were indicators of criminality
He concluded that 40% of criminal acts were committed by people with atavistic features
What is a strength of Lombroso’s theory - vital in developing the study of crime?
Lombroso has been hailed as ‘the father of modern criminology’ (Hollin 1989), and is credited with shifting focus in crime research away from a moralistic discourse, and towards a scientific position, where offenders are not condemned as evil and weak-minded, but a product of their biology. Also, his attempt to link particular features to types of crime has been seen as the beginning of offender profiling. The suggests that Lombroso’s atavistic form theory has had major impacts in the development of criminology.
What is a counterpoint - historical value of Lombroso’s theory?
The question has been raised of whether the impacts of Lombroso’s work have been entirely positive. DeLisi (2012) drew attention to the racist undertones of Lombroso’s theory. Many of the features Lombroso identified as ‘criminal’, such as curly hair or dark skin, are likely to be found in people of African descent. Lombroso was essentially suggesting that people of African descent were more likely to be offenders, a view in line with 19th century eugenic attitudes. This suggests that his theory is both highly subjective and outdated, based on racial prejudices of the time
What is a limitation of Lombroso’s theory - contradictory evidence?
- Evidence contradicts the link between atavism and crime - Goring (1913) attempted to establish whether there was a link between atypical physical features and offending. He compared 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders, and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest offenders were a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics, though he did suggest that many offenders had lower than average intelligence. This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the population, and contradicts the view that they are a primitive subspecies, weakening the very concepts the atavistic form theory is based on.
What is a limitation of Lombroso’s theory - poorly controlled research?
Lombroso’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled, failing to control important research variables. Notably, he did not use a non-criminal control group, meaning a lack of control over confounding variables and an inability to explain causal relationships - the features described may have been present in both the criminal and non-criminal population, or in the criminal population alone, but this cannot be discerned from Lombroso’s Italian convict study. This shows Lombroso’s research to be limited, as it does not meet modern scientific standards.
What is the genetic explanation for offending behaviour?
Genetic explanations for crime suggest that would - be offenders inherit particular genes, or combinations of genes, which predispose them to commit crime
How do Twin and Adoption studies contribute to the genetic explanation?
. Christiansen (1977) studied over 3500 twin pairs in Denmark. This included all twins born between1880 and 1910 in a region of Denmark. He found concordance rates for offender behaviour of:
35% for identical (Mz) twins (male)
13% for non identical (Dz) twins (male)
(with slightly lower rates for females)
Offender behaviour was checked against Danish police records, and data indicated that it was not just behaviour that might be inherited, but underlying predisposing traits
. Crowe (1972) found that adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record had a 50% of having one themselves vs 5% of adoptees with non-criminal biological mothers
What does the genetic explanation suggest about candidate genes?
Tiihonen et.al (2015) conducted a genetic analysis of 800 Finnish offenders
He suggested that two genes may be associated with violent crime
- MAOA gene, which regulates serotonin in the brain, and has been linked to aggressive behaviour
- CDH13 gene, which has been linked to substance abuse and ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder)
The analysis found that 5-10% of severe violent crimes in Finland were attributable to the MAOA and CDH13 genotypes
What does the genetic explanation say about the diatheses-stress model?
It argues that if genetics do have some influence on offending, it is likely that this is at least partially moderated by the effects of the environment.
A tendency towards offending behaviour may be the result of a combination between genetic predisposition and a biological/psychological trigger. Potential triggers could be being raised in a dysfunctional environment, having criminal role models
What is the neural explanation for offending behaviour?
Neural explanations for crime focus on neural differences between the brains of offenders and non-offenders. It explains behaviours in terms of dysfunctions of the brain and nervous system. Research often focuses on APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder)
What is APD?
Antisocial personality disorder - Formally referred to as psychopathy, involves reduced emotional responses, a lack of empathy for the feelings of others. It is present in many convicted offenders
What does the neural explanation suggest about the prefrontal cortex?
. Suggests APD is associated with reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex
. Raine et.al (2000) - conducted brain imaging studies on people with APD. He found an 11% reduction in grey matter in the prefrontal cortex of individuals with APD compared to the control group
. The prefrontal cortex is involved in regulating emotional behaviour
What does the neural explanation suggest about mirror neurons?
. Recent research suggests that offenders with APD can feel empathy, but do so more sporadically than others
. Keysers (2011) - found that only when offenders were asked to empathise with a person depicted on film experiencing pain did their empathy reaction activate. This reaction is controlled by mirror neurons in the brain
. This suggests that people with APD aren’t without empathy, but may have an ‘empathy switch’ that can be turned on and off, unlike the ‘normal’ brain which has the empathy switch on permanently.
What is a strength of the genetic explanation for offending - research support for the diathesis-stress model?
Mednick et.al (1984) conducted a study of 13,000 Danish adoptees. When neither the adoptive or biological parents had criminal convictions, the percentage of children with convictions was 13.5%. This figure rose to 20% when either biological parent had convictions, and again to 24.5% when both adoptive and biological parents had convictions. This shows that genetic inheritance plays an important role in offending, but that environmental factors are also important, supporting a diathesis-stress model of crime.
What is a limitation of the genetic explanation for offending - twin studies assume equal environments?
- Twin studies may be a limited evidence base, as they require the assumption of equal environments - Researches using twin studies assume that environmental factors are consistent for both twins, as they are brought up together. However this may not always be the case, especially for dizygotic twins. Where monozygotic twins look identical, so are more likely to be treated the same by parents and peers, DZ twins do not and may be treated differently according to their appearance. This would, in turn, affect their behaviour. Higher concordance rates for MZ twins may not be because of genetics, but because of similar treatment. This challenges the internal validity of the genetic explanation, as it cannot be determined if it is genetic or environmental similarity being assessed.
What is a strength of the neural explanation for offending - research support for frontal lobe?
Research support for the link between crime and the frontal lobe - Kandel and Freed (1989) reviewed evidence of frontal lobe damage (including to the prefrontal cortex), which is associated with planning behaviour. They found that people with such damage tended to display impulsive behaviour, emotional instability, and an inability to learn from their mistakes. This strengthens the idea that brain damage may be a causal factor in offending behaviour.
What are some limitations of the neural explanation for offending?
- The link between neural differences and Antisocial Personality Disorder may be more complex than the genetic explanation suggests. Farrington et.al (2006) studied a group of men who scored highly for psychopathy, and found that these individuals had experienced several risk factors in childhood. These included being raised by a convicted parent and being physically neglected. It could be that these early childhood experiences caused APD, and the neural differences associated with it, rather than neural dysfunctions causing APD. This suggests that the relationship between neural differences, APD, and offending is not as simplistic as the neural explanation suggests, with a causal relationship not necessarily as clear. Intervening variables may have an effect, suggesting an interactionist approach may be more appropriate.
- Biologically deterministic explanation
What are the Psychological explanations for offending?
. Eysenck’s criminal personality
. Cognitive
. Differential association theory
. Psychodynamic
What is Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality?
Eysenck proposed that personality could be represented along 3 dimensions:
introversion-extraversion, neuroticism-stability (1947) and psychoticism-sociability (added later).
He suggested that the criminal personality was a combination of all 3: neurotic-extravert-psychotic
As he believed personality has an innate, biological basis (based on the type of nervous system we inherit) criminality also has a biological basis
What are Extraverts, according to Eysenck?
. Individuals who have an underactive nervous system, which leads to them constantly seeking excitement and stimulation
. This in turn leads to them taking part in risk-taking behaviours
. They also tend to not condition easily, so don’t learn from their mistakes
What are Neurotics, according to Eysenck?
. Individuals who have a high level of reactivity in the sympathetic nervous system, meaning they respond quickly to situations of threat (fight or flight)
. This means, they tend to be nervous, jumpy, and overanxious
. Their general instability means their behaviour is often difficult to predict
What are Psychotics, according to Eysenck?
. Individuals who are suggested to have higher levels of testosterone
. They are unemotional and prone to aggression
The criminal personality:
. Neurotic-Extravert-Psychotic
. Neurotics are unstable and therefore prone to overreact in situations of threat, Extraverts seek more arousal and so engage in more dangerous activities, and Psychotics are aggressive and lack empathy - all combine to create the criminal personality
What is the Role of Socialisation in the Criminal personality?
. Eysenck said personality is linked to offending behaviour via socialisation processes
. Eysenck saw offending behaviour as developmentally immature, in that it is selfish and associated with immediate gratification. Offenders are impatient and cannot wait for rewards
. In the process of socialisation, children are taught to delay gratification and become more socially orientated
. Eysenck said people with high Extroversion and Neuroticism scores had personalities which made conditioning difficult, meaning they would be less likely to learn anxiety responses to antisocial impulses. Consequently, they would be more likely to behave antisocially when the situation presents itself
How is the criminal personality measured?
. Eysenck introduced the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
. This is a form of psychological test which locates participants along the E, N and P (extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism) dimensions to determine their personality type.
. The measurement of personality was key to Eysenck’s theory, as it enabled him to conduct research relating personality variables to other behaviours, such as personality
What is a strength of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - research support?
Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared 2070 prisoners’ scores on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to the scores of 2422 controls. Across all age groups, the prisoners scored higher on measures of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism than the controls. This supports Eysenck’s prediction that criminals rate higher than average across the three dimensions, strengthening the theories’ reliability.
What is a counterargument - Eysenck - research support?
In Farrington’s 1982 meta-analysis he found that while offenders tended to score highly on measures of psychoticism, they did not score as highly for extraversion and neuroticism. There is also inconsistent evidence of differences between EEG measures, which are used to measure cortical arousal, between extraverts and introverts, according to Kussner (2017). This challenges the psychological basis of Eysenck’s theory, and some of its central assumptions.
What is a limitation of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - too simplistic?
The idea that offending can be explained by personality traits alone is too simplistic - Moffitt (1993) drew a distinction between offending behaviour that only occurs in adolescence and that which continues into adulthood (adolescence-limited vs life course persistent). She argued that personality traits alone could not predict how long offending behaviour would go on for, and how likely someone was to become a ‘career offender’. She also argued that persistent offending was the result of a reciprocal process between both individual personality traits and environmental reactions to those traits. This presents a more complex explanation that Eyseck’s theory, arguing on behalf of a more interactionist approach
What is a limitation of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - ignores cultural factors?
Research suggests that the criminal personality may vary from culture to culture. For example, Bartol and Holanchock (1979) studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a maximum security prison in New York. Offenders were divided into 6 groups based on their offending history and the nature of their offences. It was found that all 6 groups rated lower for extraversion than a non-offending control group - this challenges Eysenck’s predicitons. The researchers suggested that this difference was because the sample was from a different cultural group than the one Eysenck investigated. This questions the generalisability of the criminal personality, and suggests it may be a culturally relative concept.
What is a counterargument - Eysenck - cultural factors?
Bartol and Holanchock used offenders from one maximum security prison, assessing them using the EPQ, which asks questions such as whether individuals are lively. Responses to these questions may have been altered by the participants time in a maximum security prison, where their freedoms and free time is restricted. Perhaps if the questionnaire was administered before the offenders had been moved to the prison, responses would have revealed higher levels of Extraversion as they would have more opportunity to engage in risk-taking and stimulating behaviours. The findings arguably lack generalisability due to the unique position of the offenders, so cant be applied to all offenders from these cultural backgrounds. They may reveal less about the cultural relativism of the theory than suggested.
