Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Search of Indicators of Detective Aptitude: Police Recruits’ Logical Reasoning and Ability to Generate Investigative Hypotheses

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous psychological research on criminal investigation has not systematically addressed the role of deductive and inductive reasoning skills in decision-making in detectives. This study examined the relationship between these skills derived from a cognitive ability test used for police recruitment and test scores from an investigative reasoning skills task (Fahsing and Ask 2016). Newly recruited students at the Norwegian Police University College (N = 166) were presented with two semi-fictitious missing-person cases and were asked to report all relevant hypotheses and necessary investigative actions in each case. The quality of participants’ responses was gauged by comparison with a gold standard established by a panel of senior police experts. The scores from the deductive and inductive reasoning test were not related to participants’ performance on the investigative reasoning task. However, the presence or absence of an investigative “tipping-point” (i.e. arrest decision) in the two cases was systematically associated with participants’ ability to generate investigative hypotheses. Methodological limitations and implications for police recruitment and criminal investigative practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty (Jackson 1988)

  2. In keeping with the procedure of Fahsing and Ask (2016), participants were asked to list both hypotheses and investigative actions. Because participants in the current study lacked investigative experience and had not yet received training in criminal investigation, however, their generation of investigative actions was deemed to be of little relevance. Hence, only participants’ generated hypotheses will be reported in this paper. The data for investigative actions can be requested from the corresponding author.

References

  • Aamodt MG (2004) Research in law enforcement selection. Brown-Walker Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • ACPO (2012) Practice advice on core investigative doctrine (2nd edition). Association of Chief Police Officers and National Policing Improvement Agency, Wyboston.

  • Alison L, Barrett E, Crego J (2007) Criminal investigative decision making: context and process. In: Hoffman RR (ed) Expertise out of context: proceedings of the sixth international conference on naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 79–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Alison L, Doran B, Long ML, Power N, Humphrey A (2013) The effects of subjective time pressure and individual differences on hypotheses generation and action prioritization in police investigations. J Exp Psychol Appl 19(1):83–93. doi:10.1037/a0032148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ask K (2006) Criminal investigation: motivation, emotion and cognition in the processing of evidence. University of Gothenburg, Department of Psychology. Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ask K, Alison L (2010) Investigators’ decision making. In: Granhag PA (ed) Forensic psychology in context: Nordic and international perspectives. Cullompton, UK, Willan

    Google Scholar 

  • Ask K, Granhag PA (2005) Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 2(1):43–63. doi:10.1002/jip.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ask K, Rebelius A, Granhag PA (2008) The ‘elasticity’ of criminal evidence: a moderator of investigator bias. Appl Cogn Psychol 22(9):1245–1259. doi:10.1002/acp.1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron J (1985) Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Brodeur J-P (2010) The policing web. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin W, Parker AM, Fischhoff B (2007) Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. J Pers Soc Psychol 92(5):938. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carson D (2007) Models of investigations. In: Newburn T, Williamson T, Wright A (eds) Handbook of criminal investigation. Willan, Devon, pp 407–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson D (2011) Investigative psychology and law: towards collaboration by focusing on evidence and inferential reasoning. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 8(1):74–89. doi:10.1002/jip.133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charman SD, Gregory AH, Carlucci M (2009) Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect. J Exp Psychol Appl 15(1):76–90. doi:10.1037/a0014682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N (1972) Iq tests: building blocks for the new class system. Ramparts 11(2):24–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook T, Tattersall A (2008) Blackstone’s senior investigating officers’ handbook Oxford. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Cut-e. (2016). Scales aptitude tests. Retrieved 04. February, 2016, from http://www.cut-e.se/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Flyer_scales_aptitude_tests.pdf

  • Diesen, C. (2000). Beyond reasonable doubt: Standard of proof and evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. Scandinavian studies in law(40), 169–180.

  • Domino G, Domino ML (2006) Psychological testing: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dror IE (2011) The paradox of human expertise: why experts can get it wrong. In: Kapur N (ed) The paradoxical brain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–188

  • Dror, I. E. (2012). Cognitive bias in forensic science. Science & Technology 2012 Yearbook, p. 43–34.

  • Dror IE, Cole SA (2010) The vision in ‘blind’ justice: expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychon Bull Rev 17(2):161–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dror IE, Péron AE, Hind S-L, Charlton D (2005) When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol 19(6):799–809. doi:10.1002/acp.1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eerland A, Rassin E (2012) Biased evaluation of incriminating and exonerating (non)evidence. Psychol Crime Law 18(4):351–358. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.493889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JSBT (1989) Bias in human reasoning: causes and consequences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahsing IA, Ask K (2013) Decision making and decisional tipping points in homicide investigations: an interview study of british and norwegian detectives. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 10(2):155–165. doi:10.1002/jip.1384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahsing IA, Ask K (2016) The making of an expert detective: the role of experience in English and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision making. Psychology, Crime & Law, pp 1–44. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2015.1077249

  • Fahsing IA, Gottschalk P (2008) Characteristics of effective detectives: a content analysis for investigative thinking styles in policing. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 5(6):651–663. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2008.019146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich PJ, Johnson PE, Moller JH, Swanson DB (1984) Lcs: the role and development of medical knowledge in diagnostic expertise. Readings in medical artificial intelligence:275–319

  • Findley KA, Scott MS (2006) The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review 291:291–397

  • Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner H (2011) Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Georges LC, Wiener RL, Keller SR (2013) The angry juror: sentencing decisions in first-degree murder. Appl Cogn Psychol 27(2):156–166. doi:10.1002/acp.2880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer PM (1990) Action phases and mind-sets. In: Higgins ET (ed) Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior, vol 2. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 53–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer PM, Heckhausen H, Steller B (1990) Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. J Pers Soc Psychol 59(6):1119–1127

  • Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Hartwig M (2005) Eyewitness testimony: tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23(5):709–727. doi:10.1002/bsl.670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood P, Chaiken J, Petersilia J (1977) The criminal investigation process. D.C. Heart, Lexington, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson GH (1995) The effects of interrogative pressure on strategic coping. Psychol Crime Law 1(4):309–318. doi:10.1080/10683169508411968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyer P, Wood A (1998) Immanuel kant—critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Hald CK (2011) Web without a weaver—on the becoming of knowledge: a study of criminal investigation in the Danish police. Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallenberg K, O’Neill M, Tong S (2016) Watching the detectives. In: Brunger M, Tong S, Martin D (eds) Introduction to policing research: taking lessons from practice. Routledge, London, p 101

  • Hasel LE, Kassin SM (2009) On the presumption of evidentiary independence: can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychol Sci 20(1):122–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill C, Memon A, McGeorge P (2008) The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: a systematic evaluation. Leg Criminol Psychol 13(2):357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh HR, Northrop LC, Schmidt FL (1986) Validity generalization results for law enforcement occupations. Pers Psychol 39(2):399–420. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00589.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt ER, Markman KD (1995) Multiple explanation: a consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 69(6):1069–1086. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, F., Meesig, R. T., & Lee, Y. H. (2001). A national survey of police policies and practices regarding the criminal investigation process: twenty-five years after rand. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: Office of Justice Programs.

  • Hunter JE (1986) Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. J Vocat Behav 29(3):340–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes M (2003) Investigating murder: detective work and the police response to criminal homicide. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Irvine B, Dunningham C (1993) Human factors in the quality control of cid investigations Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study 21. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JD (1988) Two methods of proof in criminal procedure. The Modern Law Review 51(5):549–568. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1988.tb01772.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones D, Grieve J, Milne B (2008) The Case to Review Murder Investigations. Policing 2(4):470–480

  • Josephson JR, Josephson SG (eds) (1994) Abductive inference: computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 49

  • Kassin SM, Goldstein CC, Savitsky K (2003) Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law Hum Behav 27(2):187–203. doi:10.1023/A:1022599230598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kingshott BF, Walsh JP, Meesig RT (2015) Are we training our detectives? A survey of large law enforcement agencies regarding investigation training and training needs. Journal of Applied Security Research 10(4):481–509. doi:10.1080/19361610.2015.1069635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch W (1988) The use of knowledge in discourse processing: a construction-integration model. Psychol Rev 95:163–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klamberg M (2015) The alternative hypothesis approach, robustness and international criminal justice: a plea for a ‘combined approach’ to evaluation of evidence. Journal of International Criminal Justice 13(3):535–553. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqv018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsson J (2013) Måling av effektivitet i etterforskning: Delrapport i «etterforskningsprosjektet», vol 3 Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler DJ (1991) Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychol Bull 110(3):499–519. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krems JF (1995) Cognitive fexibility and complex problem-solving. In: Frensch PA, Funke J (eds) Complex problem-solving. A European perspective. Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 201–218

    Google Scholar 

  • KRIPOS (2014) Statistikk 2014 - savnede personer [National statistics 2014 - missing persons]. The National Criminal Investigation Service, Oslo

  • Lipton P (2007) Alien abduction: inference to the best explanation and the management of testimony. Episteme 4(03):238–251. doi:10.3366/E1742360007000068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus EF, Ketcham K (1991) Witness for the defense: the accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts memory on trial. St. Martin's Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson W (1999) The Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty, London

  • Macquet, A. C. (2009 ). Recognition within the decision-making process: a case study of expert volleyball players Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 64–79. doi: 10.1080/10413200802575759

  • Maguire M (1994) The wrong message at the wrong time? The present state of investigative practice. In: Morgan D, Stephenson GM (eds) Suspicion and silence: the right to silence in criminal investigations. Blackstone Press Limited, London

  • Maguire M, Noaks L, Hobbs R, Brearley N (1991) Assessing investigative performance. School of Social and Administrative Studies, University of Wales, Cardiff

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (2007). A history of modern experimental psychology: from James and Wundt to cognitive science: Mit Press Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marksteiner, T., Ask, K., Reinhard, M.-A., & Granhag, P. A. (2011). Asymmetrical scepticism toward criminal evidence: The role of goal- and belief-consistency. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 541–547. doi: 0.1002/acp.1719

  • Meissner CA, Kassin SM (2002) “He’s guilty!”: investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law Hum Behav 26(5):469–480. doi:10.1023/A:1020278620751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery H (1983) Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision making. Adv Psychol 14:343–369. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62243-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo SJ (2003) Job performance. In: Weiner IB (ed) Handbook of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken

  • Motowildo SJ, Borman WC, Schmit MJ (1997) A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Hum Perform 10(2):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bouchard TJ Jr, Boykin AW, Brody N, Ceci SJ et al (1996) Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. Am Psychol 51(2):77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett RE, Krantz DH, Jepson C, Kunda Z (1983) The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychol Rev 90(4):339–363. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien B (2009) Prime suspect: an examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychol Public Policy Law 15(4):315–334

  • O’Neill, M., & Milne, B. (2014). Success within criminal investigations: Is communication still a key component? Investigative interviewing (pp. 123–146): Springer.

  • O'Neill, M. (2011). What makes a successful volume crime investigator? Unpublished phd thesis. University of Portsmouth.

  • Ono M, Sachau DA, Deal WP, Englert DR, Taylor MD (2011) Cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, and the big five personality dimensions as predictors of criminal investigator performance. Crim Justice Behav 38(5):471–491. doi:10.1177/0093854811399406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer HL (1968) The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Patokorpi E (2006) Low knowledge in cyberspace: abduction, tacit knowledge, aura, and the mobility of knowledge. Hum Syst Manag 25(3):211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng Y, Reggia JA (1990) Abdutive inference models for diagnostic problem-solving. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (2002) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rips LJ (1994) The psychology of proof: deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rønn KV (2013) Mistanke. Hypoteser og forklaringer i opdagelsesarbeidet. In: Hald C, Rønn KV (eds) Om at opdage—metodiske refleksjoner over politiets undersøkelsespraksis. Samfundslitteratur, København, pp 255–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossmo DK (ed) (2009) Criminal investigative failures. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado JF, Anderson N, Moscoso S, Bertua C, De Fruyt F (2003) International validity generalisation of GMA and cognitive abilities: a European community meta-analysis.Pers Psychol 56:573–605

  • Schlinger HD (2003) The myth of intelligence. Psychol Rec 53(1):15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon D (2012) In doubt: the psychology of the criminal justice process. Harvard U, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith SM, Aamodt MG (1997) The relationship between education, experience, and police performance. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 12(2):7–14. doi:10.1007/BF02806696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith N, Flanagan C (2000) The effective detective: Identifying the skills of an effective sio. Home Office, London

  • Staat, W. (1993). On abduction, deduction, induction and the categories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 29(2), 225-237.

  • Stanovich K (2009) What intelligence tests miss. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (1997) Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. J Educ Psychol 89(2):342–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. J Exp Psychol Gen 127(2):161–188. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (2000) Advancing the rationality debate. Behav Brain Sci 23(05):701–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (2008) On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J Pers Soc Psychol 94(4):672. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (2014a) The assessment of rational thinking: Iq ≠ rq. Teach Psychol 41(3):265–271. doi:10.1177/0098628314537988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (2014b) The assessment of rational thinking: Iq ≠ rq. Teach Psychol 41(3):265–271. doi:10.1177/0098628314537988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF, Toplak ME (2013) Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 22(4):259–264. doi:10.1177/0963721413480174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelfox P (2008) Investigative practice and performance management: making the marriage work. Policing 2(3):303–310. doi:10.1093/police/pan045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelfox P (2009) Criminal investigation: an introduction to principles and practice. Willan, Cullompton

  • Stelfox P, Pease K (2005) Cognition and detection: reluctant bedfellows? In: Smith MJ, Tilley N (eds) Crime science: new approaches to preventing and detecting crime. Willan, Cullompton

  • Sternberg RJ (ed) (2002) Why smart people can be so stupid. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumer, A. (2010). The presumption of innocence: Evidential and human rights perspectives: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 12:435–502. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00057046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong S (2009) Assessing performance: quantity of quality? In: Tong S, Bryant RP, Horvarth M (eds) Understanding criminal investigation. Chichester, UK, John Wiley Sons Ldt

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sience, New Series 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason PC (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Q J Exp Psychol 12:129–140. doi:10.1080/17470216008416717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg RW, Reeves LM (2013) Cognition: from memory to creativity. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenke D, Frensch PA, Funke J (2005) Complex problem solving and intelligence: empirical relation and causal direction. In: Sternberg RJ, Pretz JE (eds) Cognition and intelligence. Identifying the mechnisms of the mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 160–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Westera NJ, Kebbell MR, Milne B, Green T (2014a) The prospective detective: developing the effective detective of the future. An International Journal of Research and Policy, Policing and Society. doi:10.1080/10439463.2014.942845

    Google Scholar 

  • Westera NJ, Kebbell MR, Milne B, Green T (2014b) Towards a more effective detective. An International Journal of Research and Policy, Policing and Society. doi:10.1080/10439463.2014.912647

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman AA, Roberts P (2010) The principles of criminal evidence. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Ivar A. Fahsing & Karl Ask

  2. Norwegian Police University College, Majorstuen, PO box. 5027, N-0301, Oslo, Norway

    Ivar A. Fahsing

Authors
  1. Ivar A. Fahsing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karl Ask
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivar A. Fahsing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fahsing, I.A., Ask, K. In Search of Indicators of Detective Aptitude: Police Recruits’ Logical Reasoning and Ability to Generate Investigative Hypotheses. J Police Crim Psych 33, 21–34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9231-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9231-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation