CHAPTER 10: POLICE PSYCHOLOGY

• cognitive characteristics, such as reading, writing, and memory abilities, that facilitate the understanding of and adherence to laws, policies, and regulations
• physical characteristics, such as health and fitness, that facilitate performance of challenging tasks (e.g., rescue, shift work, self-defence, use of weapons)
• interpersonal characteristics, such as good communication skills, sensitivity, and a sense of humour, that facilitate positive interaction with fellow officers and with members of the public
• psychological characteristics, such as motivation, resilience, and flexibility, that facilitate problemand emotion-focused coping with job-related tasks and stresses
• moral characteristics, such as honesty, good judgment, integrity, and reliability, that facilitate sound decisions, some of which involve matters of life and death (e.g., use of deadly force)

Applicant Screening

Identifying the core and specific KSAOs for law enforcement makes it much easier to develop thorough and rigorous procedures for identifying the job applicants who are best suited for a career in a given agency. Applicant screening, also known as “police selection,” is the process of evaluating applicants— either before or after an initial offer of employment is made—to ensure that they have the minimum KSAOs required for their jobs. Police psychologists help to develop and evaluate applicant screening procedures; they also conduct actual evaluations by administering various assessment procedures. Guidelines to assist applicant screening have been developed by the Police Psychological Services Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The applicant screening procedures used by some agencies also are guided by statutory requirements or national accreditation standards.

In most circumstances, applicant screening conducted prior to an offer of employment is not carried out directly by police psychologists; rather, police psychologists assist in the development and evaluation of screening procedures, and they may also supervise the administration and interpretation of assessment procedures. Screening at this stage focuses on general cognitive or intellectual abilities, basic or normal personality functions, and physical fitness. Psychological assessment procedures used at this stage may include intelligence tests to assess cognitive abilities, and self-report questionnaires to assess personality functions. In addition to any psychological assessment procedures, applicants typically undergo background checks, medical exams, personal interviews, situational tests (a sort of structured role-play exercise), and physical ability tests. Once the pool of applicants has been narrowed and initial offers of employment have been made, a second screening process focuses on assessment of mental health, substance use, and morals or values. This is the stage at which direct involvement of police psychologists is required. Psychological assessment procedures used at this stage may include clinical interviews to assess mental health. In addition, candidates may undergo further interviews and situational tests, drug testing, and even polygraph tests (Cochrane, Tett, & Vandecreek, 2003; Gallo, 2008).

The Effectiveness of Applicant Screening

Applicant screening sounds like a good idea, but does it work? Research on the effectiveness of applicant screening procedures has yielded three general findings:

• Many individual assessment procedures predict some aspects of job success, although their predictive power is limited. For example, Weiss, Zehner, Davis, Rostow, and DeCoster-Martin (2005) examined the predictive validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1996, 2007), a self-report test of personality and psychopathology, with respect to subsequent performance problems in a sample of 800 police officer candidates in the United States. The specific performance problems they examined were related to insubordination, citizen complaints, and neglect of duty. Looking at specific scales of the PAI that measure antisocial behaviour, attitudes, and personality, they found small but statistically significant correlations with performance problems. Similar findings have been reported for other personality tests, as well as for interviews, cognitive ability and personality tests, and situational tests (De Meijer, Born, Terlouw, & Van der Molen, 2008; Detrick, Chibnall, & Luebbert, 2004; Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath, 2007).
• Various assessment procedures have small to moderate correlations with each other, suggesting they may all tap aspects of job suitability but with only limited overlap or redundancy. This is illustrated by the findings of research by Dayan, Fox, and Kasten (2008). They studied a cohort of 423 police officer candidates in Israel, all of whom had passed initial physical, medical, and background screening. The candidates then completed additional screening, including an interview, cognitive ability testing, and situational tests at an assessment centre. Candidates were interviewed individually by a trained police officer. The interview was structured in nature, focusing on the candidate’s current attitudes and behavioural history, and lasted about 30 minutes. The interviewer then made a number of discrete ratings of the candidate, as well as a summary rating of suitability, on a seven-point scale. The cognitive ability testing included three standardized intelligence tests, and scores on each test were averaged to create an overall ability score. At the assessment centre, candidates were divided into groups of 13 to 15 and completed two days of activities, including individual and group tasks. Individual tasks included situational tests in which they role-played police officers completing various assignments, such as seizing property, searching and arresting suspects, and issuing traffic tickets. Group tasks included moving a log over a wall under strict conditions, developing a strategy for recruiting new police officers, and designing security features for a new police station. Two assessors made independent ratings for each candidate in several specific areas, as well as a summary rating of suitability on a seven-point scale; as well, candidates were asked to nominate three peers in their group who had outstanding qualities. The interview, cognitive ability testing, and assessment centre ratings were all reliable. All three sets of ratings were significantly correlated with the final acceptance decisions made by a senior police psychologist, with each containing unique (i.e., non-redundant) information.

• Well-constructed screening procedures—batteries that combine standardized assessment procedures, each of which taps different KSAOs—improve prediction of job performance. A good example is a recent study by Lough and Ryan (2006). They compared the job performance of two groups of police officer candidates. One group underwent a standard or low-intensity applicant screening after the initial offer of employment; the other underwent an intensive screening program, based on a model developed in the United States. The researchers used nine indicators to judge the subsequent occupational performance of both groups, including such things as the number of public and internal complaints; motor vehicle accidents; compensation claims for stress and other reasons; and days off work due to sickness, stress, and other reasons. At the end of the first year on the job, the group that underwent intensive screening performed better than the other group on eight of the nine indicators. At the end of the second year, the performance advantage of the intensively screened group was somewhat small, although their performance was still better on six of nine indicators. Aggregated across two years, there were statistically significant (p < .05) differences between the two groups on four indicators, with the intensively screened group having fewer motor vehicle accidents, sick days, non-stress compensation claims, and non-stress days off. The intensively screened group did not perform significantly worse than the other group on any of the nine indicators.

Despite the apparent success of intensive applicant-screening procedures, there are still reasons to be cautious regarding their implementation. First, the predictive validity of assessment procedures is limited. To be fair, individual assessment procedures were not designed to be used in isolation, and each may be useful for screening in or out applicants with different kinds of strengths or weaknesses. But even intensive screening procedures typically have predictive validity that is moderate at best. This may be the result of weaknesses in the scientific research, such as problems measuring overall job performance in a reliable and valid manner, or difficulties controlling for organizational characteristics, which may have as much influence on job performance as do an officer’s personal characteristics (Sanders, 2003). Second, intensive screening procedures are difficult and expensive to implement. For example, assessment centres require careful planning and administration, trained staff, considerable space and equipment, and lots of time with applicants; it is difficult to estimate their cost-benefit ratio relative to more traditional assessment procedures, such as tests of cognitive ability and personality (Hale, 2005; McLaurin, 2005). Finally, it is important to consider issues of fairness and acceptability. For example, Carless (2006) found that screening procedures perceived as focusing too much on the past (e.g., background checks) or on general psychological characteristics (e.g., tests of cognitive ability and personality) were viewed by applicants as less fair or relevant than those perceived as focusing on the present (e.g., interviews) or actual performance in job-related situations (e.g., physical ability tests, situational tests, assessment centres).

Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations

Psychologists may also be asked to conduct psychological evaluations of officers whose behaviour interferes with their ability to function effectively in their police work. This could include officers who have used excessive force, were involved in a shooting incident, received a citation for driving under the influence, engaged in domestic violence, were frequently absent, or are suspected of abusing alcohol or drugs, to cite just a few examples. A psychologist conducting a fitness-for-duty evaluation will use multiple methods to assess an officer. These might include a review of background material, psychological testing, a clinical interview of the officer, and collateral interviews with relevant individuals. The psychologist will then prepare a report summarizing the evaluation and providing an opinion about whether the officer is fit for unrestricted police duty, fit for duty with specified accommodations, temporarily unfit for duty pending a proposed intervention such as counselling, or unfit for duty with little likelihood of remediation (see Rostow & Davis, 2004 for an overview).

Operations Domain

Operations-Related Education and Training: Use of Force

Operations-related education and training is intended to help improve the success of law enforcement agencies and officers in the specific jobs or missions they undertake. One focus of education and training is improving police decision making. Law enforcement officers have broad powers regarding such things as searching or seizing property; detaining, arresting, or charging people suspected of violating the law; and using force—up to and including deadly force—to enforce the law or protect the safety of citizens. Exercised properly, these powers are essential for successful performance of their duties; exercised improperly, they can result in the loss of citizens’ faith in and respect for the justice system. Although the use of police powers is limited by law and guided by agency policy, individual officers must use their discretion to interpret the application of law and policy in specific situations. For this reason, decision making by law enforcement officers has been a focus of considerable research, education, and training in police psychology, which has examined, for example, how police make decisions about traffic stops, arrests in cases of suspected domestic violence, or handling of people suffering from mental illness.

One of the most important topics in police decision making concerns the use of force. This is obviously a high-stakes decision: improper exercise of discretion can result in psychological trauma, physical injury, or death of innocent people. (See Case Study 10.1 for an example of controversy regarding police use of force.) But the context of these decisions is also unusual, as they often must be made under conditions of extreme stress.

Imagine, for example, you are a uniformed member of a large metropolitan police force, armed with many of the weapons given to typical general duties officers. While on patrol one night, you receive a radio call reporting a domestic disturbance at a nearby residence. You and your partner respond and are first on the scene. When you arrive, the front door of the residence is open and you can hear people screaming and shouting, including both adults and children, but you cannot see anyone. You assume they must be in the back of house, probably in the kitchen. You pound on the open door and announce your presence, but no one responds. A few seconds later, you hear the sounds of a scuffle and a woman screams, “Oh! He’s killing me, he’s killing me!” Your partner immediately gets on his radio to call for backup. What do you do? Consider the following options and think about why you would or would not choose each one.

• • Wait with your partner for backup to arrive before entering the residence.
  • Pound on the door and announce your presence again, but louder this time.
  • Enter the residence with no weapon in hand.
  • Enter the residence with your nightstick (or flashlight, pepper spray, etc.) in hand.
  • Enter the residence with your conducted electricity weapon (Taser) in hand.
  • Enter the residence with your firearm (handgun or shotgun) in hand.

The difficult thing about this scenario is that no matter how you respond, someone—the woman who is being assaulted, the man who is assaulting her, their children, you, your partner—could end up dead. If you respond with insufficient force, you may be unable to protect the safety of the victim or bystanders; if you use too much, you may provoke an escalation of violence and could end up using your weapon. Even if you respond in a way that seems entirely reasonable, someone could end up dead, prompting you (and a lot of other people) to second-guess your original decision.

The large body of theory and research on decision making in the fields of cognitive and social psychology has been of great assistance to police psychologists.

But much of this theory and research is not directly relevant to the use of force by police. More relevant is research directly on police, which has examined the impact of personal characteristics, such as age, gender, education, job-related experience, and race, on use of force (e.g., McElvain & Kposowa, 2008). Even better is research directly relevant to education and training. Police psychologists increasingly rely on an approach, originally developed in military psychology, that is sometimes referred to as operational psychology, the goal of which is to use basic psychology to “generate empirical knowledge on individual and contextual factors influencing human behaviour in dynamic settings that produce a hazard to life, health, or basic values” ( Johnsen & Eid, 2006).

From an operational psychology perspective, police decisions regarding use of force have some important characteristics. First, and most obvious, these decisions involve use of skills under very difficult conditions: they occur in physical and social environments that are complex and dynamic, individuals have incomplete and uncertain information about those environments, and they are liable to experience extreme emotional arousal, including fear. Second, the decisions always involve moral reasoning, which requires decision makers to understand, accept, and consider institutional values as they are reflected in law and policy. Third, use-of-force decisions often involve the need to work closely with one or more team members.

So if these are the problems faced by law enforcement officers, how have police psychologists tried to improve education and training regarding use-offorce decisions?

There are few studies examining police use of force. Most are simply descriptive reports about frequency. A few studies have identified situational factors as having the most substantive impact on police use of improper force within police-citizen encounters, and they suggest that young, inexperienced male officers are more likely to use force improperly (Harris, 2009; McElvain & Kposowa, 2008). McElvain and Kposowa (2008) also found that college-educated officers were less likely to be involved in shootings than officers who had no college education. Thus, it is important that police have training and guidelines to assist in making decisions that could involve the use of force. Most police departments have a use-of-force framework (Terrill & Paoline, 2013). In Canada, a national use-of-force model has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that gives police and other security officers guidelines in their encounters with citizens (Hoffman, Lawrence, & Brown, 2004). This model is intended to assist officers when they are considering a range of responses in police-citizen encounters, with the use of deadly force being a last resort after other options have been exhausted.

Figure 10.3 (see Canvas) shows the national use-of-force model. An officer’s assessment begins at the centre of the graph with the immediate situation. From there, the assessment moves outward as the officer considers a person’s behaviour and the appropriate response. The principle is to use the least amount of force necessary to control the situation. The possible responses range from mere presence of an officer to verbal and non-verbal communication, then physical control, the use of intermediate weapons, and, as a final option, the use of lethal force. Obviously, decisions typically need to be made quickly, and since situations are dynamic, the officer will need to continually reassess and respond appropriately.

Figure 10.3 Canada’s national use-of-force model. All municipal and provincial police forces follow the national use-of-force model or a variation of this model. Source: Government of Canada, Commission for Public Complaint Against the RCMP website, www .cpc-cpp.gc.ca/cnt/tpsp-tmrs/cew-ai/cew_fin_rp-eng.aspx.

Simulation-Based Training

A major contribution of police psychology has been to support the movement toward simulation-based training. This type of training provides law enforcement officers with the opportunity to practise decision making and use of force under controlled circumstances that closely resemble situations they are likely to encounter in the course of their employment. Training in real-world context sounds ideal, but it has some important limitations (Bennell, Jones, & Corey, 2007). Perhaps the biggest is that trainees may encounter few relevant situations in the field, so they have limited opportunity to practise skills or observe others practising their skills. Real-world training also exposes trainees to potentially dangerous situations before they have acquired a good skill set for managing those situations. And training in highly controlled situations, like a classroom or a traditional firing range, may actually be counterproductive, as trainees may be forced to acquire skills that later they will need to unlearn in the real world. For example, learning how to fire a handgun accurately at a stationary bull’s eye target under ideal lighting while calm and wearing earplugs does not necessarily help, and may even hinder, accurate shooting while chasing a human target at night with a police cruiser’s lights flashing and sirens blaring. In contrast, simulation-based training allows repeated exposure to challenging and changing situations, and gives instructors the ability to work with trainees to improve their performance.

A common method for training police officers in use of force involves computer-based simulators (Bennell et al., 2007). A typical simulator projects various job-relevant scenarios via high-quality, life-size video with accompanying audio. Trainees are required to engage in interactive role play during the scenarios, armed with various weapons that emit infrared light when deployed. The presentation of scenarios is controlled by the computer, so the conditions or progress of the scenario can be changed by instructors, or it can be automatically changed in response to the trainee’s deployment of weapons. This means a trainee’s actions can result in immediate feedback during the simulation. The entire simulation may be taped so it can be reviewed with the trainee, or a report may be generated to gauge performance (e.g., number of times, or accuracy with which, a weapon was used). Instructors can present trainees with the same scenario, modify the outcome of the scenario, or change the scenario altogether.

Cognitive Load Theory

Bennell and colleagues (2007) discussed how cognitive load theory can be used to understand and improve use-of-force training for police. Cognitive load is the amount of mental effort required by a task, and more specifically, the extent to which the task uses working memory resources. Three concepts are crucial in cognitive load theory as it relates to training. Intrinsic cognitive load reflects the inherent complexity of the information trainees are learning. Extraneous cognitive load, on the other hand, refers to the unnecessary demands placed on trainees’ mental information-processing resources as a result of the learning materials and instructional methods used by instructors. Finally, germane cognitive load reflects the direct efforts of instructors to help trainees develop relevant schemas, cognitive structures, or “mental maps” they can use to organize the new information they acquire into meaningful concepts.

According to theory, there is little instructors can do to reduce intrinsic cognitive load; to put it simply, the relevant task “is what it is.” Instead, instructors should try to use training techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load but increase germane cognitive load. To decrease extraneous cognitive load, instructors can present problems to trainees in different formats, such as partially completed or completed examples. (Partially completed examples present a problem with only a few steps missing or unsolved; completed examples provide a problem with the full solution.) These formats allow trainees to observe correct problem-solving techniques from the outset, instead of wasting their information-processing resources learning how to make mistakes before they learn correct performance. Alternatively, instructors can make sure that learning methods allow trainees to focus their attention and minimize redundancy. To increase germane cognitive load, instructors can use a diverse set of examples or exercises that helps trainees generalize their learning across situations, or have them talk aloud while engaging in tasks so they can concretize and process the information they are acquiring.

An excellent example of the application of operational psychology principles to police psychology is a study conducted by Saus et al. (2006). They discussed the concept of situational awareness, a cognitive process that involves understanding the immediate physical environment. Situational awareness requires that a person perceives the environment accurately, uses those perceptions to develop an appreciation of what is happening right now, and uses that appreciation to make projections about what might happen in the immediate future. Just as the ability to visualize the field of play helps professional athletes improve their performance in team sports, the ability to visualize the environment during a critical incident (for example, the features of the surrounding terrain, where people are, what they are doing, what might be coming next) is crucial to good decision making in use-of-force scenarios. Improving situational awareness is one potential way to improve use-of-force decisions; according to cognitive load theory, it can be viewed as a way to increase germane cognitive load. One technique that is used to improve situational awareness is the “freeze technique,” which involves stopping a simulated training exercise at various moments and asking trainees questions that will help them develop microskills related to perception, appreciation, and projection.

Saus and colleagues (2006) evaluated the effectiveness of standard firearms training that involved the use of the freeze technique. In Norway, they studied 40 police recruits—20 males and 20 females—who were randomly assigned to the standard or experimental training conditions. The standard condition involved classroom instruction in the use of firearms, practice on a target range under increasing levels of difficulty, and discussion of the upcoming computerized simulation test. Those in the experimental training condition received scenario-based instruction, which involved sessions in the computerized simulator using the freeze technique and discussion of situational awareness.

The length of training was the same for both groups. After completion of training, all subjects completed the same scenario test in the computerized simulator, one that required them to use their firearms for successful outcome. To evaluate success, the researchers stopped the simulator at specific points and asked questions to determine each subject’s level of situational awareness, recorded the total shots taken and number of hits, and recorded heart rate during the exercise. Recruits in the experimental training condition had significantly higher levels of situational awareness, according to both self-report and ratings made by instructors; they also fired significantly more shots, as well as significantly more accurate shots. Finally, recruits in the experimental training condition demonstrated less heart rate variability, which the authors interpreted as indicating the expenditure of less cognitive effort during the simulation exercise.

Criminal Profiling

We conclude this chapter with a review of criminal profiling. It can be difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate complaints of criminal offences and gather sufficient evidence to lay charges or support convictions; it is even more difficult when the identities of the perpetrators of those offences are unknown. Although it happens infrequently, police psychologists may be involved in criminal profiling. This is an investigative support method that attempts to identify the personality, behavioural, and demographic characteristics of unknown criminal perpetrators based on an analysis of offence-related behaviours either in the case at hand or in similar cases. The purpose of a criminal profile is to help identify, apprehend, or interview suspects.

It is probably more accurate to refer to criminal profiling as a set of methods or approaches, rather than as a specific method. Regardless of the particular method employed, the underlying general principle is the same: inferences regarding what happened during an offence are used to draw inferences about the identity of the perpetrator. Some methods add an intermediate step, with behaviour being used to draw inferences about the likely goals and motivations of the perpetrator, which in turn are used to make inferences about identity. Put simply, investigators work backward in time from the “What?” of a crime to understand the “Why?” and, ultimately, the “Who?” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990).

Criminal profiling clearly involves a lot of inference, which really is just a technical term for educated guesswork. The inferential process is most likely to yield accurate, useful information when three conditions are met.

• First, the quantity and quality of offence-related information (e.g., physical evidence, witness reports, and so forth) must be sufficient to permit a reliable behavioural reconstruction. This means criminal profiling should only occur after an offence has been thoroughly investigated using standard operating procedures. It also means profiling may be particularly useful in cases that involve a series of offences rather than a single offence.

• Second, the offence-related behaviour must be sufficiently unusual to permit a detailed and specific motivational reconstruction. This means criminal profiling is unlikely to be helpful in cases involving, say, ordinary property crimes, as the motivations underlying them are rather commonplace and straightforward. Instead, criminal profiling is most often used to investigate offences such as homicide, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual assault, arson, bombing, and some offences that involve threats, stalking, or extortion— and, once again, it is especially useful when there is a series of such offences. (It may also be used to investigate more commonplace offences that involve unusual offence-related behaviour.)
• Third, there must be enough known about “typical” perpetrators that the criminal profiler can link certain offence-related behaviours and motivations with specific personal characteristics. The knowledge of typical perpetrators may come from the personal experience of the criminal profiler, or it may come from scientific research on known groups of offenders or databases of past offences.

The notion that offence-related behaviour can be used to infer identity isn’t a new one. It is likely that ever since the first law enforcement agencies were established, good investigators relied on this notion at times. Attesting to this view are famous cases, such as the profile of the serial murderer Jack the Ripper by London police surgeon Dr. Thomas Bond in the 1890s, or the profile of George Metesky, the Mad Bomber of New York, by psychiatrist James Brussel in the 1950s (Petherick, 2005). What is new about criminal profiling, however, is the attempt to make the process a more rigorous one. This has been done in two major ways. First, criminal profilers made the process more systematic by specifying the way a profile should be constructed, according to their preferred approach. Systematization is crucial to enhancing the replicability or reliability of an approach. Second, criminal profilers have attempted to ground their approaches in scientific theory and research. Reliance on a sound evidence base is crucial to enhancing the accuracy or validity of an approach.

Approaches to Criminal Profiling

As noted previously, there are several different methods of or approaches to criminal profiling. These methods are often contrasted in terms of whether they rely on deductive or inductive analytic techniques (Alison, West, & Goodwill, 2004). Deductive analytic techniques are case focused or idiographic in nature. That is, they attempt to infer characteristics of a perpetrator from a review of the evidence surrounding a particular offence or series of offences, without explicit consideration of or reference to more general knowledge about other perpetrators or other offences. The inferences are based on the reasoning, experience, insight, and intuition of the criminal profiler. The inferential process puts a heavy emphasis on the mediating role of motivations. It is assumed that a perpetrator’s offence-related behaviour reflects specific motivations, which in turn will be associated with specific personal characteristics of the perpetrator.

An important strength of deductive analytic techniques is their focus on the uniqueness and dynamic nature of offence-related behaviour and motivations, so they are most likely to be useful when an offence or offence series includes rare or unusual behaviour, or when a perpetrator’s behaviour or motivation appears to be changing over time.

Inductive analytic techniques, in contrast, are comparative or statistical (also referred to as nomothetic) in nature. They infer a perpetrator’s characteristics from knowledge of general patterns of criminal behaviour, as reflected in scientific theory and research. The inferences are based on the apparent similarity of the offence-related behaviour in the case at hand to the behaviour of known groups of perpetrators. The inferences do not require any speculation concerning mediating factors, such as motivations. An important strength of inductive analytic techniques is their focus on established patterns of criminal behaviour, so they are most likely to be useful when an offence or offence series includes common or typical and stable behaviours.

All approaches to criminal profiling recognize the importance of both deductive and inductive analytic techniques; the differences between the approaches lie in terms of which analytic techniques are used earliest or most often in the profiling process. Regardless of the type of analytic techniques used, police psychologists may play a role either as criminal profilers or, more commonly, as members of a team of criminal profilers; they also may conduct research on offenders to assist inductive analytic approaches.

The first systematic approach to profiling was criminal investigative analysis, which was developed by the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit in the 1970s and 1980s. Many people made important contributions to this approach, including FBI officers such as Patrick Mullany, Howard Teten, Robert Ressler, John Douglas, and Roy Hazelwood, as well as consulting mental health professionals such as Park Dietz. The hallmark of the FBI’s approach is a strong reliance on offence motivational typologies to infer offender characteristics, based on the assumption that similar behaviour with similar motivation reflects similar personal characteristics (Dietz, 1985; O’Toole, 1999). To assist this process, the FBI devoted considerable effort to developing motivational typologies based on qualitative analyses of cases or case series, initially for sexual homicide (Burgess, Douglas, Hartman, McCormack, & Ressler, 1986) and later for a range of violent offences (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992). As it is currently used, criminal investigative analysis begins by using information about offences—and, in particular, information about crime scenes—to classify the offence according to a motivational typology (O’Toole, 1999). This is followed by a full reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the perpetrator’s personality, mood, and mental health; the role of fantasy and planning; victim selection; and interactions with the victim before, during, and after the offence, including the method and manner of any physical or sexual assault and any evidence of travel. Next, investigators look for evidence of “signatures”— idiosyncratic aspects of offence-related behaviour that may be specific to the offender. The final step is to generate a profile that speculates about the personal characteristics of the perpetrator, such as gender, race, family background, education and employment, intimate and general social relationships, medical and mental health problems, criminal history, and residence. Note that the process begins with a straightforward inductive analytic technique—namely, classification using a motivational typology—followed by extensive deductive analysis.

Critical of the FBI’s heavy reliance on deductive analytic techniques, Canter developed the investigative psychology approach to criminal profiling in the 1990s (Canter & Youngs, 2009). His goal was to make criminal profiling less of an art—the success of which depends directly on the talents of profilers—and more of a science. He started with the basic assumption that criminal behaviour can be understood much like any other form of human behaviour, all of which is essentially lawful or rule-governed. The investigative psychology approach has two hallmarks. The first is the incorporation of various psychological theories to guide the analysis of offence behaviour and personal characteristics of offenders. The second is the central role of statistically-derived offender typologies. Both of these features are inductive analytic techniques that use information about other offenders to make inferences about the perpetrators in the case at hand.

Behavioural evidence analysis (Turvey, 2008) is a strongly deductive approach, developed in reaction to the reliance on typologies, psychological theory, and statistical analysis that characterizes criminal investigative analysis and investigative psychology. In behavioural evidence analysis, profilers make rational inferences about the personal characteristics of perpetrators based directly on the facts of the case at hand; there is no reference to “other offenders” as a means of justifying conclusions.

The final approach we discuss here is geographic profiling, which uses criminological theory, quantitative analysis of geospatial data, and typologies of offender mobility to determine the personal characteristics of perpetrators. A particular focus of geographic profiling is identifying the likely residence or travel routes of perpetrators. Rossmo (1998) apparently was the first to use principles derived from environmental criminology to develop a quantitative means of doing this. He and others have since developed specialized software to implement sophisticated mathematical models, called “criminal geographic targeting algorithms,” that use data about the location of criminal activity (in the form of addresses or coordinates) to yield information relevant to the search for suspects. The nature of the output varies, but it may be a geoprofile (an ordinary twodimensional street map that contains search instructions) or a jeopardy surface (a two-dimensional map that also includes a third dimension, reflecting probability density information about the suspect’s location). This is obviously a highly inductive technique. But geographical profiling that uses mobility typologies to infer other personal characteristics, such as age, gender, psychopathology, criminal history, and so forth, may also incorporate deductive techniques (Beauregard, Proulx, & Rossmo, 2005).

Criminal profiling is a fascinating activity that has attracted the attention and interest of the general public. But there are several good reasons to be cautious about the usefulness of criminal profiling.

• First, it is used in very rare and specific circumstances. A suspect’s identity usually is known to police; the problem they face is gathering the evidence that will support the arrest, charge, and conviction of the suspect. (Consider the fact that more than 80 percent of physical and sexual assaults in the United States are committed by close acquaintances, including family members or intimate partners.) Even when the suspect’s identity is unknown, police have a wide range of investigative procedures they use before they turn to criminal profiling. In essence, criminal profiling is an investigative tool of last resort.
• A second reason to be cautious about criminal profiling is that it carries some risks. An inaccurate profile may mislead investigators, taking them down irrelevant avenues, ignoring or foreclosing potentially useful lines of inquiry. For example, profilers in a 2002 sniper case in the United States predicted that the shooter would be a white male in his 30s who would be working alone and living in the area of the shootings (Anderson, 2002). In fact, the 10 murders of random victims in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., were committed by a 41-year-old African-American male and a 17-year-old accomplice who had travelled from the west coast of the United States. Profiling may also lead investigators to alter their strategies to focus on a particular suspect in ways that may be viewed as harassment or entrapment.

• Third, a range of methods are used by people with diverse backgrounds. It is difficult to ensure that criminal profilers are adequately trained and using accepted methods. The establishment of professional organizations (e.g., International Association of Investigative Psychology) and credentialing processes (e.g., International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship) are important in this regard.
• Fourth, and most important, the reliability (consistency) and validity (accuracy) of criminal profiling are not well-established. Research in this area is hampered by the fact that many profiles contain claims that are vague, of little investigatory relevance, or difficult to either verify or falsify (Almond, Alison, & Porter, 2007; Dowden, Bennell, & Bloomfield, 2007). For example, some studies have attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal profiling by comparing the judgments of experts to those of untrained professionals, including law enforcement officers, psychologists, university students, and even self-identified psychics; others have evaluated the accuracy of geographical profiles generated by sophisticated software to those generated by people given a few simple rules. Systematic reviews of the literature have reached dramatically different conclusions. Some argue there is no evidence that criminal profiling is anything but “smoke and mirrors” (Bennell, Taylor, & Snook, 2007; Snook, Cullen, Bennell, Taylor, & Gendreau, 2008; Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007), whereas others argue there is at least limited support for its reliability and validity (Kocsis, Middledorp, & Karpin, 2008; Rossmo & Filer, 2005).

Summary

In this chapter, we reviewed the history of policing in Canada as well as the roles that psychologists have in working with the police. Although some of the basic job requirements for law enforcement officers have remained unchanged for more than a hundred years, policing increasingly requires a set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal characteristics that is both more diverse and more specialized. Psychologists have helped law enforcement agencies cope with the challenges of modern policing in a variety of ways. Some of the work done by police psychologists involves more traditional activities, such as assessment, counselling, and evaluation; but other work is novel, involving the application of general psychological theory and research to the specific problems faced by officers in the field.

Key Terms

assessment domain

behavioural evidence analysis

consulting domain

criminal investigative analysis

criminal profiling

deductive analytic techniques

extraneous cognitive load

geographic profiling

germane cognitive load

inductive analytic techniques

intervention domain

intrinsic cognitive load

investigative psychology

job analysis

KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal characteristics)

operational domain

police forces

police psychology

 situational awareness

References

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.

Allen, S. W. (2008). Police psychologists. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and law (pp. 575–580). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2007). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the National Policing Improvements Agency in the United Kingdom. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 71–83.

Anderson, L. (2002, October 27). Experts baffled by suspect who didn’t fit profile. Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-10-27/ news/0210270418_1_serial-killers-john-allen-muhammad-sniper).

Aumiller, G. S., Corey, D., Allen, S., Brewster, J., Cuttler, M., Gupton, H., & Honig, A. (2007). Defining the field of police psychology: Core domains and proficiencies. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 65–76.

Bartol, C. R. (1996). Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 70–89.

Beauregard, E., Proulx, J., & Rossmo, D. K. (2005). Spatial patterns of sex offenders: Theoretical, empirical, and practical issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 579–603.

Bennell, C., Jones, N. J., & Corey, S. (2007). Does use-of-force simulation training in Canadian police agencies incorporate principles of effective training? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 35–58.

Bennell, C., Taylor, P. J., & Snook, B. (2007). Clinical versus actuarial geographic profiling strategies: A review of the research. Police Practice and Research, 8, 335–345.

Blanchfield, M. (2013, February 26). RCMP commissioner pledges to increase number of women joining Mounties. The Globe and Mail. Accessed at www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-commissioner-pledges- to-increase-number-of-women-joining-mounties/article9102679.

Braidwood Commission. (2010). Why? The Robert Dziekanski tragedy. Vancouver, BC: Braidwood Commission on the Death of Robert Dziekanski.

Burgess, A., Douglas, J., Hartman, C., McCormack, A.,& Ressler, R. K.(1986). Sexual homicide: A motivational model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 251–272.

Canter, D., & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative psychology: Offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Carless, S. A. (2006). Applicant reactions to multiple selection procedures for the police force. Applied Psychology, 55, 145–167.

Cavanaugh, J. L., & Rogers, R. R. (1986). Psychology in law enforcement.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 4, 351–352.

Christal, R. E., & Weissmuller, J. J. (1988). Job-task inventory analysis. In

S. Gael (Ed.), The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government, Vol. 2 (pp. 1036–1050). New York: Wiley.

Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 511–537.

Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3.

Dayan, K., Fox, S. J., & Kasten R. (2008). The preliminary employment interview as a predictor of assessment center outcomes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 102–111.

De Meijer, L., Born, M., Terlouw, G., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2008). Criterionrelated validity of Dutch police-selection measures and differences between ethnic groups. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 321–332.

Detrick, P., Chibnall, J. T., & Luebbert, M. C. (2004). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory as predictor of police academy performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 676–694.

Dietz, P. E. (1985). Sex offender profiling by the FBI: A preliminary conceptual model. In M. H. Ben-Aron, S. J. Hucker, & C. D. Webster (Eds.), Clinical criminology: The assessment and treatment of criminal behavior (pp. 207–219). Toronto: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and M & M Graphics.

Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (1992). Crime classification manual: A standard system for investigating and classifying violent crime. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Dowden, C., Bennell, C., & Bloomfield, S. (2007). Advances in offender profiling: A systematic review of the profiling literature published over the past three decades. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 44–56.

Evans, J. (2011). Missing Women Commission of Inquiry British Columbia. Retrieved from http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01344/ Evans_Report_-_Par_1344138a.pdf.

Forcese, D. (2002). Policing and nation building. In D. Forcese (Ed.), Police: Selected issues in Canadian law enforcement (pp. 1–15). Kemptville, ON: Golden Dog Press.

Gallo, F. J. (2008). Police psychology. In B. Cutler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and law (pp. 580–584). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Griffiths, C., & Verdun-Jones, S. (1994). Canadian criminal justice. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

Hale, C. (2005). Pros and cons of assessment centers. Law and Order, 53(4), 18, 20–21.

Harris, C. J. (2009). Police use of improper force: A systematic review of the evidence. Victims and Offenders, 4, 25–41.

Hoffman, R., Lawrence, C., & Brown, G. (2004). Canada’s national use-of-force framework for police officers. Police Chief, 71 (10), 125–140.

Johnsen, B. H., & Eid, J. (2006). Operational psychology: Training and development issues. Military Psychology, 18, S1–S2.

Kaczmarek, A., & Packer, J. (1996). Defining the role of the general duties constable: A job analysis (Report Series No. 124.1). Payneham, Australia: National Police Research Unit.

Kocsis, R. N., Middledorp, J., & Karpin, A. (2008). Taking stock of accuracy in criminal profiling: The theoretical quandary for investigative psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8, 244–261.

Lentz, S. A., & Chaires, R. H. (2007). The invention of Peel’s principles: A study of policing “textbook” history. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 69–79.

LePard (2010). Missing Women: Investigation Review. Retrieved from http:// vancouver.ca/police/media/2010/mw-summary-report.pdf.

Loo, R. (1986). Police psychology: The emergence of a new field. Police Chief, 53(2), 26–30.

Lough, J., & Ryan, M. (2006). Psychological profiling of Australian police officers: A longitudinal examination of post-selection performance. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 8, 143–152.

McElvain, J. P., & Kposowa, A. J. (2008). Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of using deadly force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 505–521.

McLaurin, M. (2005). How to run an assessment center. Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine, 29(3), 18, 20, 22, 24–26.

Metropolitan Police Act, 1829 (U.K.), 10 Geo. 4, c .44.

Moore, M. H. (1992). Problem solving and community policing. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Modern policing (pp. 99–158). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Morey, L. C. (1996). An interpretive guide to the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Morris, N., & Forcese, D. (2002). Origins of community policing. In D. Forcese (Ed.), Police: Selected issues in Canadian law enforcement (pp. 16–22). Kemptville, ON: Golden Dog Press.

Ostrov, E. (1986). Police/law enforcement and psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 4, 353–370.

O’Toole, M. E. (1999). Criminal profiling: The FBI uses criminal investigative analysis to solve crimes. Corrections Today, 61(11), 44–46.

Perrott, S. B., & Kelloway, E. K. (2011). Scandals, sagging morale, and role ambiguity in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The end of a Canadian institution as we know it? Police Practice and Research, 12, 120–135.

Petherick, W. (Ed.). (2005). Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in behavioral profiling. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215–233.

Rossmo, D. K. (1998). Target patterns of serial murderers: A methodological model. In R. M. Holmes & S. T. Holmes (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on serial murder (pp. 199–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rossmo, D. K., & Filer, S. (2005). Analysis versus guesswork: The case for professional geographic profiling. Blue Line, 17(7), 24–25.

Rostow, C. D., & Davis, R. D. (2004). A handbook for psychological fitness-for-duty evaluations in law enforcement. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Sanders, B. A. (2003). Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”: Organizational challenges in selecting quality officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26, 313–328.

Saus, E. R., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Riisem, P. K., Andersen, R., & Thayer,

J. F. (2006). The effect of brief Situational Awareness Training in a police shooting simulator: An experimental study. Military Psychology, 18, S3–S21.

Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985–1004.

Sklansky, D. A. (2006). Not your father’s police department: Making sense of the new demographics of law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 1209–1243.

Skolnick, J. H. (2001). Policing. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 11535–11541). New York: Elsevier.

Skolnick, J. H. (2008). Enduring issues of police culture and demographics.

Policing and Society, 18, 35–45.

Snook, R., Cullen, R. M., Bennell, C., Taylor, P. J., & Gendreau, P. (2008). The criminal profiling illusion: What’s behind the smoke and mirrors? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1257–1276.

Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, R. M. (2007). Taking stock of criminal profiling: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 437–453.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Police resources in Canada, 2011. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A., III. (2013). Examining less lethal force policy and the force continuum: Results from a national use-of-force study. Police Quarterly, 16, 38–65.

Turvey, B. (2008). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis

(3rd ed.). San Diego: Elsevier.

Weiss, W. U., Zehner, S. N., Davis, R. D., Rostow, C., & DeCoster-Martin,

E. (2005). Problematic police performance and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 20, 16–21.

White, M. D., & Escobar, G. (2008). Making good cops in the twenty-first century: Emerging issues for the effective recruitment, selection and training of police in the United States and abroad. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 22, 119–134.

Suggested Readings and Websites

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2013). Criminal and behavioral profiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Griffiths, C. T. (2008). Canadian police work (2nd ed). Toronto: Nelson.

First Nations Policing Program: http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/initiative/ first-nations-policing-Program.

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: www.cacp.ca.

Gender and Respect: The RCMP Action Plan: www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/gba-eces/ action/gba-eces-action-eng.pdf.Royal%20Canadian%20Mounted%20 Police%20(RCMP):%20www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca.