The typology (top-down) approach

Developed in the 1970s by the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers, including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. It is a qualitative approach: the profiler starts with a pre-existing template and fits the evidence into it.

The FBI concluded murderers fall into two categories:

• Organised offender — the crime is planned; the victim is deliberately targeted; the offender has a 'type'. There is a high degree of control at the crime scene, and little evidence is left behind. Typically of above-average intelligence, in skilled work, socially and sexually competent, and often married with children.
• Disorganised offender — the crime is spontaneous and unplanned; the scene reflects the impulsive nature of the attack, and the body is usually still at the scene. Typically of lower-than-average IQ, in unskilled work or unemployed, with a history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships. Often lives alone and close to the scene.

The four stages of profile construction: 1. Data assimilation (the profiler reviews all the evidence); 2. Crime scene classification (organised or disorganised); 3. Crime reconstruction (hypotheses about the sequence of events and the victim's behaviour); 4. Profile generation (a hypothesis about the offender: physical characteristics, background, behaviour).

Evaluation: the classification is based on interviews with 36 self-selected serial killers — a small, unrepresentative sample of manipulative individuals whose accounts cannot be trusted, and who are hardly typical of offenders in general. The approach is also criticised as too simplistic: Canter et al. (2004) analysed data from 100 US murders using smallest space analysis and found evidence of a subset of features matching the organised type, but no distinct disorganised type — the 'disorganised' characteristics occurred across the sample. The typology may therefore be a false dichotomy, and many offenders show features of both. Top-down profiling is also limited to a narrow range of crimes: it works only for murder, rape and arson, where the scene reveals psychological detail, and is useless for burglary or fraud.

The data-driven (bottom-up) approach

Canter's approach is data-driven and statistical: the profile 'emerges' from a rigorous analysis of the evidence, with no initial assumptions.

• Investigative psychology. Statistical analysis establishes a baseline for how offences are typically committed, so that any particular crime can be compared. Key concepts: interpersonal coherence (the way an offender behaves at the scene, including how he interacts with the victim, reflects his behaviour in everyday life); the significance of time and place; and forensic awareness (an offender who covers his tracks may have been the subject of police interrogation before). Canter and Heritage (1990) analysed 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis and identified common behaviours (impersonal language, lack of reaction to the victim), showing that offences can be classified by their behavioural patterns.
• Geographical profiling. Based on the principle of spatial consistency — offenders commit crimes within a limited geographical space. Mapping the crime scenes generates a 'centre of gravity' which may indicate the offender's base. Canter's circle theory distinguishes the marauder (who operates close to his home base) from the commuter (who travels away from his home to offend). The pattern of offending may form a circle around the offender's home, and the distribution can reveal his 'mental map', mode of transport and employment status.
• The Railway Rapist. Canter's profile of John Duffy, based on the geographical pattern of the offences, contributed to his arrest — a much-cited success.

Evaluation: the bottom-up approach is more scientific and objective than the top-down: it is grounded in psychological theory and statistical analysis rather than a small sample of interviews, and it applies to a wider range of offences (including burglary and theft). Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases in the USA and found that spatial consistency did exist — the offenders' base was invariably located in the centre of the pattern of offences, especially for marauders. However, profiling of any kind has produced some notorious failures — the profile in the Rachel Nickell case contributed to a serious miscarriage of justice — and Copson (1995) found that although 83% of police officers surveyed said profiling advice had been useful, it had led to the identification of the offender in only 3% of cases.

Top-down or bottom-up?

Biological explanations: genetics and neural

• Genetic explanations. Twin studies: Christiansen (1977) studied over 3,500 twin pairs in Denmark and found concordance rates for criminal behaviour of about 35% for MZ males and 13% for DZ males — evidence of a genetic component, but far from 100%. Candidate genes: Tiihonen et al. (2015) conducted a genetic analysis of almost 900 Finnish offenders and found abnormalities in two genes associated with violent crime — the MAOA gene (which regulates dopamine and serotonin and has been linked to aggressive behaviour) and the CDH13 gene (which has been linked to substance abuse and ADHD). The researchers estimated that about 5–10% of all severe violent crime in Finland is attributable to these genotypes.
• Neural explanations. Raine et al. (1997) conducted PET scans on 41 murderers who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and compared them with 41 matched controls. The murderers showed reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex — the area that regulates emotional behaviour and impulse control — as well as abnormal asymmetry in the amygdala. Raine has also reported that people with antisocial personality disorder have reduced grey matter in the prefrontal cortex. Mirror neurons may also be implicated: Keysers et al. (2011) found that offenders with APD could only empathise with another's pain when asked to do so — suggesting they have a neural 'empathy switch' that is normally off, rather than a complete absence of empathy.

Evaluation: twin studies are confounded by shared environments — MZ twins are treated more similarly than DZ twins, so a higher MZ concordance may not be purely genetic. Adoption studies partly solve this, and they too find a biological-relative effect. But concordance is far below 100%, so genes are at most a vulnerability. Raine's neural evidence is correlational and drawn from a very unusual sample (murderers pleading not guilty by reason of insanity), so it cannot be generalised to offenders in general, and reduced prefrontal activity may be a consequence of a violent life rather than its cause. The biological approach as a whole is deterministic, which raises serious questions for a legal system founded on personal responsibility — a socially sensitive issue, since a genetic 'explanation' could be used to screen or detain people who have committed no offence.

Spec check: Lombroso's atavistic form has been removed from 7182 v1.4. The named biological explanations are now genetic and neural only.

Eysenck, cognitive explanations and differential association

• Eysenck's theory of the criminal personality. Personality has three dimensions, measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): extraversion (E), neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P). The criminal personality is high on all three. The biological basis: extraverts have an under-active nervous system, so they constantly seek stimulation and take risks; neurotics have a highly reactive sympathetic nervous system, making them jumpy, unstable and unpredictable. High E and N individuals also condition poorly, so they do not learn from punishment — the mechanism by which children normally learn to delay gratification and act socially.
• Cognitive explanations. Kohlberg's levels of moral reasoning: offenders are more likely to be at the pre-conventional level (stages 1 and 2) — obeying rules only to avoid punishment or gain reward — while non-offenders typically progress to the conventional level and beyond. Cognitive distortions: the hostile attribution bias (misreading neutral or ambiguous cues, such as a stranger's expression, as hostile and threatening — which provokes a violent response) and minimalisation (downplaying the seriousness of the offence; a burglar describes himself as 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family'; Barbaree found among incarcerated rapists that 54% denied they had committed an offence at all).
• Differential association theory (Sutherland, 1939). Offending is learned, entirely through interaction with others, in exactly the same way as any other behaviour. What is learned is (1) pro-criminal attitudes and values, and (2) specific techniques for committing crime. If the number of pro-criminal attitudes a person is exposed to outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes, they will offend. It is a genuinely scientific, testable theory that also explains why so many offenders reoffend after prison — prison is the ultimate environment for learning pro-criminal attitudes and techniques.

Evaluation: Eysenck's theory is undermined by Farrington et al. (1982), who reviewed the evidence and found that offenders scored highly on P, but not consistently on E and N — so the criminal personality does not hold up. It is also doubtful that a single personality type could describe the enormous variety of offending. Differential association is a huge improvement on biological accounts because it explains crime across all social classes and it is not deterministic in the biological sense — but it is difficult to test, since we cannot measure the number of pro-criminal attitudes a person has been exposed to. Cognitive explanations, meanwhile, may be descriptive rather than causal — hostile attribution bias and minimalisation certainly characterise offenders' thinking, but they may be a consequence of an offending lifestyle (or a way of justifying it after the fact) rather than its cause.

Spec check: the psychodynamic explanation of offending (the inadequate superego) has been removed from 7182 v1.4, along with Lombroso's atavistic form.

Which explanation?

Custodial sentencing, behaviour modification and anger management

Custodial sentencing. The four aims: deterrence (general and individual), incapacitation (protecting the public), retribution (society exacting revenge) and rehabilitation. The psychological effects are severe: stress and depression (suicide rates in prison are considerably higher than in the general population), institutionalisation (prisoners become so accustomed to the norms of prison that they cannot function outside), and prisonisation (the adoption of an inmate code of behaviour that is unacceptable outside). Recidivism rates in the UK are high — close to half of adults released from custody reoffend within a year — which raises fundamental questions about whether prison works. Differential association offers a good explanation: prison is an unrivalled 'university of crime'.

Behaviour modification in custody. A token economy based on operant conditioning. Desirable behaviours (avoiding conflict, following rules, keeping a cell tidy) are identified and operationalised, then rewarded with tokens (secondary reinforcers) which can be exchanged for primary reinforcers — phone calls, a visit, cigarettes. Rewards must be given immediately and staff must be trained to apply the scheme consistently. Hobbs and Holt (1976) introduced a token economy with young offenders across three institutional units and found a significant increase in desirable behaviour compared with a control group.

Anger management (Novaco). A form of CBT, based on the idea that cognitive factors trigger the emotional arousal that precedes aggression. Three stages:

• 1. Cognitive preparation — the offender reflects on past episodes and identifies the triggers for their anger. The therapist helps them see that their interpretation of the event is irrational, and re-frames it.
• 2. Skill acquisition — the offender is taught skills to deal with anger rationally: cognitive (positive self-talk to promote calm), behavioural (assertiveness training, so they can communicate effectively without aggression) and physiological (relaxation and meditation techniques).
• 3. Application practice — the offender role-plays the triggering scenario with the therapist under carefully monitored conditions, and is positively reinforced for handling it successfully.

Evaluation: token economies produce measurable improvement in behaviour, but the effects are often lost as soon as the offender leaves the institution (there is no incentive outside), and the changes are superficial — the offender complies to get the rewards, without any change in attitude. Anger management is better in principle because it tackles the cause and gives the offender lasting skills, and unlike behaviour modification it requires the offender to actively engage. But it is expensive (needs trained specialists), and success depends on the offender's commitment. Blackburn notes that the improvement demonstrated in role-play does not necessarily transfer to the real, unpredictable and highly emotional situations that trigger anger outside — and evidence for a lasting effect on recidivism is weak.

Restorative justice

Restorative justice switches the focus of the criminal justice system from punishing the offender to repairing the harm done to the victim. It is a supervised, voluntary meeting (or, sometimes, a letter or video link) between the survivor and the offender, in which:

• The survivor explains the real impact of the crime — the practical and emotional consequences — which gives them the chance to be heard and to move on.
• The offender is confronted with the human consequences of what they did, and must take active responsibility for it. The theory is that this develops empathy and remorse.
• Reparation may be agreed — financial compensation, or unpaid work.

Key features: it is survivor-centred, both parties must take part voluntarily and with informed consent, and it takes place in a non-courtroom setting with a trained mediator. It may run alongside a prison sentence, as an alternative to one, or as an addition to community service.

Evaluation: the UK Restorative Justice Council reports high rates of survivor satisfaction — surveys have consistently found around 85% of survivors who take part say they are satisfied with the process — and a Home Office-funded evaluation found that restorative justice was associated with a reduction in reoffending. It is also far cheaper than prison. But there are serious criticisms: the process can be traumatic for survivors, who may feel pressured into participating and may be re-victimised by the encounter — which is why voluntary participation and careful selection are so important. Success depends heavily on the offender feeling genuine remorse rather than simply playing along to reduce their sentence, which is very hard to verify. There is also a feminist critique of its use in cases of domestic violence, where the power imbalance between the parties may make a meeting inherently unsafe.

Which programme?

Which profiling approach?

Custodial sentencing

Canter's challenge to the FBI

Eysenck's problem

Why do offenders reoffend after prison?

Evaluating restorative justice

Whose theory?

Tap a card, then the type of explanation it belongs to.

Term and meaning

Tap an item on the left, then its partner on the right.

The big ideas to know

You have covered the key ideas in AQA 4.3.9 Forensic Psychology. Press Finish to see your score.