What works in offender profiling? A comparison of typological, thematic, and multivariate models

Abstract

Utilizing a sample of 85 stranger rapists, three models (Hazelwood's (1987) Power and Anger FBI model, the Behavioral Thematic evaluation of Canter, Bennell, Alison, and Reddy (2003), and the Massachusetts Treatment Center: Rape classification system revision 3 (MTC:R3, Knight & Prentky, 1990)) were contrasted with a multivariate regression approach to assess their ability to predict an offender's previous convictions from crime scene information. In respect of the three aforementioned models, logistic regression and AUC analysis indicated that the Power and Anger FBI model was the most effective, followed by the MTC:R3, and then the Behavioral Thematic evaluation. However, predictive analyses based on a multivariate approach using a mixture of crime scene behaviors, as opposed to the grouping of behaviors into themes or types as in the three models, far exceeded the predictive ability of the three models under AUC analysis. The results suggest that emphasis should be placed on further exploration of the predictive validity of each of the individual behaviors that comprise existing thematic, typological, and multivariate classification systems, especially those that are subject to inter-situational variation.

Rape and sexual assault in investigative psychology: the contribution of sex offenders' research to offender profiling

“…However, in practice, they have not much been tested as to their usefulness in the production of an offender profi le. One exception is a recent study by Goodwill, Alison, and Beech (2009). The authors tested the ability of three rapist typological models in predicting an offender's prior convictions from crime scene information, and found that the FBI model (Hazelwood, 1987) was the most effective, followed by the MTC:R3 (Knight & Prentky, 1990), and then the behavioural thematic evaluation (Canter, Bennell, Alison, & Reddy, 2003).…”

“…The authors tested the ability of three rapist typological models in predicting an offender's prior convictions from crime scene information, and found that the FBI model (Hazelwood, 1987) was the most effective, followed by the MTC:R3 (Knight & Prentky, 1990), and then the behavioural thematic evaluation (Canter, Bennell, Alison, & Reddy, 2003). More interesting is that in addition, Goodwill, Alison, and Beech (2009) observed that using a mixture of crime scene indicators, as opposed to the grouping of behaviours into themes or types, far exceeded the predictive ability of the three models tested in the study.…”

Economic Profiling of the Lone Wolf Terrorist: Can Economics Provide Behavioral Investigative Advice?

“…Canter (2004, p.5) same. This is the classification of offenders in order to prioritise suspects (Goodwill et al 2009). …”

“…As we have seen, there are a variety of psychological models and classification schemes extant in the investigative psychology literature and the ones that we have covered far from exhausts the complete list. Part of the investigative psychology literature is devoted to empirical testing of the various models and typologies and their underlying assumptions (for example, Salfati and Canter 1999;Mokros and Alison 2002;Dabney et al 2006;Goodwill et al 2009). Another related part of the literature is devoted to identifying 'structure' within A to further guide the construction of typologies.…”

“…Another related part of the literature is devoted to identifying 'structure' within A to further guide the construction of typologies. Interestingly, an important part of this endeavour is the deployment of multivariate analysis and, in particular, spatial analytical techniques (for example, Canter et al 2004;Häkkänen et al 2004;Häkkänen 2006;Goodwill et al 2009;Chambers et al 2010;and Zaitsu 2010). The available evidence appears to support the possibility of offender profiling but this is certainly not a unanimous position within the investigative psychology and offender profiling literature.…”