Perceptions of the validity and utility of criminal profiling among forensic psychologists and psychiatrists

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 51-58

  Torres, Angela N ^a   Boccaccini, Marcus T ^a   Miller, Holly A ^a  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Criminal investigative analysis; Forensic; General acceptance; Profiling

Indexed keywords

EID: 32844473442     PISSN: 07357028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Alison, L., West, A., & Goodwill, A. (2004). The academic and the practitioner: Pragmatists' views of offender profiling. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 71-101.
2. Bartol, C. R. (1996). Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 70-89.
3. Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2004). Psychology and law (3rd ed.). Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
4. Canter, D. (1995). Criminal shadows: Inside the mind of the serial killer. London: HarperCollins.
5. 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.
6. Canter, D. V., Bennell, C., Alison, L., & Reddy, S. (2003). Differentiating sex offenses: A behaviorally based thematic classification of stranger rapes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 157-174.
7. Canter, D. V., & Wentink, N. (2004). An empirical test of Holmes and Holmes's serial murder typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 489-515.
8. Constanzo, M. (2004). Psychology applied to law. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
9. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
10. Cooley, C. M., & Turvey, B. E. (2002, June). Reliability and validity: Admissibility standards relative to forensic experts illustrated by criminal profiling evidence, testimony, and judicial rulings. Journal of Behavioral Profiling, 3(1). Retrieved August 12, 2002, from http://www. profiling.org/journal/index.html
11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
12. Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Rethinking the probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling, and the "postdiction" of behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 133-158.
13. Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986, December). Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55(12), 9-13.
14. Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mind hunter: Inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit. New York: Mindhunters.
15. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
16. Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1997). Forensic psychological expertise in the wake of Daubert. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 121-140.
17. Grezlak, H. (1999, April 12). Profiling testimony inadmissible in murder trial. The Pennsylvania Law Weekly, p. 3.
18. Grubin, D. (1995, September). Offender profiling. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 6, 259-263.
19. Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1998). Psychological aspects of crime scene profiling: Validity research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 319-343.
20. Honts, C. R., & Quick, B. D. (1995). The polygraph in 1995: Progress in science and the law. North Dakota Law Review, 71, 987-1019.
21. lacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
22. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
23. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
24. Kocsis, R. N. (2003a). Criminal psychological profiling: Validities and abilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 126-144.
25. Kocsis, R. N. (2003b). An empirical assessment of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 37-46.
26. Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An assessment of skills and accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 341-361.
27. Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002). Psychological profiling of sexual murders: An empirical model. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 532-554.
28. 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.
29. Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., Hayes, A. F., & Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in psychological profiling: A comparative assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 311-331.
30. Pinizzotto, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profiling. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32-40.
31. Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215-233.
32. Ressler, R. K., & Burgess, A. W. (1985, August). Violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1-32.
33. Risinger, D. M., & Loop, J. L. (2002). Three card monte, Monty Hall, modus operandi, and "offender profiling": Some lessons of modern cognitive science for the law of evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 24, 193-285.
34. Rossmo, D. K. (1999). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
35. Salfati, C. G. (2003). Offender interaction with victims in homicide: A multidimensional analysis of frequencies in crime scene behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 490-512.
36. Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 391-406.
37. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliot, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
38. Snook, B., Canter, D., & Bennell, C. (2002). Predicting the home location of serial offenders: A preliminary comparison of the accuracy of human judges with a geographic profiling system. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 109-118.
39. Turvey, B. E. (2002). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral analysis (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40. United States v. Meeks, 35 M. J. 64 (CMA 1992).
41. Weinerman, L. (2004a). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. Monitor on Psychology, 35(7), 66-69.
42. Weinerman, L. (2004b). Does profiling really work? Monitor on Psychology, 35(7), 67.
43. Wells, G. (2003). Murder, extramarital affairs, and the issue of probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 623-628.
44. Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. (1997). Validity, utility and ethics of profiling for serial violent and sexual offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 4, 1-11.
45. Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M. (2005). Forensic psychology (2nd ed.). Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.