Forensic psychology
Offender profiling: Top down approach
Offender profiling = working out the characteristics of an offender by examining characteristics of the
crime + crime scene
Top down approach = analysing previous crimes to create a profile of a likely offender, knowledge then
used to narrow field of suspects
● Originated with the FBI in the US
● Douglas et al (2006) came up with the 6 main stages to the approach
● Relies on the intuition + beliefs of the profiller (intuition based approach)
● 6 stages
Stages to the top-down approach
Stage 1: Profiling inputs
● Gathering all the data of the crime (e.g. DNA, any witnesses, description of crime scene,
background info about victim, weapons, cause of death…)
● All info, even if appears trivial, should be included
● Suspects should not be considered at this stage as this may bias info collected
Stage 2: Decision process models
● Looking to find meaningful patterns
● See if consistency between crimes
● Consider issues, such as murder type (e.g. mass, spree, serial murders), time factors (e.g. did
crime take long or short time, night or day?), location factors (e.g. was crime scene same as
murder scene?)
Stage 3: Crime assessment
● Based on data collected - crime classified as organised or disorganised
● Organised type of offender - crime tends to be planned (e.g. hidden weapons), victim is
specifically targeted, these offenders are generally high in intelligence and socially competent,
may follow their crimes in the media
● Disorganised type of offender - opposite, unplanned crime, random victim, likely to engage very
little with victim, crime scene left with many clues (e.g. blood, fingerprints, weapon), lower
intelligence + lower competence
Stage 4: Criminal profile
● Profile now constructed of offender which includes hypothesis about their background, habits +
beliefs about offender
● Description is used to work out strategy for investigation to help catch offender
● Important to anticipate how they may respond - e.g. how offender may be interviewed if caught
Stage 5: Crime assessment
● Assess + apprehend
● Report written up
● If successful then apprehend, if not then back to step 2
,Stage 6: Apprehension
● If suspect apprehended the entire profile-generating process is reviewed to check each stage +
conclusions made were legitimate + consider how process may be revised for future cases
AO3
1. Point: Police who have used the FBI methods believe that the top-down approach to offender
profiling is useful
Evidence: For example, Copson questioned 184 US police officers and 82% said that the technique was
operationally useful and over 90% said they would use it again. Scherer and Jarvis defended the top
down process by looking at other potential contributors beyond the identification of the offender, e.g.
offers investigators a different perspective by opening up new avenues for investigation and may prevent
wrongful convictions
Link: Therefore, all this evidence provides support for the usefulness of the approach
2. Point: A criticism of the top down approach is that the original data on which the organised /
disorganised classification is based on may be flawed
Evidence: The data came from interviews with 36 of the most dangerous and sexually motivated
murderers, such as Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. The data was used to identify the key
characteristics that would help the police to ‘read’ the crime scene
Explanation: This makes it a dubious approach as such individuals (who are highly intelligent +
manipulative) are not likely to be the best source of reliable information and their approach and rationale
may be quite different to more ‘typical’ offenders.
Link: This suggests that the approach may not be reliable and it lowers the external validity of the
findings. Therefore, the findings have limited generalisability
- However, the criminals don't have any reason to be honest in their interviews, because due to the
extent of their violent crimes their sentences will not be reduced, they may lie during it. Also, as
speaking to the interviewers is something different from their mundane prison experience they
may keep lying in order to keep speaking to them as it is time away from their everyday norms
3. Point: Some argue that the dichotomy between organised and disorganised is false and it is more
likely to be a continuum rather than two distinct categories
Evidence: Critics argue that the descriptions use phrases such as ‘tends to be’ and thus it generalises.
Douglas et al proposed a solution to this, to have a 3rd category called the ‘mixed’ offender
Explanation: However this would seem to lessen the usefulness of the classification as if you get
everyone else in a third category, the large range of people makes it become redundant to use. A scale
may be more appropriate to classify the types of offenders instead. This is also supported by Carpenter
who provided evidence that the classification has little basis of reality, they analysed 39 aspects of serial
, killings in murders committed by 100 US serial killers and found no clear division between organised and
disorganised types of offenders.
Link: Therefore, this suggests that having just two distinct categories is not the best approach to classify
types of offenders, limiting the top-down approach when profiling offenders
Offender profiling: Bottom-up approach
Bottom up approach = a data driven approach where statistical techniques are used to produce
predictions about the likely characteristics of an offender
Investigative psychology = a form of bottom up profiling based on psychological theory
● Proposed by Canter
● British approach
● Values / relies on theory + research (statistical analysis) in order to create the offender profiles
● Data driven approach - relies on putting info into computer programs
Investigative psychology
= A form of bottom up profiling based on psychological theory
● 3 main features of the approach
1. Interpersonal coherence
● Trends + patterns - assumes people act consistently (behaviour in everyday life reflected
in criminal behaviour)
● Consistent in behaviour and therefore links with elements of the crime + their everyday
life
2. Forensic awareness
● Criminal has an awareness of how forensic psychology / offender profiling / police
techniques takes place & certain behaviours may reveal this
● E.g. Davies found that those who concealed fingerprints in their crimes were more likely
to have had previous convictions of burglary
3. Smallest space analysis (can compare to top down with categorising, top down uses organised /
disorganised)
● Statistical technique developed by Canter
● Data about many crime scenes and offender characteristics are correlated so common
connections can be identified
● Canter and Salfati (Caner et al) analysed the co-occurrence of 48 crime scenes and
offender characteristics taken from 82 UK murder cases where the victim was a stranger
& were able to identify 3 underlying themes:
- Instrumental opportunistic (opportunistic refers to it being easy / accomplishing a
goal drives them to do it)
- Instrumental cognitive (concern over being caught so planned / premeditated)
Offender profiling: Top down approach
Offender profiling = working out the characteristics of an offender by examining characteristics of the
crime + crime scene
Top down approach = analysing previous crimes to create a profile of a likely offender, knowledge then
used to narrow field of suspects
● Originated with the FBI in the US
● Douglas et al (2006) came up with the 6 main stages to the approach
● Relies on the intuition + beliefs of the profiller (intuition based approach)
● 6 stages
Stages to the top-down approach
Stage 1: Profiling inputs
● Gathering all the data of the crime (e.g. DNA, any witnesses, description of crime scene,
background info about victim, weapons, cause of death…)
● All info, even if appears trivial, should be included
● Suspects should not be considered at this stage as this may bias info collected
Stage 2: Decision process models
● Looking to find meaningful patterns
● See if consistency between crimes
● Consider issues, such as murder type (e.g. mass, spree, serial murders), time factors (e.g. did
crime take long or short time, night or day?), location factors (e.g. was crime scene same as
murder scene?)
Stage 3: Crime assessment
● Based on data collected - crime classified as organised or disorganised
● Organised type of offender - crime tends to be planned (e.g. hidden weapons), victim is
specifically targeted, these offenders are generally high in intelligence and socially competent,
may follow their crimes in the media
● Disorganised type of offender - opposite, unplanned crime, random victim, likely to engage very
little with victim, crime scene left with many clues (e.g. blood, fingerprints, weapon), lower
intelligence + lower competence
Stage 4: Criminal profile
● Profile now constructed of offender which includes hypothesis about their background, habits +
beliefs about offender
● Description is used to work out strategy for investigation to help catch offender
● Important to anticipate how they may respond - e.g. how offender may be interviewed if caught
Stage 5: Crime assessment
● Assess + apprehend
● Report written up
● If successful then apprehend, if not then back to step 2
,Stage 6: Apprehension
● If suspect apprehended the entire profile-generating process is reviewed to check each stage +
conclusions made were legitimate + consider how process may be revised for future cases
AO3
1. Point: Police who have used the FBI methods believe that the top-down approach to offender
profiling is useful
Evidence: For example, Copson questioned 184 US police officers and 82% said that the technique was
operationally useful and over 90% said they would use it again. Scherer and Jarvis defended the top
down process by looking at other potential contributors beyond the identification of the offender, e.g.
offers investigators a different perspective by opening up new avenues for investigation and may prevent
wrongful convictions
Link: Therefore, all this evidence provides support for the usefulness of the approach
2. Point: A criticism of the top down approach is that the original data on which the organised /
disorganised classification is based on may be flawed
Evidence: The data came from interviews with 36 of the most dangerous and sexually motivated
murderers, such as Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. The data was used to identify the key
characteristics that would help the police to ‘read’ the crime scene
Explanation: This makes it a dubious approach as such individuals (who are highly intelligent +
manipulative) are not likely to be the best source of reliable information and their approach and rationale
may be quite different to more ‘typical’ offenders.
Link: This suggests that the approach may not be reliable and it lowers the external validity of the
findings. Therefore, the findings have limited generalisability
- However, the criminals don't have any reason to be honest in their interviews, because due to the
extent of their violent crimes their sentences will not be reduced, they may lie during it. Also, as
speaking to the interviewers is something different from their mundane prison experience they
may keep lying in order to keep speaking to them as it is time away from their everyday norms
3. Point: Some argue that the dichotomy between organised and disorganised is false and it is more
likely to be a continuum rather than two distinct categories
Evidence: Critics argue that the descriptions use phrases such as ‘tends to be’ and thus it generalises.
Douglas et al proposed a solution to this, to have a 3rd category called the ‘mixed’ offender
Explanation: However this would seem to lessen the usefulness of the classification as if you get
everyone else in a third category, the large range of people makes it become redundant to use. A scale
may be more appropriate to classify the types of offenders instead. This is also supported by Carpenter
who provided evidence that the classification has little basis of reality, they analysed 39 aspects of serial
, killings in murders committed by 100 US serial killers and found no clear division between organised and
disorganised types of offenders.
Link: Therefore, this suggests that having just two distinct categories is not the best approach to classify
types of offenders, limiting the top-down approach when profiling offenders
Offender profiling: Bottom-up approach
Bottom up approach = a data driven approach where statistical techniques are used to produce
predictions about the likely characteristics of an offender
Investigative psychology = a form of bottom up profiling based on psychological theory
● Proposed by Canter
● British approach
● Values / relies on theory + research (statistical analysis) in order to create the offender profiles
● Data driven approach - relies on putting info into computer programs
Investigative psychology
= A form of bottom up profiling based on psychological theory
● 3 main features of the approach
1. Interpersonal coherence
● Trends + patterns - assumes people act consistently (behaviour in everyday life reflected
in criminal behaviour)
● Consistent in behaviour and therefore links with elements of the crime + their everyday
life
2. Forensic awareness
● Criminal has an awareness of how forensic psychology / offender profiling / police
techniques takes place & certain behaviours may reveal this
● E.g. Davies found that those who concealed fingerprints in their crimes were more likely
to have had previous convictions of burglary
3. Smallest space analysis (can compare to top down with categorising, top down uses organised /
disorganised)
● Statistical technique developed by Canter
● Data about many crime scenes and offender characteristics are correlated so common
connections can be identified
● Canter and Salfati (Caner et al) analysed the co-occurrence of 48 crime scenes and
offender characteristics taken from 82 UK murder cases where the victim was a stranger
& were able to identify 3 underlying themes:
- Instrumental opportunistic (opportunistic refers to it being easy / accomplishing a
goal drives them to do it)
- Instrumental cognitive (concern over being caught so planned / premeditated)
