Investigative psychology roughly deals with the application of aspects of psychology and criminal research to investigate the behavior and mindsets of criminals. Primary to investigative psychology is the concept of profiling, in which a psychological sketch is made of a particular individual or group of individuals in order to find out how they think. The prevailing wisdom is that, provided you are able to create a sufficiently accurate psychological profile, you will best be able to anticipate their actions and find ways to stop them, prevent them from committing wrongs, or catch them after the fact.
Historically, criminal investigation has existed in an organized manner since at least the 1800s, as adjudicators, policemen and detectives have utilized clues and deduction to solve crimes and apprehend criminals (Gavin, 2013). Ever since the advent of psychology as a practice, however, it has become a fundamental component of criminal investigation, adding profiling and other investigative psychological tools to the arsenal of the criminal investigator. In addition to using psychology to help track individual criminals, psychology has been used to help investigate insurance fraud, arson, smuggling, and more, as well as contributed to more effective methods of crowd control and maintaining public order.
Offender profiling was started in the 1940s as a result of the OSS’s need to find a psychological profile of Adolf Hitler in World War II. British psychologist Lional Haward was then tasks to create a list of character traits that are common to prominent war criminals. However, Cesare Lumbroso is commonly considered the first criminologist to place criminals into classifications based on demographic data. The FBI introduced these concepts to their work in the 1960s, and the practice has spread ever since (Gavin, 2013). Some attempts at profiling have worked better than others, as physiognomy (i.e. detecting personality from facial characteristics) is far less accurate than the analysis of prior and current behavior in order to predict future behavior. While physiognomy is often thought to allow people to detect aspects of others’ personalities, research indicates that people are able to make just as accurate judgments of their personalities through mere guessing (Gavin, 2013).
There are three major components to the investigative cycle. First, there is the information that is being investigated, in which info is retrieved, evaluated and utilized. Next, there is the inferences that are made as a result of the investigation of information found relating to a particular crime, making assumptions about criminal activity based on what has been found. Finally, there is action: the actions and decisions made by police, as well as the support of their actions and ways to improve those approaches. These three components repeat in an endless cycle, with their overall goal being to improve criminal and civil investigations, as well as legal processes.
When comparing the scientific method of data collection to the scientific method of evidence collection, some differences can be found. With data collection, the scientific method is to collect data regarding an experiment that you are conducting within a controlled set of parameters that you are in charge of. In the case of evidence collection, data is collected after the event has occurred, and deduction must be used to backtrack and determine what has occurred in the past without being able to observe it (Gavin, 2013). This ties in with the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning: deductive reasoning involves moving to specific conclusions from generalized findings, while inductive reasoning offers generalized conclusions from specific findings.
References
Gavin, H. (2013). Criminological and Forensic Psychology. Sage.
