Forensic Psycho

• What are the two approaches to offender profiling mentioned in the syllabus?


  Top-down and bottom-up approaches
• How does the top-down approach to offender profiling work?


  • Starts with pre-defined criminal profiles
  • General profiles come first, then specific details
• How does the bottom-up approach to offender profiling differ from the top-down approach?


  • Starts with the criminal's characteristics
  • Specific details come first, then general profile
• Which country tends to use the top-down approach in offender profiling?

  America
• Which country tends to use the bottom-up approach in offender profiling?

  Britain
• What are the steps in the FBI’s top-down approach to offender profiling according to Douglas et al (1986)?


  Assimilation, classification, reconstruction, profile generation
• What are the two offender profiles used in the top-down approach?


  • Organised offender
  • Disorganised offender
• What are the characteristics of an organised offender?


  • Above-average intelligence
  • Crime is planned
  • Controlled behavior
  • Clears evidence from the scene
  • Skilled and socially competent
• What are the characteristics of a disorganised offender?


  • Below-average intelligence
  • Crime is impulsive
  • Lacks control
  • Leaves evidence behind
  • Unskilled and socially incompetent
• What does the reconstruction step in offender profiling involve?


  Identifying the timeline of the crime, including behaviors of the criminal and victim
• What is the purpose of generating a profile of the criminal?


  To fill in specific details about the criminal beyond the general profiles
• What are the strengths of the top-down approach to offender profiling?


  • Supporting evidence from McCrary and Grant
  • Based on evidence from interviews with murderers
• What are the weaknesses of the top-down approach to offender profiling?


  • Conflicting evidence from Pinizzotto and Finkel
  • Limited applications for certain crimes
  • Overly simplistic binary classification
• How does the bottom-up approach to offender profiling work?

  • matching detail from crime scene to statistical analysis
• What is a key concept within investigative psychology described by Canter (1994)?


  Interpersonal coherence
• What does interpersonal coherence imply about a criminal's behavior?


  The way a criminal behaves during a crime is consistent with their everyday behavior
• What is the purpose of statistical analysis in investigative psychology?


  • Identify common themes and patterns of behavior
  • Narrow down the range of possible suspects
• What is geographical profiling?


  • Use of statistical analysis to infer the offender's geographical location
  • Based on the circle hypothesis
• What does the circle hypothesis predict about serial offenders?


  They commit crimes within a geographical circle
• What did Canter and Larkin (1993) find regarding the circle hypothesis?


  87% of offenders lived within the predicted circle
• What are the two geographical models for offending locations?

  • Marauder: Commits crimes near their home
  • Commuter: Travels to commit crimes away from home
• What are the strengths of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling?


  • Supporting evidence from Canter
  • Validity of geographical profiling
  • Wider range of applications
  • More scientific approach
• What are the weaknesses of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling?


  • Conflicting evidence from Copson
• What are the three biological explanations of criminal behavior mentioned in the syllabus?

  Atavistic form, genetics, neural factors
• Who proposed the atavistic form explanation of criminal behavior?


  Cesare Lombroso
• What does the atavistic form theory suggest about criminals?


  • Criminals are biologically different from modern humans
  • They have traits similar to evolutionary ancestors
• What are some distinctive facial features associated with criminals according to Lombroso?


  • Heavy brow
  • Strong jaw
  • Extra fingers/toes/nipples
• What is a key criticism of Lombroso's atavistic form theory?


  He did not use a non-criminal control group for comparison
• What are the strengths of the atavistic form explanation of criminal behavior?


  • Historical influence on criminology
  • Shifted focus to scientific explanations
• What are the weaknesses of the atavistic form explanation of criminal behavior?


  • Methodological concerns
  • Alternative explanations for physical appearance
  • Ethical concerns regarding stereotyping
• What types of studies support the genetic explanation of criminal behavior?

  Twin studies and gene association studies
• What did Christiansen (1977) find regarding concordance rates for criminal convictions among twins?


  35% for identical twins and 12% for non-identical twins among males
• What were the concordance rates for female twins in Christiansen's study?


  21% for identical twins and 8% for non-identical twins
• What does Lombroso's atavistic form explanation suggest about the link between physical appearance and criminal behavior?


  It suggests that the link is due to environmental factors rather than biological factors.
• Why is Lombroso’s atavistic form explanation considered socially sensitive?


  Because it could lead to stereotyping and discrimination based on appearance.
• What types of evidence support the genetic explanation of criminal behavior?

  Twin studies and gene association studies.
• How do twin studies help in understanding criminal behavior?


  They help determine whether a psychological condition or behavior is caused by genes.
• What were the concordance rates for criminal convictions among identical twins according to Christiansen (1977)?


  35% for identical twins and 12% for non-identical twins among males.
• What were the concordance rates for females in Christiansen's study?


  21% for identical twins and 8% for non-identical twins.
• What did Lange (1931) find regarding concordance rates for prison sentences among twins?


  77% of identical twins had both spent time in prison compared to 12% of non-identical twins.