Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal personality profiling

An outcome and process study

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

In this work we examine outcome and process differences in criminal personality profiling among groups of profilers, detectives, psychologists, and students, using closed police cases—one sex offense and one homicide. Two major questions guide this research: (1) Are professional profilers more accurate than nonprofilers in generating personality profiles and correctly identifying offender features from crime scene details? and (2) Is the process that the profilers use qualitatively different from that of the nonprofilers? In the written profile task, the task that is most representative of what profilers actually do, profilers write richer, more detailed, and more valid profiles than the nonprofilers for both the sex offense case and homicide case. An analysis of correct responses concerning the known offender for the sex offense case revealed that the profilers scored significantly better than the other three groups in a variety of measures; similar results were not revealed for the homicide case. Profilers, however, do not appear to process this material in a way qualitatively different from any other group.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alker, H. (1972). Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically consistent?Journal of Personality, 40, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ault, R., & Reese, J. T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime profiling.F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49(3), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartol, C. R. (1980).Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brussel, J. A. (1968).Casebook of a criminal psychiatrist. New York: Bernard Geis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, A. W., Groth, A. N., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1978).Sexual assault of children and adolescents. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Ressler, R. K., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Sexual homicide: A motivational model.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 3, 251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess.Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. C., Butcher, J. N., & Carson, R. C. (1980).Abnormal psychology and modern life (rev. ed.). New York: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • deRiver, J. P. (1958a).Crime and the sexual psychopath. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • deRiver, J. P. (1958b).The sexual criminal. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, P. E. (1985). Sex offender profiling by the F.B.I.: A preliminary conceptual model. In M. H. Ben-Aron, S. J. Hucker, & C. D. Webster (Eds.),Clinical criminology (pp. 207–220). Toronto: M & M Graphics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling from crime scene analysis.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 4, 401–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986, December). Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime.FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 9–13.

  • Edwards, A. L. (1976).An introduction to linear regression and correlation. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellerby, L. A. (1986).Consistencies in personality characteristics & behavior patterns of homicide offenders: A synthesis of police techniques & psychological theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.

  • Endler, N. S. (1973). The person versus the situation—A pseudo issue? A response to Alker.Journal of Personality, 4, 286–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, N. S., & Okada, M. (1975). A multidimensional measure of trait anxiety: The S-R Inventory of General Trait Anxiousness.Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 43, 319–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (1978).Statistics. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geberth, V. J. (1983).Practical homicide investigation. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G. (1962). Clinical versus statistical prediction in psychology. In L. Postman (Ed.),Psychology in the making: Histories of selected research problems (pp. 526–584). New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groth, A. N., Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1977). Rape: Power, anger and sexuality.American Journal of Psychiatry, 134.

  • Hays, W. L. (1963).Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelwood, R. R. (1983). The behaviorally oriented interview of rape victims: The key to profiling. Federal Burean of Investigation, FBI Academy, unpublished manuscript.

  • Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980). The lust murderer. F.B.I.Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 4, 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institutional Research and Development Unit. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Training Academy. (1981). Evaluation of the psychological profiling program. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Kentucky v Gowin, No. 86-SC-611-MR, (Larue Cir. 4/15/86).

  • Lamiell, J. T. (1987).The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, W. C. (1972).The mind of Adolph Hitler. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1980). Teaching problem solving in physics: The psychological laboratory and the practical classroom. In D. T. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.),Problem solving & education: Issues in teaching & research (pp. 111–123). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert & novice performance in solving physics problems.Science, 208, 1335–1342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindzey, G. (1965). Seer versus sign.Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, J. (1981). Profiles in terror.The Boston Globe, May 5, 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, J., & Michaud, D. (1987).The confession: Interrogation & criminal profiles for police officers. Denver, CO: Apache Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPoyle, T. J. (1981). The investigative technique of criminal profiling.Your Virginia State Trooper, 3(1), 87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1954).Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1965). Seer over sign: The first good example.Journal of Experimental Research in Personality.1, 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person-situation debate.American Psychologist, 34, 740–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J. W., Turner, R. E., & Jerry, N. B. (1964).Pedophilia and exhibitionism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H. (1968). Situational analysis of a therapeutic community milieu.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H. (1969). Sources of variance in response to questionnaires and in behavior.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 405–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morneau, Jr., R. H., & Rockwell, R. R. (1980).Sex, motivation, and the criminal offender. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985).The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phares, E. J. (1988).Clinical psychology: Concepts, methods, and profession (3rd ed.). Chicago: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinizzotto, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profiling.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, B. (1983). Mind Hunters.Psychology Today, 17(4), 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, J. J. (1957).Sex perversions and sex crimes. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Murderers who rape and mutilate.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(3), 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, N. D. (1982). Murder in Boston: Killers and their victims.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 26(1), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, D. (1982). Crime scene behavioral analysis: Another tool for the law enforcement investigator:The Police Chief, January, 152–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979a). Can heuristics be taught? In J. Lochhead & J. Clement (Eds.),Cognitive process instruction (pp. 134–142). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979b). Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem solving performance.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1980). Teaching problem-solving skills.American Mathematical Monthly, 87, 794–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scolatti, M. J. (1986). Profiling of sex offenders: Forensic and treatment implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montana.

  • Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.),Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 325–348)., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1979). A tale of two protocols. In J. Lochhead & J. Clement (Eds.),Cognitive process instruction (pp. 42–56). Philadelphia, CA: Franklin Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg, N. D. (1977).Assessment of persons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Justice. (1987).Crime in the U.S. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorpagel, R. E. (1982). Painting psychological profiles: Charlatanism, coincidence, charisma, chance or a new science.The Police Chief, January, 156–159.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, 20057, Washington, D.C.

    Anthony J. Pinizzotto & Norman J. Finkel

Authors
  1. Anthony J. Pinizzotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norman J. Finkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is based in part on the doctoral dissertation of the first author. We gratefully acknowledge the suggestions and comments of John Monahan, Bruce Sales, Daniel Robinson, Darlene Howard, and James Lamiell. A special note of gratitude is given to those law enforcement agencies and individuals who participated in this study but need to remain anonymous; without their participation, this research could not have been completed. A note of thanks is given also to SSA Roger Depue and SSA Roy Hazelwood of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their valued assistance.

About this article

Cite this article

Pinizzotto, A.J., Finkel, N.J. Criminal personality profiling. Law Hum Behav 14, 215–233 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352750

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352750

Keywords

Search

Navigation