Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 215–233 | Cite as

Criminal personality profiling

An outcome and process study
  • Anthony J. Pinizzotto
  • Norman J. Finkel
Articles

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alker, H. (1972). Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically consistent?Journal of Personality, 40, 1–16.Google Scholar
  2. Ault, R., & Reese, J. T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime profiling.F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49(3), 22–25.Google Scholar
  3. Bartol, C. R. (1980).Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Brussel, J. A. (1968).Casebook of a criminal psychiatrist. New York: Bernard Geis.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, A. W., Groth, A. N., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1978).Sexual assault of children and adolescents. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess.Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. C., Butcher, J. N., & Carson, R. C. (1980).Abnormal psychology and modern life (rev. ed.). New York: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  9. deRiver, J. P. (1958a).Crime and the sexual psychopath. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  10. deRiver, J. P. (1958b).The sexual criminal. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986, December). Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime.FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 9–13.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, A. L. (1976).An introduction to linear regression and correlation. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Endler, N. S. (1973). The person versus the situation—A pseudo issue? A response to Alker.Journal of Personality, 4, 286–303.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (1978).Statistics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Geberth, V. J. (1983).Practical homicide investigation. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Groth, A. N., Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1977). Rape: Power, anger and sexuality.American Journal of Psychiatry, 134.Google Scholar
  22. Hays, W. L. (1963).Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  23. Hazelwood, R. R. (1983). The behaviorally oriented interview of rape victims: The key to profiling. Federal Burean of Investigation, FBI Academy, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  24. Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980). The lust murderer. F.B.I.Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 4, 18–22.Google Scholar
  25. Institutional Research and Development Unit. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Training Academy. (1981). Evaluation of the psychological profiling program. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  26. Kentucky v Gowin, No. 86-SC-611-MR, (Larue Cir. 4/15/86).Google Scholar
  27. Lamiell, J. T. (1987).The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Langer, W. C. (1972).The mind of Adolph Hitler. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Lindzey, G. (1965). Seer versus sign.Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 17–26.Google Scholar
  32. Marks, J. (1981). Profiles in terror.The Boston Globe, May 5, 51–53.Google Scholar
  33. Macdonald, J., & Michaud, D. (1987).The confession: Interrogation & criminal profiles for police officers. Denver, CO: Apache Press.Google Scholar
  34. McPoyle, T. J. (1981). The investigative technique of criminal profiling.Your Virginia State Trooper, 3(1), 87.Google Scholar
  35. Meehl, P. E. (1954).Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Meehl, P. E. (1965). Seer over sign: The first good example.Journal of Experimental Research in Personality.1, 27–32.Google Scholar
  37. Mischel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person-situation debate.American Psychologist, 34, 740–754.Google Scholar
  38. Mohr, J. W., Turner, R. E., & Jerry, N. B. (1964).Pedophilia and exhibitionism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  39. Moos, R. H. (1968). Situational analysis of a therapeutic community milieu.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 49–61.Google Scholar
  40. Moos, R. H. (1969). Sources of variance in response to questionnaires and in behavior.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 405–412.Google Scholar
  41. Morneau, Jr., R. H., & Rockwell, R. R. (1980).Sex, motivation, and the criminal offender. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  42. Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985).The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Phares, E. J. (1988).Clinical psychology: Concepts, methods, and profession (3rd ed.). Chicago: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pinizzotto, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profiling.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32–40.Google Scholar
  45. Porter, B. (1983). Mind Hunters.Psychology Today, 17(4), 44–52.Google Scholar
  46. Reinhardt, J. J. (1957).Sex perversions and sex crimes. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Rossi, D. (1982). Crime scene behavioral analysis: Another tool for the law enforcement investigator:The Police Chief, January, 152–155.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1980). Teaching problem-solving skills.American Mathematical Monthly, 87, 794–805.Google Scholar
  53. Scolatti, M. J. (1986). Profiling of sex offenders: Forensic and treatment implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montana.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Sundberg, N. D. (1977).Assessment of persons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. United States Department of Justice. (1987).Crime in the U.S. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  58. Vorpagel, R. E. (1982). Painting psychological profiles: Charlatanism, coincidence, charisma, chance or a new science.The Police Chief, January, 156–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony J. Pinizzotto
    • 1
  • Norman J. Finkel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGeorgetown UniversityWashington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations