Criminal Profiling Granfalloons and Gobbledygook

36 Criminal Profiling Granfalloons and Gobbledygook

B R E N T S N O O K , P A U L G E N D R E A U , C R A I G B E N N E L L , A N D P A U L J . T A Y L O R

READING THE CLAIMS OF CRIMINAL PROFILERS on.3 (To view a profile, see http://www.brgov. and watching popular television programs like com/TaskForce/pdf/profile.pdf.) Notwithstanding Criminal Minds can leave one with the impres- these developments, the core focus of CP sion that Criminal Profiling (CP)—the task of remains the derivation of inferences about an inferring demographic and personality details of unknown offender’s characteristics. Yet, a 2001 an offender from his or her crime scene study regarding the content of criminal profiles actions—is a well-practiced and reliable inves- found that only 25% of statements in profiles tigative technique. Over the past three decades, were inferences about offender characteristics. Of CP has gained tremendous popularity as a media that 25%, 82% of the inferences were unsubstan- topic, an academic area of study, and a tool for tiated, 55% were unverifiable, 24% were ambigu- police investigations worldwide. However, as we ous, and 6% contained opposing alternatives.4 demonstrate in this article, the acceptance of CP The specific process that profilers use to by many police officers, profilers, and the public make their inferences appears to be shaped by is at odds with the absence of scientific evidence their training. Profilers who emphasize a clini- to confirm its reliability or validity. We think this cal/psychological perspective draw on their psy- confusion has arisen for two related reasons. The chological training, knowledge and experience first is that people have developed a biased pic- with criminal behavior, and possibly their intu- ture of CP because they typically hear only about ition, as they make their inferences. At its worse, its glowing successes. The second, related, rea- this type of CP appears to differ little from what son relates to what we know about cognition “psychic detectives” allegedly do when helping and the manner by which people process infor- law enforcement agencies catch criminals or find mation, which typically serves to support the missing persons.5 In fact, you can probably take credibility of CP. any article or book written on psychic detectives and replace the term “psychic detective” with The 5 W’s of Criminal Profiling “criminal profiler” and the argument would con- 1. What is profiling? When CP was originally tinue to make perfect sense. By contrast, statisti- popularized by the FBI, a profile consisted pri- cally oriented profilers claim to base their infer- marily of a list of very basic characteristics (e.g., ences on the statistical analysis of data, which age, previous convictions) that were likely to be comes from offenders who have previously com- possessed by the unknown offender of the mitted crimes that are similar to those being crime(s) under consideration.1 Profiles were gen- investigated. erally used to narrow a list of potential suspects, 2. Who are profilers? Surprisingly, there is no focus investigations, and construct interview tech- consensus about who is qualified to be a profil- niques.2 In more recent years, the potential forms er. Some have maintained that a profiler is any- that a profile can take and the ways in which it one who labels themselves a profiler and has can be used within a criminal investigation have engaged in the practice of constructing a profile expanded to include suggestions regarding for a criminal investigation,6 whereas others resource prioritization, case management, have argued that only individuals who have strategies for dealing with the media, and so considerable investigative experience should be

V O L U M E 1 4 N U M B E R 2 2 0 0 8 37

profilers.7 Although some attempts have been made to regulate and accredit profilers (e.g., The International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship), there is no recognized regulatory body that provides a professional CP designation. Thus, those presenting themselves as profiles may vary widely in their level of experience and education. 3. When is profiling used? The use of profilers has typically been limited to certain low-volume crimes such as sexual assaults committed by strangers and homicides that appear to lack a motive. Profiles are seen to be most useful in these types of cases because offenders are more likely to exhibit psychopathol- ogy such as psychopathy, schizoid thinking, and sadism.8 This is assumed to increase the degree to which offenders behave consistently across their crimes and other aspects of their lives.9 It is also the case that a profiler may be consulted at various stages of the investigation.10 4. Where is profiling used? It appears that the majority of CP occurs in the United States through the FBI, with the most recent estimates indicating that CP is being applied in approximately 1000 cases per year.11 CP is also being used heavily in the United Kingdom, with 242 instances of CP advice being reported between 1981 and 1994.12 Although exact estimates of CP prevalence in other countries are not directly available, its use has been docu- mented in Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Ireland, Malaysia, Russia, Zimbabwe, and The Netherlands. 5. Why is profiling used? The most obvious reason why police officers use CP is that they believe it “works”. Indeed, survey results indicate that some officers believe profiles are operationally useful, often because they reinforce their own opinions, further their understanding of the offender, and/or focus the investigation.13 Of course, it is also possible that some officers may use CP simply because they believe they have “nothing to lose” by con- sulting a profiler, and/or they are forced to do so in order to satisfy judicial requirements to exploit all available investigative options to solve the crime.

Police Officers’ Opinions of Criminal Profiling The few surveys that have assessed police officers’ opinions about CP suggest they generally find CP useful for their investigations. An early survey found that solving cases was attributed to CP advice in 46% of the 192 instances where FBI profiling was requested.14 Similarly, a 1993 study found that 5 out of 6 surveyed police officers in The Netherlands reported some degree of usefulness for advice given by an FBI trained profiler.15 Likewise, a 1995 study found that 83% of a sample of 184 police officers in the United Kingdom claimed that CP was operationally useful and 92% reported that they would seek CP advice again.16 Consistent with these results, a 2001 study showed that a significant portion of police officers in the United States believe that CP has value.17 Finally, a 2007 survey of Canadian police officers found that 66% of the officers believed that it contributed to their investigation. Moreover, most officers reported that the profiler made accurate predictions.18

W W W . S K E P T I C . C O M 38

Putting CP to the Test general, profilers seem to ignore this empirical Despite the fact that police officers hold these research. views, a review of the CP literature reveals that: Profilers also appear to be oblivious to (a) the majority of CP approaches are based on research in closely related fields. For example, an outdated theory of personality that lacks despite a massive effort to identify predictors of strong empirical support, and (b) professional consistency in offender samples within commu- profilers have a dismal performance record when nity and prison settings, research has failed to the accuracy of their profiles have been exam- turn up anything of value to criminal profilers. ined. While it is possible to make reasonably accurate Is CP based on an empirically supported theory? predictions of criminal behavior with respect to In a similar way to a theory of personality (the recidivism,24 these inferences are based on the classic trait theory) that was popular in personali- analysis of behaviors beyond those exhibited at ty psychology up until the late 1960s,19 the over- an offender’s crime scene. Indeed, the well-estab- whelming majority of CP approaches assume that lished predictors of criminal behavior (e.g., anti- criminal behavior is determined by underlying social attitudes, cognition) are not the sorts of dispositions (i.e., traits) within offenders that variables typically focused on by profilers (e.g., make them behave in a particular way.20 The crime scene behaviors), which raises unanswered assumptions that emerge from this theory are questions about why profilers might expect that fundamental to CP. For example, the trait theory behaviorally-based profiling approaches will be leads to an assumption that offenders will exhibit effective. similar behaviors across their offenses because Can professional profilers make accurate traits, rather than situational factors, are the deter- inferences? Within the CP domain, negligible minants of their behavior. Perhaps more impor- quantitative differences have been found tant for the practice of CP, the theory also sug- between the predictive ability of “professional gests that offenders will display similar behaviors profilers” and “non-profilers”. The accuracy of in their crimes and in other aspects of their lives profiler inferences has been tested by compar- (e.g., in their interpersonal relationships). ing the performance of so-called professional The sole reliance on trait-based models of profilers with that of non-profiler groups in profiling is fundamentally flawed. Criminal profil- mock profiling scenarios.25 In a typical experi- ers do not seem to recognize that a consensus ment, profilers and non-profiler groups are began to emerge in the psychological litera- asked to review details of a solved crime and ture some 40 years ago that it was a mistake to make inferences about the likely offender (via a rely on traits as the primary explanation for multiple choice questionnaire). Inferences are behavior.21 Situational factors contribute as much typically divided into four categories: cognitive to the prediction of behavior as personality dis- processes (e.g., whether or not offender exhibits positions. This is likely to be equally true when remorse), physical attributes (e.g., presence of predicting criminal behavior. facial hair), offense behaviors (e.g., whether the The importance of situational factors is appar- offender removed items from the crime scene), ent when one considers research in the profiling and social history/habits (e.g., alcohol consump- domain. For example, offenders rarely display tion). The results from these four categories are high levels of behavioral consistency across the also combined to form an overall profile per- crimes they commit.22 A similar picture emerges formance measure. The accuracy of these infer- when evaluating the degree to which offenders ences is then checked against the actual perpe- exhibit consistency across their crimes and other trator’s physical characteristics, thoughts, and aspects of their lives. At best, small pockets of behaviors. consistency have been identified, whereby a spe- Two 2007 meta-analyses of these studies cific crime scene behavior is found to relate to a were revealing.26 The first analysis compared the specific background characteristic. For example, predictive accuracy of a group of self-labeled a 1997 study found that rapists who forced entry profilers and experienced investigators against into premises were four times more likely to non-profilers (e.g., college students and psychol- have prior convictions for property offenses than ogists). The profilers/investigators were found to those who did not engage in that behavior.23 In be more accurate than non-police personnel on

V O L U M E 1 4 N U M B E R 2 2 0 0 8 39

an overall measure of profile accuracy (r = .24) appears to have helped investigators. Second, and on the physical attribute category (r = .10). anecdotal evidence from any source may exag- On the other hand, the predictive accuracy of the gerate the actual usefulness of a profile in vari- profilers/investigators was marginally worse or ous ways. Third, profiling anecdotes are prone no better than the non-profilers when it came to to be distorted in some way to make them inferences of cognitive processes (r = -.06), more entertaining and informative. offense behaviors (r = .00), and social 2. Repetition of the message that “profiling history/habits (r = -.09). works.” Repeating the message that “CP is an In the second analysis, the experienced inves- effective investigative tool” or “police officers tigators were included in the non-profiler group. seek profilers’ input” can contribute to the CP In this analysis, the results favored the profilers illusion because people tend to believe messages across all five predictor categories, but the differ- they hear repeatedly. The 2007 study noted ences were not large enough to be statistically above found that the message “profiling works” significant. The best result came when the overall is clearly stated in 52% of the 130 profiling arti- profile was considered (r = .32). However, even cles reviewed, whereas only 3% of articles if this most optimistic of results could be replicat- unequivocally stated that profiling does not ed, it warrants consideration that many variables work. As previously argued, that positive mes- included in this analysis of profilers’ expertise are sage is unsupported by the research on the pre- well known in the criminological literature (e.g., dictive ability of profilers.28 the likelihood that a serial offender will be of a 3. Counting the hits and discounting the miss- particular age, have particular convictions, suffer es. Profilers create the impression that their infer- substance abuse problems, etc.). This means, and ences are highly accurate by over-emphasizing we hasten to emphasize this point, that any their correct inferences.29 When all the necessary police professional with a good knowledge of and pertinent information is not explicitly report- the criminological literature should be able to ed, readers may form beliefs based solely upon achieve this level of success simply by relying on the information that is presented to them. base rate information. In other words, success in Findings from psychological research suggest that CP does not appear to be based on specialized the exclusive presentation of correct inferences knowledge of the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies can lead people to overestimate the accuracy found at a given crime scene. and potential utility of profiles. It is therefore not surprising that reading articles about profiling Why do People Believe that Criminal Profiling Works? might lead people to conclude that it is a viable Given the state of affairs with CP research, one tool. can only wonder why police officers and the 4. Profilers are not “experts.” Experts are peo- public would have faith in such a dubious tech- ple who have professional competence in a spe- nique. Below are eight potential reasons. The cialized area. People have a tendency to accept first four relate to how information about CP is information that is reported to them by supposed presented to people. The second four relate to experts. However, problems can arise when peo- how people might process that information. ple wholeheartedly believe in the power of an 1. The power of anecdotes. CP accounts in expert’s “specialized knowledge” when that books, magazines, law enforcement bulletins, knowledge has little foundation. In practice, pro- and peer-reviewed journal articles often rely filers present themselves as experts by implying entirely on a “case in point”, “case study”, that they possess accumulated wisdom, investiga- “actual case,” or “success story” to illustrate tive and behavioral science experience, and train- how profiling is useful in catching a criminal. ing and/or knowledge of abnormal behavior that For instance, a 2007 study found that 60% of provide them with the necessary skills to collect the CP literature relied on anecdotes as a and analyze crime scene information and peek source of evidence.27 But anecdotes are inade- inside the criminal mind. In addition, research quate for effectively validating CP for at least has shown that police officers tend to believe three reasons. First, in attempting to convince that profiles written by supposed experts are others that profiling works, a profiler can surely more accurate than those written by other con- find at least one anecdote in which a profile sultants, even when identical information

W W W . S K E P T I C . C O M 40

appeared in both profiles.30 The problem with 7. Imitation. People tend to believe things or this state of affairs is that there is little evidence do things a certain way because they were supporting the proposition that profilers’ possess believed or done that way by others in the specialized skills that warrant labeling them as past.34 In fact, a large amount of what we know experts.31 is naturally acquired from other people’s behav- 5. Humans are pattern-seekers. Humans ior and instructions. Thus, those who observe attempt to find order and meaning in the uncer- other people using CP are likely to both use it tain world and then form beliefs that can guide and believe it works, even if the initial user does future behaviors.32 In attempting to find useful not hold this belief. Police officers may believe patterns, however, people sometimes find pat- CP is a good investigative technique because terns that are meaningless. When information is they observe other police officers using it. Police presented in such a way as to make us believe officers spend time with other officers, communi- that CP works, it is no wonder that this is the cating various skills and proper policing behav- conclusion that is reached. The information, iors through both formal and informal teachings. however, may be biased in several ways. Through police culture, profiling advocates (e.g., Profilers may wish to inflate their own useful- those officers trained to use CP) can directly ness (self-serving bias) and may actually be and/or indirectly instruct other officers that CP is more confident in their abilities than is warrant- effective. In any case, it is unlikely that any of ed (over-confidence); people might believe that the other officers would have access to all of the a profiler’s advice solved an investigation information needed to properly determine because they are unaware of, or do not consid- whether CP works. er, the rest of the police work that was involved 8. Mistaking fiction for fact. Because people in the case (attribution error); profilers, police are generally intrigued by the criminal mind, pro- officers, and the public are prone to make errors filing activities tend to generate a lot of public whenever they partake in after-the-fact reason- fascination. The increasing number of books, ing; and, perhaps most important, there may be films, and television programs that deal with pro- a tendency to seek evidence that supports an filing, as well as the recent growth in college and existing belief that CP works and ignore or filter university courses that address profiling issues, out evidence that contradicts such a belief (con- supports this observation. Exposure to primarily firmation bias). fictional accounts of CP unfortunately means 6. Vague profiles fit any case. The inferences people may base their beliefs upon those in some profiles are so ambiguous, vague, accounts; especially since people are not very and/or general that the profile (like horoscopes) adept at remembering the source of information can appear to describe any suspect.33 This is that they acquire during routine daily activities.35 problematic for both practice and research. For example, in a case with multiple suspects, pro- Conclusion files that contain many ambiguous inferences There is a growing belief that profilers can accu- may not assist in the elimination of the innocent. rately and consistently predict a criminal’s charac- It is also possible that interpreting ambiguous teristics based on crime scene evidence. This statements (and subsequently using that interpre- belief is evident from the fact that CP is becom- tation to guide investigative decision-making) ing increasingly prevalent as an investigative may contribute to the arrest of an innocent sus- technique and that positive opinions of CP are pect and thus the release of, or the cessation of a being communicated in the published literature. search for, the actual criminal. In this latter Such a belief is premature because the technique regard, readers should be reminded of the fre- has yet to be theoretically or empirically support- quent reporting in the media of wrongful convic- ed. Belief in this unscientific policing practice tions. Regarding research, it is difficult to retro- appears to be due to the erroneous information spectively determine and report the actual accu- that police officers (and the public) receive about racy of profiles if they can be interpreted to fit CP and the way that this information is many individuals. Moreover, ambiguous infer- processed. Since profiling has the potential to ences are not falsifiable, thus the profiler can mislead criminal investigators, it is a practice that never be shown to be wrong. must be approached with the utmost caution.

V O L U M E 1 4 N U M B E R 2 2 0 0 8 41

References Investigative Analysis: Satisfaction with from his Offence 1 Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. An Overview.” In A. W. Specific Profile Analysis Behaviour.” Science D. 2006. Criminal Burgess & R. R. and Investigative and Justice, 37, 161- Profiling: Developing an Hazelwood (Eds.), Advice Offered by the 170. Effective Science and Practical Aspects of Scientific Research 24 Gendreau, P., Little, T., Practice. Washington, Rape Investigation: A Advisory Unit of the & Goggin, C. 1996. “A DC: The American Multidisciplinary National Criminal Meta-analysis of the Psychological Approach. Boca Raton, Intelligence Division Predictors of Adult Association. FL: CRC Press. (CRI) - The Netherlands. Offender Recidivism: 2 Douglas, J. E., Ressler, 8 Geberth, V. 1995. Leiden: NISCALE: What Works!” R. K., Burgess, A. W., “Criminal Personality Netherlands Institute Criminology, 31, 401- & Hartman, C. R. Profiling.” Law and for the Study of 433. 1986. “Criminal Order, 43, 45-49. Criminality and Law 25 Kocsis, R. N., Hayes, Profiling from Crime 9 Pinizzotto, A. J., & Enforcement. A. F., & Irwin, H. J. Scene Analysis.” Finkel, N. J. 1990. 16 Copson, op cit. 2002. “Investigative Behavioral Sciences “Criminal Personality 17 Trager, J., & Brewster, Experience and and the Law, 4, 401- Profiling: An Outcome J. 2001. “The Accuracy in 421. and Process Dtudy. Effectiveness of Psychological Profiling 3 Ainsworth, P. B. 2001. Law and Human Psychological Profiles.” of a Violent Crime.” Offender Profiling and Behavior, 14, 215-233. Journal of Police and Journal of Interpersonal Crime Analysis. 10 Copson, G. 1995. Criminal Psychology, Violence, 17, 811-823. Cullompton, Devon: Coals to Newcastle? 16, 20-28. 26 Snook, et al., op cit. Willan. Part 1: A Study of 18 Snook, B., Eastwood, 27 Ibid. 4 Alison, L. J., Smith, M. Offender Profiling. J., Gendreau, P., 28 Ibid. D., Eastman, O., & London: Home Office, Goggin, C., & Cullen, R. 29 Douglas, op cit. Rainbow, L. 2003. Police Research Group; M. 2007. “Taking 30 Kocsis and Hayes, “Toulmin’s Philosophy Snook, B., Haines, A., Stock of Criminal 2004, op cit. of Argument and its Taylor, P. J., & Bennell, Profiling: A Narrative 31 Snook, Eastwood, et Relevance to Offender C. 2007. “Criminal Review and Meta-analy- al., op cit. Profiling.” Psychology, Profiling Belief and sis.” Criminal Justice 32 Shermer, M. 2002. Crime, and Law, 9, Use: A Survey of and Behavior, 34, 437- Why People Believe 173-183. Canadian Police Officer 453. Weird Things: 5 Lyons, A. & Truzzi, M. Opinion.” Canadian 19 Mischel, W. 1968. Pseudoscience, 1991. The Blue Sense: Journal of Police and Personality and Duperstition, and Other Psychic Detectives and Security Services, 5, Assessment. New York: Confusions of Our Crime. The Mysterious 169-179. Wiley. Time. New York: Henry Press: New York. 11 Witkin, G. 1996. “How 20 Homant, R. J., & Holt and Company. 6 Kocsis, R. N. 2004. the FBI Paints Portraits Kennedy, D. B. 1998. 33 Alison, L. J., Smith, M., “Psychological Profiling of the Nations Most “Psychological Aspects & Morgan, K. 2003. of Serial Arson Skills: Wanted.” U.S. News of Crime Scene “Interpreting the An Assessment of and World Report, 120, Profiling.” Criminal Accuracy of Offender Skills and Accuracy.” April 22, 32. Justice and Behavior, Profiles.” Psychology, Criminal Justice and 12 Copson, op cit. 25, 319-343. Crime, and Law, 9, Behavior, 31, 341-361; 13 Copson, op cit.; 21 Mischel, op cit. 185-195. Kocsis, R. N., & Hayes, Snook, et al. op cit. 22 Bateman, A. L., & 34 Dawkins, R. 2003. A A. F. 2004. “Believing 14 Pinizzotto, A. J. 1984. Salfati, C. G. 2007. Devil’s Chaplain: is Seeing? Investigating “Forensic Psychology: “An Examination of Reflections on Home, the Perceived Accuracy Criminal Personality Behavioral Consistency Lies, Science, and of Criminal Profiling.” Journal of Using Individual Love. New York: Psychological Profiles.” Police Science and Behaviors or Groups of Houghton Mifflin International Journal of Administration, 12, 32- Behaviors in Serial Company. Offender Therapy and 40. Homicide.” Behavioral 35 Johnson, M. K. 1997. Comparative 15 Jackson, J. L., van Sciences and the Law, “Source Monitoring and Criminology, 48, 149- Koppen, P. J., & 25, 527-544. Memory Distortion.” 160. Herbrink, J. C. M. 23 Davies, A., Wittebrood, Philosophical 7 Hazelwood, R. R., 1993. Does the K., & Jackson, J. L. Transactions of the Ressler, R. K., Depue, Service Meet the 1997. “Predicting the Royal Society of R. L., & Douglas, J. E. Needs? An Evaluation Criminal Antecedents London B, 352, 1733- 1995. “Criminal of Consumer of a Stranger Rapist 1745.

W W W . S K E P T I C . C O M