Advertisement

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 21–34 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Criminal investigation Decision-making Reasoning Cognitive ability 

References

  1. Aamodt MG (2004) Research in law enforcement selection. Brown-Walker Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  2. ACPO (2012) Practice advice on core investigative doctrine (2nd edition). Association of Chief Police Officers and National Policing Improvement Agency, Wyboston.Google Scholar
  3. 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 79–95Google Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ask K (2006) Criminal investigation: motivation, emotion and cognition in the processing of evidence. University of Gothenburg, Department of Psychology. GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  6. Ask K, Alison L (2010) Investigators’ decision making. In: Granhag PA (ed) Forensic psychology in context: Nordic and international perspectives. Cullompton, UK, WillanGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baron J (1985) Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Brodeur J-P (2010) The policing web. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson D (2007) Models of investigations. In: Newburn T, Williamson T, Wright A (eds) Handbook of criminal investigation. Willan, Devon, pp 407–425Google Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky N (1972) Iq tests: building blocks for the new class system. Ramparts 11(2):24–30Google Scholar
  16. Cook T, Tattersall A (2008) Blackstone’s senior investigating officers’ handbook Oxford. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Diesen, C. (2000). Beyond reasonable doubt: Standard of proof and evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. Scandinavian studies in law(40), 169–180.Google Scholar
  19. Domino G, Domino ML (2006) Psychological testing: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 177–188Google Scholar
  21. Dror, I. E. (2012). Cognitive bias in forensic science. Science & Technology 2012 Yearbook, p. 43–34.Google Scholar
  22. 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):161–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans JSBT (1989) Bias in human reasoning: causes and consequences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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:275–319Google Scholar
  30. Findley KA, Scott MS (2006) The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review 291:291–397Google Scholar
  31. Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gardner H (2011) Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 53–92Google Scholar
  36. 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):1119–1127Google Scholar
  37. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Greenwood P, Chaiken J, Petersilia J (1977) The criminal investigation process. D.C. Heart, Lexington, MassGoogle Scholar
  39. Gudjonsson GH (1995) The effects of interrogative pressure on strategic coping. Psychol Crime Law 1(4):309–318. doi: 10.1080/10683169508411968 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guyer P, Wood A (1998) Immanuel kant—critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 101Google Scholar
  43. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hill C, Memon A, McGeorge P (2008) The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: a systematic evaluation. Leg Criminol Psychol 13(2):357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Hunter JE (1986) Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. J Vocat Behav 29(3):340–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Innes M (2003) Investigating murder: detective work and the police response to criminal homicide. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Irvine B, Dunningham C (1993) Human factors in the quality control of cid investigations Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study 21. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Jones D, Grieve J, Milne B (2008) The Case to Review Murder Investigations. Policing 2(4):470–480Google Scholar
  54. Josephson JR, Josephson SG (eds) (1994) Abductive inference: computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 49Google Scholar
  56. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kintsch W (1988) The use of knowledge in discourse processing: a construction-integration model. Psychol Rev 95:163–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Knutsson J (2013) Måling av effektivitet i etterforskning: Delrapport i «etterforskningsprosjektet», vol 3 OsloGoogle Scholar
  61. Koehler DJ (1991) Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychol Bull 110(3):499–519. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.499 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 201–218Google Scholar
  63. KRIPOS (2014) Statistikk 2014 - savnede personer [National statistics 2014 - missing persons]. The National Criminal Investigation Service, OsloGoogle Scholar
  64. Lipton P (2007) Alien abduction: inference to the best explanation and the management of testimony. Episteme 4(03):238–251. doi: 10.3366/E1742360007000068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Macpherson W (1999) The Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty, LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Maguire M, Noaks L, Hobbs R, Brearley N (1991) Assessing investigative performance. School of Social and Administrative Studies, University of Wales, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  70. Mandler, G. (2007). A history of modern experimental psychology: from James and Wundt to cognitive science: Mit Press Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  71. 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.1719Google Scholar
  72. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Motowidlo SJ (2003) Job performance. In: Weiner IB (ed) Handbook of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. HobokenGoogle Scholar
  75. Motowildo SJ, Borman WC, Schmit MJ (1997) A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Hum Perform 10(2):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bouchard TJ Jr, Boykin AW, Brody N, Ceci SJ et al (1996) Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. Am Psychol 51(2):77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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):315–334Google Scholar
  79. O’Neill, M., & Milne, B. (2014). Success within criminal investigations: Is communication still a key component? Investigative interviewing (pp. 123–146): Springer.Google Scholar
  80. O'Neill, M. (2011). What makes a successful volume crime investigator? Unpublished phd thesis. University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  81. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Packer HL (1968) The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  83. Patokorpi E (2006) Low knowledge in cyberspace: abduction, tacit knowledge, aura, and the mobility of knowledge. Hum Syst Manag 25(3):211–220Google Scholar
  84. Peng Y, Reggia JA (1990) Abdutive inference models for diagnostic problem-solving. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Popper KR (2002) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  86. Rips LJ (1994) The psychology of proof: deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  87. 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 255–300Google Scholar
  88. Rossmo DK (ed) (2009) Criminal investigative failures. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  89. 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 56:573–605Google Scholar
  90. Schlinger HD (2003) The myth of intelligence. Psychol Rec 53(1):15–32Google Scholar
  91. Simon D (2012) In doubt: the psychology of the criminal justice process. Harvard U, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Smith N, Flanagan C (2000) The effective detective: Identifying the skills of an effective sio. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  94. Staat, W. (1993). On abduction, deduction, induction and the categories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 29(2), 225-237.Google Scholar
  95. Stanovich K (2009) What intelligence tests miss. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  96. Stanovich KE, West RF (1997) Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. J Educ Psychol 89(2):342–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stanovich KE, West RF (2000) Advancing the rationality debate. Behav Brain Sci 23(05):701–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Stanovich KE, West RF (2014a) The assessment of rational thinking: Iq ≠ rq. Teach Psychol 41(3):265–271. doi: 10.1177/0098628314537988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stanovich KE, West RF (2014b) The assessment of rational thinking: Iq ≠ rq. Teach Psychol 41(3):265–271. doi: 10.1177/0098628314537988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stelfox P (2008) Investigative practice and performance management: making the marriage work. Policing 2(3):303–310. doi: 10.1093/police/pan045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stelfox P (2009) Criminal investigation: an introduction to principles and practice. Willan, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  105. 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, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  106. Sternberg RJ (ed) (2002) Why smart people can be so stupid. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  107. Stumer, A. (2010). The presumption of innocence: Evidential and human rights perspectives: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  108. Thagard P (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 12:435–502. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00057046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tong S (2009) Assessing performance: quantity of quality? In: Tong S, Bryant RP, Horvarth M (eds) Understanding criminal investigation. Chichester, UK, John Wiley Sons LdtGoogle Scholar
  110. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sience, New Series 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wason PC (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Q J Exp Psychol 12:129–140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Weisberg RW, Reeves LM (2013) Cognition: from memory to creativity. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  113. 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 160–187Google Scholar
  114. 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
  115. 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
  116. Zuckerman AA, Roberts P (2010) The principles of criminal evidence. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Norwegian Police University CollegeOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations