Criminal Justice and Behavior

http://cjb.sagepub.com Taking Stock of Criminal Profiling: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis

Brent Snook, Joseph Eastwood, Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin and Richard M. Cullen Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007; 34; 437 originally published online Mar 22, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806296925 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/437

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

Additional services and information for Criminal Justice and Behavior can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 35 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/34/4/437

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis

BRENT SNOOK JOSEPH EASTWOOD
Memorial University of Newfoundland

PAUL GENDREAU
University of New Brunswick

CLAIRE GOGGIN
St. Thomas University

RICHARD M. CULLEN
Memorial University of Newfoundland

The use of criminal profiling (CP) in criminal investigations has continued to increase despite scant empirical evidence that it is effective. To take stock of the CP field, a narrative review and a 2-part meta-analysis of the published CP literature were conducted. Narrative review results suggest that the CP literature rests largely on commonsense justifications. Results from the 1st meta-analysis indicate that self-labeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups did not outperform comparison groups in predicting offenders cognitive processes, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history, although they were marginally better at predicting overall offender characteristics. Results of the 2nd meta-analysis indicate that self-labeled profilers were not significantly better at predicting offense behaviors, but outperformed comparison groups when predicting overall offender characteristics, cognitive processes, physical attributes, and social history and habits. Methodological shortcomings of the data and the implications of these findings for the practical utility of CP are discussed. Keywords: criminal profiling; meta-analysis; predictive validity; psychological profiling

riminal profiling (CP) is the practice of inferring personality, behavioral, and demographic characteristics of criminals based on crime scene evidence (Douglas, Ressler, Burgess, & Hartman, 1986).1 The frequency with which CP has been used in criminal investigations, as well as the volume of literature addressing this topic, has grown steadily over the past 30 years (Copson, 1995; Egger, 1999; Wilson, Lincoln, & Kocsis, 1997; Witkin, 1996), and profiling techniques are now commonplace within police investigations worldwide (Homant & Kennedy, 1998). This upward trend has occurred in the absence of a well-defined profiling framework and cumulated empirical knowledge in support of CP. Some researchers (e.g., Grubin, 1995; Hicks & Sales, 2006; Muller, 2000; Wilson et al., 1997) have cautioned that CP is growing in popularity in the absence of compelling scientific evidence that it works (i.e., is a reliable, valid, or useful tool for assisting with the
AUTHORS NOTE: Support for the research reported in this article was provided to the first author by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brent Snook, Psychology Department, Science Building, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada, A1B 3X9; e-mail: bsnook@play.psych.mun.ca.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34, No. 4, April 2007 437-453 DOI: 10.1177/0093854806296925 2007 American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

437
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

438

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

identification and apprehension of criminals). Given that the effect of profiling on criminal investigations is unknown, the goal of the current article is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the scientific credibility of CP, which in turn will inform the utility of this particular investigative technique for practitioners. Constructing a profile of an unknown perpetrator typically involves three stages (Annon, 1995; Ault & Reese, 1980; Douglas et al., 1986; Homant & Kennedy, 1998). First, police officers collect crime scene data and forward it to a profiler; second, the profiler conducts an analysis of the crime scene data; and third, the profiler provides predictions about the type of individual likely to have committed the crime in question. The processes that profilers use in analyzing crime scene data can be classified as either clinical or statistical in nature. Clinically oriented techniques incorporate aspects of the profilers intuition, knowledge, experience, and training to generate predictions (e.g., Boon, 1997; Douglas & Olshaker, 1995, 1997; Ressler & Schachtman, 1992; Turvey, 1999; West, 2000). By contrast, statistically oriented predictions are based upon descriptive and inferential statistical models derived from an analysis of characteristics of offenders who have previously committed similar types of crime (e.g., Canter, 2004; Farrington & Lambert, 1997; Keppel & Weis, 1993; Salfati, 2000). Published accounts testify to the prolific growth in the utilization of CP techniques. Between 1971 and 1981, the FBI provided profiling assistance on 192 occasions (Pinizzotto, 1984). Just a few years later, Douglas and Burgess (1986) indicated that FBI profilers had been asked to assist with 600 criminal investigations per year. More recent accounts indicate that CP was applied by 12 FBI profilers in approximately 1,000 cases per year (Witkin, 1996). Police officers in the United Kingdom have also incorporated CP into their investigations with greater frequency. Copson (1995), for instance, reported that 29 profilers were responsible for providing 242 instances of profiling advice between 1981 and 1994, with the use of CP increasing steadily during that period. Although we do not have an exact estimate of CP prevalence elsewhere, the use of CP has been documented in a variety of countries including Sweden, Finland, Germany, Canada, and The Netherlands (see sgard, 1998; Case Analysis Unit, 1998; Clark, 2002; Jackson, Herbrink, & van Koppen, 1997). As the prevalence of CP has grown over the past three decades, there has been a concomitant increase in the volume of published literature on the topic. Reviews of the CP literature have most often outlined its developmental history, described the various theoretical approaches that profilers use, and commented on the need for future research (Egger, 1999; Grubin, 1995; Homant & Kennedy, 1998; Muller, 2000; Wilson et al., 1997). The authors of these reviews appear to have reached the consensus that, notwithstanding deficiencies in the empirical literature regarding its predictive accuracy, profiling works or, at least, has the potential to work. As a consequence, readers of this literature may be inclined to believe that CP is a valuable addition to the standardized investigative repertoire. The sheer volume of scholarly and media attention accorded to CP might also contribute to this belief. Thus, a critical examination of the current status of CP is timely. As a first step toward that end, we conducted a systematic narrative review of the published CP literature and a metaanalysis of the extant experimental studies of profiler accuracy. Using a classification framework adapted from Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, and Paparozzi (2002), the narrative review classified CP articles according to whether the authors used commonsense or empirical-based arguments. The genesis of the Gendreau et al. model was based on an analysis of how practical, or bad, common sense2 (as opposed to good
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING TABLE 1:

439

Summary of the Commonsense and Empirical Rationales Used in Coding Criminal Profiling Articles

Commonsense
Sources of knowledge Qualitative: based on authority, testimonials, anecdotes, and intuition. Analytical process Post hoc ergo propter hoc, availability heuristic, hindsight bias, self-serving bias, and illusory correlates. Integration of evidence

Empirical

Quantitative: based on evidence from scientific literature.

Data collection from case histories, correlational studies, surveys, quasi- and experimental studies.

Simply tell it like it is and what everybody knows Causality is complex, results described in probabilistic statements, explanation by naming, exceptions terms, expectations that the theory will be revised, prove the rule, and idiographic focus. acknowledgement of covariation consequences, and nomothetic focus.

Note: Adapted from Gendreau et al. (2002).

common sense and as outlined in the left-hand side of Table 1) can lead to serious errors in judgment in the field of criminal justice policy (see also Latessa, Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002). For the remainder of the article we avoid the pejorative label and refer to it simply as common sense. The application of this model to the narrative review was particularly relevant to an evaluation of the criminal profiling literature because it was hoped that the conclusions of such an analysis would make a useful contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the status of CP as art (based on experience and intuition) or science (based on empirical research that generates falsifiable hypotheses), and, ultimately, speak to its utility as a criminal investigative tool. Given the acknowledgment by some researchers that there is a shortage of empirical evidence substantiating profiling techniques (e.g., Kocsis, 2004; Kocsis, Irwin, Hayes, & Nunn, 2000), it was anticipated that the CP literature contained a considerable volume of commonsense rationales. The second step in our analysis of the validity of CP involved a meta-analysis of empirical studies examining the accuracy of criminal profilers. Despite the two broad types of profiling processes mentioned previously, there is no consensus about who can be called a profiler or regulatory body that grants professional profiling designations (see Kocsis, 2004). For the purpose of his studies, Kocsis defined a profiler as anyone who labeled himor herself a profiler and had engaged in the practice of constructing a profile for a criminal investigation. Alternatively, Hazelwood, Ressler, Depue, and Douglas (1995) argued that only individuals who have considerable investigative experience should be considered profilers. Given the competing definitions and lack of agreement about who may be designated a profiler, we conducted two quantitative analyses. First, we examined the accuracy of selflabeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups vis--vis those of nave groups, such as students and psychologists (i.e., people who did not have any profiling or investigative experience). Second, we compared the accuracy of self-labeled criminal profilers with all other comparison groups (e.g., students, detectives).

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

440

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

STUDY 1: NARRATIVE REVIEW

METHOD

Sample articles. Potential studies for inclusion in the narrative review were located through an electronic search of PsycINFO and Criminal Justice Abstracts databases using the keywords criminal profiling, psychological profiling, and offender profiling. Citations in the reference sections of the obtained articles were also checked for possible inclusion in the review. Eligible articles in the narrative review were peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, magazine articles, research reports, and published conference papers; all of which had CP as their primary focus. Procedure. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were first coded along the following dimensions: article characteristics (e.g., year of publication and location of research), principal author characteristics (e.g., gender, qualifications, discipline, whether a criminal profiler, theoretical approach, and number of CP publications), and author perspective on CP (e.g., opinion of CP, whether CP is an art or science, and beliefs regarding profiler accuracy/ usefulness).3 Using the classification framework adapted from Gendreau et al. (2002), sample CP articles were classified as to whether authors used commonsense or empirically based arguments in interpreting phenomena. Articles were evaluated along the following criteria: (a) sources of knowledge (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative), (b) analytical processes (e.g., hindsight bias vs. experimental), and (c) integration of evidence (e.g., idiographic vs. nomothetic focus). Gendreau et al.s original classification framework included 25 specific categories of commonsense (k = 14) and empirical (k = 11) rationales, the majority of which were suitable for inclusion in the present review (see Table 1; see also Kimble, 1994; Matlin, 1998; Myers, 1996). One addition and one deletion were made to the classification scheme for the current research purpose. For the narrative review, and in light of the first authors familiarity with the CP literature, it was deemed appropriate to add post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning as a supplemental item to the analytical process criterion in the commonsense category.4 The anchoring heuristic was not included as a commonsense rationale for the criminal profiling literature as it could not be operationally defined to facilitate coding. Table 1 contains the final list of rationales used in the narrative review. Interrater reliability. Agreement of the coding of the commonsense/empirical criteria was assessed by having the fifth author independently code 13 (10%) randomly selected articles. The agreement of coding for commonsense and empirical rationales, measured using Yeaton and Wortmans (1993) statistic, was 68% for source of knowledge, 85% for analytical processes, and 72% for integration of evidence. Coding agreement was 69% for article characteristics, 90% for principal author characteristics, and 69% for author perspective. Overall coder agreement was 76%. Confidence intervals and effect size calculations. Confidence intervals (CIs) were defined as the plausible values for the population parameter (Wilkinson & The Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association, 1999). Where appropriate, we considered substantive interpretations of values, including the upper and lower limits of a CI, and compared these with the mean (see Cumming & Finch, 2005). Of particular concern
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

441

was the width of the CIs, which indicate the precision of the estimate of ; wider CIs indicate greater uncertainty in this regard. The judgment of the degree of width leading to a conclusion of uncertainty depends on what researchers in the field define as relevant (Smithson, 2003). For the purpose of this analysis, CIs with a width greater than .10 were defined as imprecise, thereby suggesting that replication of the obtained results is required. The common language (CL) effect size indicator was used to compare the commonsense and empirical ratings of articles based on article characteristics, principal author characteristics, and author perspective (McGraw & Wong, 1992). The CL effect size indicator is a practical statistic that converts an effect size into a probability that a score sampled from Group A will be larger than one sampled from Group B. To illustrate, assume articles with a clinical profiling orientation (Group A) contain an average of 5.2 (SD = 3.3) commonsense rationales while articles with a statistical profiling orientation (Group B) have an average of 1.6 (SD = 1.4). The mean of B is subtracted from A and then divided by the square of the pooled standard deviations. The resultant value of 3.6 is treated as a z value, and a table of normal curve values is used to interpret its magnitude. In this example, z = 1.00, which corresponds to a value of .84 or 84% of the area under the normal curve. Such a CL value would indicate that articles with a clinical profiling orientation use more commonsense rationales than articles with a statistical profiling orientation 84% of the time.
RESULTS

A total of 130 CP articles were reviewed for the narrative review. This literature contained a large amount of commonsense type sources of knowledge and analytical processes. Figure 1 shows the percentage of articles that used commonsense (i.e., clear bars) or empirical (i.e., shaded bars) arguments, as well as the 95% CI about each mean percentage. In terms of sources of knowledge, the widths of the CIs were all greater than .10. It can be seen that anecdotal arguments were the most frequently endorsed knowledge source (60%) with a CI of 52%68%. This was followed by testimonials (45%, CI = 37%54%), authority (42%, CI = 33%50%), and use of scientific evidence (42%, CI = 33%50%). Intuition was the least commonly used source of knowledge (23%, CI = 16%30%). Commonsense rationales also dominated among analytical processes, with the widths of all of the CIs greater than .10. Considering the 25 possible comparisons between commonsense versus empirical rationales, 68% of the CIs of the former did not overlap with the CIs of the latter. As for integration of evidence, the recognition that causality is complex and the expectation that theory will be revised were at least 15% higher than the most frequent commonsense rationales. In total, considering the 25 possible comparisons between empirical versus commonsense rationales, 72% of the CIs for the former were higher and did not overlap with the others. In all but one case (i.e., everybody knows), the CIs were greater than .10. Based on ratings of each of the criteria in Table 1, commonsense and empirical scores were calculated for each article. The mean frequency for use of commonsense or empirical rationales across all articles was 4.23 (SD = 3.28, CI = 3.664.80) and 3.39 (SD = 2.25, CI = 3.003.78), respectively. The CL statistic indicated that commonsense arguments were used more than empirical arguments 58% of the time. We also examined the use of commonsense and empirical rationales as a function of article characteristics, principal author characteristics, and authors perspective. Reported next
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

442

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Intuition Sources of Knowledge Scientific Evidence Authority

Testimonials

Anecdotal 0 10 20 30 40 Percentage
Surveys Experimental Analytical Process Quasi-Experimental Case Histories Correlational Hindsight Bias Illusory Correlates Availability Heuristic Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Self-Serving Bias 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percentage 30 35 40

50

60

70

80

Everybody Knows Explanation by Naming Integration of Evidence Exceptions Prove Rule Idiographic Focus Probabilistic Terms Tell it like it is Co-variation Consequences Nomothetic Focus Expectation Causality Complex 0 10 20 30 40 Percentage 50 60 70 80

Figure 1:

Incidence of Commonsense and Empirical Rationales in Criminal Profiling Articles (n = 130)

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

443

are those variables that were reported by at least 20% of the articles and exhibited at least a 65% difference in terms of the CL statistic. The following article characteristics and principal author characteristics were associated with a greater use of common sense in the range of 72%84%. These characteristics included articles that were clinical in orientation, published before 1990, emanated from the United States, and written by law enforcement professionals. In contrast, empirical arguments were more frequently used (i.e., range: 69%93% of the time) by articles that were statistically oriented, published after 2000, appeared in refereed journals, came from outside the United States, and authored by academics. The following types of author perspective were associated with a greater use of common sense (i.e., range: 72%81%): expressed a positive opinion of CP, regarded CP as useful or accurate, and labeled profilers as experts. On the other hand, empirical arguments were used more frequently (i.e., range: 69%77% of the time) in articles that challenged the utility of CP (i.e., articles that had a negative, mixed, or unspecified conclusion about the accuracy of profiles, the expertise of profilers, and the usefulness of profiling).
DISCUSSION

The evidence generated in this study indicated that commonsense rationales have flourished in the CP literature. Even if one were to view the glass as half full in this regard, and focus on the lower limits of the CIs (keeping in mind their distance from the mean), the percentage estimates of the frequency of some of the commonsense rationales for sources of knowledge and analytical processes are of concern if CP is to be considered a scientific domain. Those who would promote CP as a scientific practice may point to the reality that commonsense rationales are those that are most available to the authors, as the research literature is in its infancy from an empirical perspective, which makes it difficult to substantiate validity arguments with empirical sources. These individuals might also draw attention to the fact that authors appear to have recognized the importance of empirical rationales in attempting to integrate evidence. Admittedly, endorsement of causality is complex and expectation that theory will be revised were noted by authors as components of the process of integrating evidence in slightly more than half of the reviewed articles. Nevertheless, commonsense ways of integrating evidence (e.g., tell it like it is, exceptions prove the rule, and idiographic focus) appear, in our opinion, disconcertingly frequently (percentages ranged from 8% to 41%; see Figure 1, Panel C). The use of commonsense and empirical rationales varied strikingly according to the article characteristics and the authors perspective. Articles with a clinical orientation, and those that were authored by law enforcement officers, were more likely to contain commonsense rationales and less likely to contain scientific rationales than those that had a statistical orientation and were written by academics, respectively. Similarly, articles in which the authors were more favorable toward profiling contained more commonsense and less empirical rationales than those that were less favorable. It was intriguing to discover a greater proliferation of commonsense rationales in articles coming from the United States (> 70% vs. the United Kingdom and other countries). Regardless of the reasons underlying this overemphasis on common sense and the relative shortage of empirical support in the CP literature, there is a notable incongruity between CPs lack of empirical foundation and the degree of support for the field, as expressed by the authors of CP articles.

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

444

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Granted the foregoing, we emphasize the need for replication of the results presented herein. Even though interrater agreement was adequate in our view, given the subjective nature of some of the coding tasks involved, we recognize the need for others to replicate our coding decisions and encourage them to do so. In addition, the widths of the CIs were, in our estimation, of such a magnitude as to limit definitive conclusions. One would be more favorable toward mean results that are more closely bounded by their respective CIs. Finally, we acknowledge that the literature search was not exhaustive. We may have overlooked some studies and, given the rapid expansion of the CP literature, we expect that quite a few additional studies will soon be available for extending and replicating the results of this study. We look forward to further refinement of the conclusions reached in this review.
STUDY 2: META-ANALYSIS
METHOD

Sample studies. Eligible studies for Part 1 of the meta-analysis were those that compared the accuracy of self-labeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups with different comparison groups and met the following criteria:
The study used an experimental scenario (i.e., contained an independent variable) in which both the crime and the criminal were known to the experimenter. The study compared the predictive accuracy of an experimental group consisting of profilers or groups with investigative experience (e.g., detectives) to one or more comparison groups (e.g., students). The study reported statistical information regarding the relation between the predictor in question and the dependent variable that could be converted into a common effect size (r).

A search of the CP literature revealed 10 potential studies, of which 4 met the above criteria (i.e., Kocsis, 2004; Kocsis, Hayes, & Irwin, 2002; Kocsis, Middledorp, & Try, 2005; Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990). Among the excluded articles, two contained no usable data (Kocsis, 2003b; Jackson, van den Eshof, & de Kleuver, 1997); one was a review of two other studies included in the sample (Kocsis, 2003a); one used psychics rather than profilers as the experimental group (Reiser, Ludwig, Saxe, & Wagner, 1979); one used a design that involved two groups of participants ascertaining the accuracy of two contrasting profiles when presented with the characteristics of the real criminal (Alison, Smith, & Morgan, 2002); and one did not provide adequate statistical information (Kocsis et al., 2000). In Part 2 of the meta-analysis, inclusion Criterion 2 changed. That is, the experimental group consisted of only self-labeled profilers and the comparison groups consisted of all other groups (e.g., detectives, students). Using this classification, four studies met the selection criteria (i.e., Kocsis, 2004; Kocsis et al., 2000, 2005; Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990).5 Procedure. Studies were coded along the following three dimensions: (a) Characteristics first authors qualifications, discipline, and number of publications in the area; theoretical orientation; first authors gender; research location; publication type; publication year; type of profiling task used; and whether any author is a profiler. (b) Sample demographicscomposition of comparison groups, size, and mean age of experimental and comparison groups; quantity and type of experimental stimuli. (c) Outcome datamean number of overall accurate predictions was coded in each study (i.e., overall offender).
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

445

In addition, Kocsis et al. (2000), Kocsis et al. (2002), Kocsis (2004), and Kocsis et al. (2005) disaggregated their overall offender measure into the following four submeasures: (a) cognitive processes (e.g., motive, whether the offender was comfortable in the area where the offenses took place, whether the offender exhibited remorse), (b) physical characteristics (e.g., gender, age, ethnic background, hair color, facial hair), (c) offense behaviors (e.g., whether the offender took precautions to protect his or her identity, whether the offender removed items from the crime scene), and (d) social history and habits (e.g., marital status, level of education, alcohol consumption, military experience). Each of these submeasures was individually coded.6 Interrater reliability. Agreement of the coding of the variables in the three dimensions above was assessed for the five studies involved in both meta-analyses by having the fifth author independently code all of the studies. Coding agreement, measured using Yeaton and Wortmans (1993) statistic, was 98% for study characteristics, 99% for method characteristics, and 98% for outcome data. CIs and ES calculations. As we were primarily concerned with practical rather than statistical significance (Kirk, 1996) in this study, the use of 95% CIs was emphasized. For the purpose of this analysis, CIs with a width greater than .10 were defined as imprecise. As it is extremely rare to find = 0 in psychological research (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt, 1996), we chose a more parsimonious interpretation of CIs that contain zero. That is, all CI values, including zero, were accepted as plausible. Finally, we made reference to significance testing only when a CI included zero or when comparing the CIs of two different means. A CI that includes zero indicates that p > .05 and when CIs do not overlap, or barely touch, p < .01. Conversely, p > .05 when the overlap is about half the average margin of error (Cumming & Finch, 2005; Schenker & Gentleman, 2001). Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated for each predictorcriterion relation. When statistics other than r were reported in the study (i.e., F, t, p), the appropriate formulae (see Rosenthal, 1991) were used to convert them to r values. Effect size (ES) magnitudes were assessed by examining the mean r values and their respective 95% CIs for each outcome. The r values were also weighted (z+) by sample size so as to give additional weight to values that came from large samples (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The meta-analytic model used here is a fixed effects model; that is, inferences are limited to only those studies included in a meta-analysis and not to those that might have been undiscovered or that will be conducted in the future (with which a random effects model would be appropriate, see Fleiss, 1993; Hedges, 1994). A fixed effects model favors the CP hypothesis in that fixed effects CIs tend to produce CIs that have less uncertainty (i.e., CIs are not as wide) than a random effects model. Results were also assessed using Rosenthal and Rubins (1982) binomial effect size display (BESD). This statistic allows one to examine changes in success rates that are attributable to the predictor variable, assuming a base rate of 50%. It is a useful statistic for demonstrating the practical importance of correlations, particularly those of small magnitude (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) in that the value of r can be taken at face value. To illustrate in the present context, a value of r = .30 would translate into a 30% difference in predictive ability between experimental (e.g., profiler group, r = .65) and comparison (e.g., students, r = .35) groups.
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

446

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Effect Sizes for Self-Labeled Profiler/Experienced-Investigators Versus Comparison Groups n 981 720a 720a 720a 720a

TABLE 2:

Outcome (k)
Overall offender (30) Cognitive processes (14) Physical attributes (14) Offence behaviors (14) History/Habits (14)

Meanr (SD)
.24 .06 .10 .00 .09 (.42) (.20) (.26) (.16) (.28)

95% CIr
.08.40 .18.06 .05.25 .09.09 .25.07

z+ .08 .07 .13 .02 .10

95% CIz+
.01.15 .15.01 .05.21 .06.10 .18.02

Note: Meanr (SD) = mean Pearson correlation coefficient for each predictor with standard deviations in parentheses; 95% CIr = confidence intervals about r; z+ = [(zr) (n 3)] (N 3) per predictor, where n = number of participants per effect size and N = number of participants per predictor; 95% CIz+ = confidence interval about z+. a Indicates that the sample size for each of the subscales is identical as they were taken from three studies written by the same author (all groups in these studies were tested along these predictors).

RESULTS

Reading Table 2 from the left, 30 ESs sampled from 981 participants in predicting overall offender characteristics resulted in a mean r = .24 (SD = .42). The associated 95% CI was .08.40. In relation to the four submeasures (k = 14, n = 720 for each measure), the self-labeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups were slightly better at predicting physical attributes (r = .10, CI = .05.25), but were less accurate than comparison groups in predicting offenders cognitive processes (r = .06, CI = .18.06) and social habits and history (r = .09, CI = .25.07). There was no difference between the groups in predicting offence behaviors (r = .00, CI = .09.09). The CIs for each of the four submeasures included zero and all were wider than .10. Results for self-labeled profilers versus comparison groups are displayed in Table 3. Reading from the left, there were 18 ESs sampled from 447 participants in predicting overall offender outcome, resulting in a mean r = .32 (SD = .45). The associated 95% CI was .10.54. In predicting cognitive processes, offender physical characteristics and social history and habits, the mean ESs were r = .21, .21, and .28, respectively, thus indicating a higher mean accuracy rating for the profilers. None of the CIs included zero, but all were wider than .10. Similarly, the obtained value for offense behaviors (r = .05) was positive; however, the CI overlapped zero. When r values were weighted, z+ for the five predictors was positive, although the CI for offense behaviors contained zero.
DISCUSSION

Predictions by the self-labeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups were not more accurate than those of the comparison groups. First, the point estimates were low. That is, average effect sizes for the former versus the latter were either close to zero or negative in value. Second, CIs were always greater than .10 in width, which should be regarded as a highly tentative result. All but one of the CIs included a substantial range either side of zero. It should be noted that the fixed effects model used in this meta-analysis generates the narrowest estimate of the precision of CI estimates (see Hedges & Vevea, 1998). The only area in which the selflabeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups were more accurate than the comparison groups was in predicting overall offender outcome, as judged by both r and z+ (weighted r). In terms of the BESD, the accuracy rate of profilers was 62% versus 38% for nonprofilers. Self-labeled profilers performed better than the comparison groups across all measures. While this research shows some evidence in favor of profilers, it is tentative. The estimates of
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING TABLE 3: Effect Sizes for Self-Labeled Profilers Versus Comparison Groups n 447 222a 222a 222a 222a

447

Outcome (k)
Overall offender (18) Cognitive processes (5) Physical attributes (5) Offence behaviors (5) History/Habits (5)

Meanr (SD)
.32 .21 .21 .05 .28 (.45) (.10) (.12) (.09) (.15)

95% CIr
.10.54 .09.33 .06.36 .06.16 .09.47

z+ .33 .16 .15 .05 .17

95% CIz+
.23.43 .02.30 .01.29 .09.19 .03.31

Note: Meanr (SD) = mean Pearson correlation coefficient for each predictor with standard deviations in parentheses; 95% CIr= confidence intervals about r; z+ = [(zr) (n 3)] (N 3) per predictor, where n = number of participants per effect size and N = number of participants per predictor; 95% CIz+ = confidence interval about z+; a Indicates that the sample size for each of the subscales is identical as they were taken from three studies written by the same author (all groups in these studies were tested along these predictors).

the effect size were imprecise as the widths of the CIs were extreme (e.g., two to five times the acceptable limit of .10) and one of the CIs included zero. Moreover, in the instances in which the CIs did not include zero, the addition of one more study with a large sample with an effect size of zero would produce more CIs that include zero. Also of note, upon weighting, the magnitude of the mean effect sizes declined in three predictor categories. Even if one were to take the most optimistic stance in favor of profilers and choose the predictive category in which the estimate was the most robust (i.e., overall offender, z+ = .33, CI = .23.43), the BESD statistic indicates that the profilers success rate was 66.5% versus 33.5%. This demonstrates better performance, but not necessarily expert performance. We contend that, in any field, an expert should decisively outperform nonexperts (i.e., lay persons). The practical problem with designating profilers or experienced individuals as experts lies in the fact that their services are requested based on their presumed expertise, which increases the likelihood of their having considerable impact on the direction of a given investigation. Very little is known about the effects of profiling on criminal investigations, particularly on police decision making. Until sound scientific evidence of profilers predictive validity becomes available, it would be prudent to assume that CP is as likely to be hazardous (i.e., have unacceptably high false-alarm rates) as it is to be helpful to the criminal investigation process. We suggest a BESD of at least r = .60 as a possible benchmark, given the legal implications and substantial costs involved in following an investigative lead based on CP hypotheses. There are two major limitations to the database. First, while credit must be given to one Australian researcher (i.e., Richard Kocsis) for collecting data that are suitable for a meta-analysis, that research has nevertheless been criticized for a range of methodological and conceptual limitations such as the use of multiple choice questionnaires, variation in the length of time given to participants to complete the experiment, and aggregating data to favor the experimental group (Bennell, Jones, Taylor, & Snook, 2006). Second, although the number of participants in the experienced-investigator group (n = 74) may be considered sizeable, the self-labeled profiler group was small (n = 19). The predictive abilities of a larger number of profilers must be empirically tested before they can seriously be considered as a useful resource for apprehending criminals. Regrettably, there is some indication that profilers are very reluctant to participate in experimental CP studies. For example, Kocsis et al. (2000) reported that only 5 of the more than 40 active profilers whom he contacted agreed to participate in his research.

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

448

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

CONCLUSION

The evidence generated from this research confirms the perceptions of those who have concluded that the CP field relies on weak standards of proof and that profilers do not decisively outperform other groups when predicting the characteristics of an unknown criminal (e.g., Alison, Bennell, Mokros, & Ormerod, 2002; Muller, 2000). Based on the results of the narrative review and meta-analytic reviews presented herein, profiling appears at this juncture to be an extraneous and redundant technique for use in criminal investigations. CP will persist as a pseudoscientific technique until such time as empirical and reproducible studies are conducted on the abilities of large groups of active profilers to predict, with more precision and greater magnitude, the characteristics of offenders.
NOTES
1. Although the scope of CP practice now goes beyond this original definition to include advice on interview strategies, media strategies, prioritizing resources, statement analysis, and so on, we believe that predicting offender characteristics remains the primary goal of CP because all of this additional advice is dependent upon the type of person that the profiler believes committed the crime. 2. Philosophers of science (e.g., McCosh, 1996) defined the reverse of bad common sensegood common senseto be an empirical or scientific approach for assessing the truth of a matter, because this process is based on careful observation of phenomena and inductive proofs. Philosophers and social scientists have concluded that good common sense is in short supply (e.g., McCosh, 1996; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). 3. A copy of the coding guide is available from Brent Snook. 4. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a reasoning fallacy in which it is assumed that because one event (e.g., profiling advice is provided to a police investigation) occurs before another event (e.g., the crime is solved), the first event must have caused the second event to occur (see Gilovich, 1991). 5. Kocsis et al. (2000) was not used in the first analysis because the statistical information regarding each groups accuracy levels was not provided (i.e., standard deviations for each group were not provided, and p values were not provided for comparisons between each group). However, that study was included in our second analysis because it provided an omnibus measure of accuracy for both the self-labeled profiler and nonprofiler groups, as well as measures of central tendency. Kocsis et al. (2002) was not included in the second analysis because it did not use any self-labeled profiler groups. 6. A copy of the coding guide is available from Brent Snook.

REFERENCES
References marked with one asterisk indicate studies included in the narrative review. References marked with two asterisks indicate studies included in both the narrative and the meta-analytic reviews. *Aitkens, C. G. G., Connolly, T., Gammerman, A., Zhang, G., Bailey, D., Gordon, R., & Oldfield, R. (1996). Statistical modelling in specific case analysis. Science and Justice, 36, 245-255. *Alison, L. J., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 115-135. *Alison, L. J., & Canter, D. V. (1999a). Professional, legal and ethical issues in offender profiling. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp. 21-54). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. *Alison, L. J., & Canter, D. V. (1999b). Profiling in policy and practice. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp. 1-19). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing *Alison, L. J., & Salfati, C. G. (1998). The investigative psychology approach. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 101-112). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut. *Alison, L. J., Smith, M. D., Eastman, O., & Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmins philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 173-183. *Alison, L. J., Smith, M. D., & Morgan, K. (2002). Interpreting the accuracy of offender profiles. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 185-195. *Annon, J. S. (1995). Investigative profiling: A behavioral analysis of the crime scene. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13, 67-75.
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

449

*sgard, U. (1998). Swedish experiences in offender profiling and evaluation of some aspects of a case of murder and abduction in Germany. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 125-129). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut. *Ault, R. L., Hazelwood, R. R., & Reboussin, R. (1994). Epistemological status of equivocal death analysis. American Psychologist, 49, 72-73. *Ault, R. L., & Reese, J. T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime profiling. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 22-25. *Badcock, R. J. (1997). Developmental and clinical issues in relation to offending in the individual. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 9-41). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Bekerian, D. A., & Jackson, J. L. (1997). Critical issues in offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 209-220). Chichester, England: Wiley. Bennell, C., Jones, N. J., Taylor, P. J., & Snook, B. (2006). Validities and abilities in criminal profiling: A critique of the studies conducted by Richard Kocsis and his colleagues. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 344-360. *Blau, T. H. (1994). Psychological profiling. In T. H. Blau (Ed.), Psychological services for law enforcement (pp. 261-274). New York: Wiley. *Boon, J. C. W. (1997). The contribution of personality theories to psychological profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 43-59). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Boon, J. C. W. (1998). Science, psychology and psychological profiling. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 143-154). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut. *Boon, J. C. W., & Davies, G. (1993). Criminal profiling. Policing, 9, 218-227. *Burgess, A. W., Groth, A. N., Ressler, R. K., & Douglas, J. E. (1980, September). Offender profiles: A multidisciplinary approach. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 16-20. *Campbell, C. (1976, May). Portrait of a mass killer. Psychology Today, 110-119. *Canter, D. V. (1988, March 4). To catch a rapist. New Society, 14-15. *Canter, D. V. (1989, January). Offender profiles. The Psychologist, 2, 12-16. *Canter, D. V. (1993, October). Psychology of offender profiling. Paper presented at the First NISCALE Workshop on Criminality and Law Enforcement, Leiden, The Netherlands. *Canter, D. V. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 23-46. *Canter, D. V. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 1-15. *Canter, D. V., & Alison, L. J. (1999). Profiling in policy and practice. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp. 1-19). Ashgate, England: Aldershot Publishing. *Canter, D. V., & Alison, L. J. (2000). Profiling property crime. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crime (pp. 1-30). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. *Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorganized typology of serial murder: Myth or model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 293-320. *Canter, D. V., & Fritzon, K. (1998). Differentiating arsonists: A model of firesetting actions and characteristics. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 73-96. *Canter, D. V., & Heritage, R. (1990). A multivariate model of sexual offence behaviour: Developments in offender profiling: I. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 185-212. Case Analysis Unit. (1998). Methods of Case Analysis: An International Symposium. Bundeskriminalamt, Wiesbaden, Germany: Kriminalistisches Institut. *Casey-Owens, M. (1984). The anonymous letter writerA psychological profile? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 29, 816-819. Clark, D. (2002). Dark paths, cold trails: How a Mountie led the quest to link serial killers to their victims. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: HarperCollins. *Cook, P. E., & Hinman, D. L. (1999). Criminal profiling: Science and art. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 230-241. *Cooley, C. M., & Turvey, B. E. (2002). Reliability and validity: Admissibility standards relative to forensic experts illustrated by criminal profiling evidence, testimony, and judicial rulings. Journal of Behavioral Profiling, 3. Retrieved May 15, 2003, from http://www.law-forensic.com/jbp_reliability_validity.htm *Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: A study of offender profiling. London: Home Office, Police Research Group. *Copson, G., Badcock, R. J., Boon, J. W. C., & Britton, P. (1997). Editorial: Articulating a systematic approach to clinical crime profiling. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7, 13-17. *Crace, J. (1995). Inside the criminal mind. New Statesman and Society, 8, 29. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180. *Daeid, N. N. (1997). Differences in offender profiling in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Forensic Science International, 90, 25-31. *Davies, A. (1994). Editorial: Offender profiling. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 34, 185-186.

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

450

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

*Davies, A., Wittebrood, K., & Jackson, J. L. (1997). Predicting the criminal antecedents of a stranger rapist from his offence behaviour. Science and Justice, 37, 161-170. *Davis, J. A. (1995, November). The police psychologist: The emergence of behavioral scientists in law enforcement. Police Chief, 62, 36-39. *Davis, J. A. (1997). Criminal psychological personality profiling: A contemporary investigative tool to assist law enforcement. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2, 138-142. *Davis, J. A. (1998). Profile of a sexual predator: A psychological autopsy of an American serial killer. Forensic Examiner, 7, 28-33. *Davis, J. A. (1999). Criminal personality profiling and crime scene assessment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 291-301. *Depue, R. L. (1986, December). An American response to an era of violence. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55, 2-5. *Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986, December). Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55, 9-13. *Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992, February). Violent crime scene analysis: Modus operandi, signature, and staging. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61, 1-10. Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mind hunter: Inside the FBIs elite serial crime unit. New York: Simon and Schuster. Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1997). Journey into darkness: The FBIs premier investigator penetrates the minds and motives of the most terrifying serial criminals. New York: Simon and Schuster. *Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling from crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 4, 401-421. *Egger, S. A. (1999). Psychological profiling: Past, present, and future. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 242-261. *Farrington, D. P., & Lambert, S. (1997). Predicting offender profiles from victim and witness descriptions. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133-158). Chichester, England: Wiley. Fleiss, J. L. (1993). The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2, 121-145 *Fritzon, K. (2000). The contribution of psychological research to arson investigation. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crime (pp. 149-184). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. *Geberth, V. J. (1981, September). Psychological profiling. Law and Order, 29, 46-52. *Geberth, V. J. (1995, November). Criminal personality profiling. Law and Order, 43, 45-49. *Geberth, V. J. (1996). Investigative assessment: Criminal personality profiling. In V. J. Geberth (Ed.), Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques (3rd ed., pp. 489-537). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Paparozzi, M. (2002). The common-sense revolution and correctional policy. In J. Maguire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending (pp. 359386). Chichester, England: Wiley. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isnt so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: The Free Press. *Godwin, M. (1998). Reliability, validity, and utility of extant serial murderer classifications. The Criminologist, 22, 194-210. *Godwin, M. (2002). Reliability, validity, and utility of criminal profiling typologies. Journal of Police and Criminal Profiling, 17, 1-18. *Grubin, D. (1995). Offender profiling. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 6, 259-263. *Gudjonsson, G. H., & Copson, G. (1997). The role of the expert in criminal investigation. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 61-76). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980). The lust murderer. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 18-20. Hazelwood, R. R., Ressler, R. K., Depue, R. L., & Douglas, J. E. (1995). Criminal investigative analysis: An overview. In R. R. Hazelwood & A. W. Burgess (Eds.), Practical aspects of rape investigation: A multidisciplinary approach (2nd ed., pp. 115-126). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. *Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. L. (2000). The sexually violent offender: Impulsive or ritualistic? Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 5, 267-279. Hedges, L. V. (1994). Statistical considerations. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 30-38). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Academic Press. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504. Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. *Holmes, R. M., & De Burger, J. (1988). Serial murder. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. *Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1998). Psychological aspects of crime scene profiling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 319-343. *House, J. C. (1997). Towards a practical application of offender profiling: The RNCs criminal suspect prioritization system. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 177-190). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Howitt, D. (2002). Introduction to forensic and criminal psychology. London: Prentice Hall. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

451

*Jackson, J. L., & Bekerian, D. A. (1997). Does offender profiling have a role to play? In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-7). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Jackson, J. L., Herbrink, J. C. M., & van Koppen, P. J. (1997). An empirical approach to offender profiling. In V. G. S. Redondon, J. Perez, & R. Barbaret (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 333-345). Berlin: De Gruyter. Jackson, J. L., van den Eshof, P., & de Kleuver, E. E. (1997). A research approach to offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 107-132). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Ja?kiewicz-Obydzi?ska, T., & Wach, E. (1999, July). The significance of information about a homicide victim for a psychological profiling of the perpetrator. Paper presented at the International Psychology and Law Conference, Dublin, Ireland. *Kennedy, D. B., & Homant, R. J. (1997). Problems with the use of criminal profiling in premises security litigation. Trial Diplomacy Journal, 20, 223-229. *Keppel, R. D. (2000). Signature murders: A report of the 1984 Cranbrook, British Columbia cases. Journal of Forensic Science, 45, 508-511. *Keppel, R. D., & Walter, R. (1999). Profiling killers: A revised classification model for understanding sexual murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 417-437. *Keppel, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (1993). Improving the investigation of violent crime: The homicide investigation and tracking system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. *Keppel, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (1994). Time and distance as solvability factors in murder cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 386-401. Kimble, G. A. (1994). How to use (and misuse) statistics. New York: Prentice Hall. Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759. *Kocsis, R. N. (2003a). Criminal psychological profiling: Validities and abilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 126-144. *Kocsis, R. N. (2003b). An empirical assessment of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 37-46. **Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An assessment of skills and accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 341-361. *Kocsis, R. N., & Cooksey, R. W. (2002). Criminal psychological profiling of serial arson crimes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 631-656. *Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002a). Psychological profiling of offender characteristics from crime behaviors in serial rape offences. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 144-169. *Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R., & Irwin, H. J. (2002b). Psychological profiling of sexual murders: An empirical model. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 532-554. *Kocsis, R. N., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). Believing is seeing? Investigating the perceived accuracy of criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 149-160. **Kocsis, R. N., Hayes, A. F., & Irwin, H. J. (2002). Investigative experience and accuracy in psychological profiling of a violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 811-823. *Kocsis, R. N., & Heller, G. Z. (2004). Believing is seeing: II. Beliefs and perceptions of criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 313-329. *Kocsis, R. N., Heller, G. Z., & Try, A. (2003). Visual versus narrative case material: The impact of criminal psychological profiling. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 664-676. *Kocsis, R. N., & Irwin, H. J. (1998). The psychological profile of serial offenders and a redefinition of the misnomer of serial crime. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5, 197-213. *Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., & Hayes, A. F. (1998). Organised and disorganised criminal behaviour syndromes in arsonists: A validation study of a psychological profiling concept. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 5, 117-131. **Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., Hayes, A. F., & Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in psychological profiling. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 311-331. *Kocsis, R. N., & Middledorp, J. (2004). Believing is seeing: III. Perceptions of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 477-494. **Kocsis, R. N., Middledorp, J., & Try, A. C. (2005). Cognitive processes in criminal profile construction: A preliminary study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 662-681. *Kuznestov, A., & Pierson, T. A. (1992). Victim age as a basis for profiling sex offenders. Federal Probation, 56, 34-38. Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66, 43-49. *Leyton, E. (1983). A social profile of sexual mass murderers. In T. Fleming & L. Visano (Eds.), Deviant designations: Crime law and deviance in Canada (pp. 98-107). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworth. *Lynch, I., & Dale, A. (1994, June). Profiling the burglars. Police Review, 102, 18-19. *Macdonald, J. M., & Michaud, D. L. (1987). Criminal profiles. In J. M. Macdonald & D. L. Michaud (Eds.), The confession: Interrogation and criminal profiles for police officers (pp. 191-196). Denver, CO: Apache Press. Matlin, M. W. (1998). Cognition (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

452

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

*McCann, J. T. (1992). Criminal personality profiling in the investigation of violent crime: Recent advances and future directions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 475-481. McCosh, J. (1996). The Scottish philosophy [Online]. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://socserv2.socsci. mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/mccosh/scottishphilosophy.pdf (Original work published 1875) *McGrath, M. G. (2000). Criminal profiling: Is there a role for the forensic psychiatrist? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 315-324. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 361-365. *McPoyle, T. J. (1981, Spring). The investigative technique of criminal personality profiling. Your Virginia State Trooper Magazine, 3, 87-91. *Mokros, A., & Alison, L. J. (2002). Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted homology of crime scene actions and background characteristics in a sample of rapists. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 25-43. *Muller, D. A. (2000). Criminal profiling: Real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide Studies, 4, 234-264. Myers, D. G. (1996). Social psychology (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. *Nowikowski, F. (1995). Psychological offender profiling: An overview. The Criminologist, 19, 225-226. *Oleson, J. C. (1996). Psychological profiling: Does it actually work? Forensic Update, 46, 11-14. *Ormerod, D. C. (1996a). The evidential implications of psychological profiling. Criminal Law Review, 717, 863-877. *Ormerod, D. C. (1996b). Psychological profiling. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 341-352. *Ormerod, D. C. (1999). Criminal profiling: Trial by judge and jury, not criminal psychologist. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp. 209-249). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. *Palermo, G. B. (2002). Criminal profiling: The uniqueness of the killer. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 383-385. *Pinizzotto, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profiling. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32-40. **Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215-233. *Porter, B. (1983, April). Mind hunters: Tracking down killers with the FBIs psychological profiling team. Psychology Today, 17, 44-52. *Rayment, M. (1995, January). Inside the mind of a criminal. NSW Police News, 75, 15-18. Reiser, M., Ludwig, L., Saxe, S., & Wagner, C. (1979). Evaluation of the use of psychics in the investigation of major crimes. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 18-25. *Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Depue, R. L., Douglas, J. E., & Hazelwood, R. R. (1985, August). Crime scene and profile characteristics of organized and disorganized murderers. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 54, 18-25. *Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., & DAgostino, R. B. (1986). Sexual killers and their victims: Identifying patterns through crime scene analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 288-308. Ressler, R. K., & Schachtman, T. (1992). Whoever fights monsters: My twenty years tracking serial killers for the FBI. New York: St. Martins Press. *Rider, A. O. (1980, June). The firesetter: A psychological profile. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 40, 6-13. *Rogers, M. (2003). The role of criminal profiling in the computer forensics process. Computers and Security, 22, 292-298. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169. *Rossi, D. (1982, January). Crime scene behavioral analysis: Another tool for the law enforcement investigator. The Police Chief, 1, 152-155. *Rossmo, D. K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. *Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J., & Nussbaum, K. (2000). Elderly female serial sexual homicide: A limited empirical test of criminal investigative analysis. Homicide Studies, 4, 294-307. *Salfati, C. G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implications for offender profiling. Homicide Studies, 4, 265-293. *Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 391-406. *Santilla, P., Hkknen, H., Canter, D. V., & Elfgren, T. (2003). Classifying homicide offenders and predicting their characteristics from crime scene behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 107-118. Schenker, N., & Gentleman, J. F. (2001). On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. The American Statistician, 55, 182-186. Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implication for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129. *Scott, D., Lambie, I., Henwood, D., & Lamb, R. (2003). Profiling stranger rapists: Its not so elementary, doctor Watson. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 21, 31-49.

Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008

Snook et al. / TAKING STOCK OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

453

*Smith, C. (1993). Psychological offender profiling. The Criminologist, 17, 244-250. Smithson, M. (2003). Confidence intervals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Stevens, J. A. (1997). Standard investigatory tools and offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 77-91). Chichester, England: Wiley. *Torres, A. N., Boccaccini, M. T., & Miller, H. A. (2006). Perceptions of the validity and utility of criminal profiling among forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 51-58. *Trager, J., & Brewster, J. (2001). The effectiveness of psychological profiles. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 16, 20-25. *Turco, R. N. (1990). Psychological profiling. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 147-154. Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. *Van den Eshof, P., & Schippers, C. (1998). Behavioural science-based criminal investigation expertise. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 131-139). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut. *Verma, A. (1997). Construction of offender profiles using fuzzy logic. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, 20, 408-418. *Vorpagel, R. E. (1982, January). Painting psychological profiles: Charlatanism, coincidence, charisma, chance or new science. The Police Chief, 156-159. *Wells, S., & West, A. (1998). The national crime faculty and offender profiling: An eyewitness account of what happened. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 113-124). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut. *West, A. (2000). Clinical assessment of homicide offenders: The significance of crime scene in offense and offender analysis. Homicide Studies, 4, 219-233. Wilkinson, L., & The Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. *Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. N. (1997). Validity, utility and ethics of profiling for serial violent and sexual offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4, 1-12. *Wilson, P., & Soothill, K. (1996, January). Psychological profiling: Red, green or amber? The Police Journal, 12-20. *Winerman, L. (2004). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. Monitor on Psychology, 35, 66-69. *Witkin, G. (1996, April 22). How the FBI paints portraits of the nations most wanted. U.S. News and World Report, 120, 32. *Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (1999). Historical foundations and current applications of criminal profiling in violent crime investigations. Expert Evidence, 7, 241-264. Yeaton, W. H., & Wortman, P. M. (1993). On the reliability of meta-analytic reviews: The role of intercoder agreement. Evaluation Review, 17, 292-309.

Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB) is pleased to offer the opportunity to earn continuing education credits online for this article. Please follow the access instructions below. The cost is $9 per unit, and a credit card number is required for payment. Access for AACFP members: Go to the AACFP homepage (www.aa4cfp.org) and log in to the site using your email address Click on the Publications heading in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the page or on the Publications icon at the bottom of the page Click on the CJB cover image located at the bottom of the page. You will be prompted for your user name and password to log in to the journal Once you have logged in to CJB, select the appropriate issue and article for which you wish to take the test, then click on the link in the article to be directed to the test (note: only marked articles are eligible for continuing education credits) Access for institutional subscribers: Log in through your library or university portal to access CJB Select the appropriate issue and article, then click on the link in the article to be directed to the test (note: only marked articles are eligible for continuing education credits) If you are not a member of the AACFP and your institution does not subscribe to CJB, individual articles (and corresponding test links within the articles) are available on a pay-per-view basis by visiting http://cjb.sagepub.com. However, membership in the AACFP provides you with unlimited access to CJB and many additional membership benefits! Learn more about becoming a member at www.aa4cfp.org. Should you have difficulty accessing this articles test or the website, please contact Eddie Santos for further assistance at eddie.santos@sagepub.com or 805-410-7528.
Downloaded from http://cjb.sagepub.com at Uni Transilvania Brasov on September 18, 2008