Content uploaded by Bryanna Fox
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bryanna Fox on Dec 24, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
1
What Have We Learned from Offender Profiling?
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
of 40 Years of Research
Bryanna Fox, PhD*
University of South Florida
Assistant Professor
Department of Criminology
Faculty Affiliate
Florida Mental Health Institute
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, SOC 107
Tampa, Florida
Email: bhfox@usf.edu
*Corresponding author
&
David P. Farrington, PhD
University of Cambridge
Emeritus Professor
Institute of Criminology
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Published in: Psychological Bulletin
Link: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-58808-003
Please cite as:
Fox, B., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). What have we learned from offender profiling? A
systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 years of research. Psychological Bulletin,
144(12), 1247-1274.
We extend our deepest appreciation to Karina Benavides, Cassandra Dodge, Lance Johnson,
Emily Luc, Nathan Lawshe, James Meehan, Bernadette Stewart, Elisa Toman, Melanie Valentin
Rosa, and Audrey Weber for their dedication and effort as research assistants on this project.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
2
Abstract:
In the 4 decades since offender profiling (OP) was established, hundreds of journal articles,
books, book chapters, reports, and magazine articles have been published on the topic, and the
technique has been used by countless law enforcement agencies around the globe. However,
despite the popularity and extensive literature published on OP, very little is known about its
evolution, current state, or findings of the field to date. Therefore, this study presents a
systematic review and meta-analysis of 426 publications on OP from 1976 through 2016. Results
of this systematic review suggest that there have been considerable improvements in the
scientific rigor and self-assessment being conducted in the discipline, although in total, few
studies have used a strong empirical approach to develop new profiles. Even fewer evaluations
of the effectiveness of OP have been conducted. The first summary of offender profiles proposed
for major crimes in OP literature is also presented, with results indicating some recurrent themes
in profiles, but wide variations in the number, name, and description of the profiles often found.
A meta-analysis of case linkage analysis research indicates that this area is statistically
sophisticated, and has yielded moderate to strong accuracy rates for linking crimes to a single
offender. Finally, the first analysis of the most prolific authors, researchers, departments, and
outlets for OP research, and the methods, approach, and most cited publications in OP are
identified. Suggestions for future research on OP and the potential impact that this may have on
policy and practice are also discussed.
Public Significance Statement:
This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that the field of offender profiling has made
considerable improvement in the scientific rigor of its research, with case linkage analysis
studies showing moderate to strong accuracy in its ability to link crimes to a single offender.
Although recurring themes in profiles can be found in the meta-analysis of offender profiling
research, there is also considerable variability in the number, name, and description of the
profiles. Despite being applied often in active police investigations, very few evaluations of the
profiles’ accuracy or effectiveness have taken place. This lack of scientific evidence on the
validity and impact of profiling, despite the technique’s widespread use, seriously questions its
efficacy in real world investigations, as it currently stands.
Keywords: offender profiling, case linkage analysis, systematic review, meta-analysis
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
3
What Have We Learned from Offender Profiling? A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis of 40 Years of Research
The basic idea of profiling is very simple. Its aim is to predict characteristics of the
undetected offender(s) from characteristics of the offense(s) and the victims(s).
However, this simple aim leads to many complex and unanswered questions.
-David Farrington (2007, p. 486)
Offender profiling (OP) is an investigative tool used primarily by law enforcement,
psychologists, academics, and consultants to help identify the major personality, behavioral, and
demographic characteristics of an offender based upon an analysis of the crime scene behaviors
(Douglas & Burgess, 1986; Fox & Farrington, 2015; Ormerod, 1996a). This tool can be used to
generate or narrow down the range of possible suspects based upon the established links between
the type of crime committed, and the characteristics of offenders who commit those types of
crimes. Although the basic concept of OP is straightforward, determining the numerous
backgrounds, methods, terminology, and findings in the field has been anything but clear.
1
In the first article on OP, published by Colin Campbell in Psychology Today in 1976,
researchers were called upon to prove that profilers are “better than bartenders” at predicting
traits and features of offenders. Despite the considerable research conducted on OP, and
extraordinary popularity of the technique among law enforcement, it is still unclear where the
field currently stands from a scientific standpoint, particularly in terms of Campbell’s (1976)
legendary “bartender” test.
Specifically, in the four decades since the establishment of the OP field, there have been
hundreds of journal articles, books, book chapters, reports, and magazine articles published on
the topic (Dowden, Bennell, & Bloomfield, 2007). However, there appears to be substantial
variation in what is considered to be OP, who is conducting it, the methodology and approach
that is used, the findings that are achieved, as well as where and how the results are presented.
Therefore, despite the popularity and extensive literature on OP, very little is known about the
current state or findings of the field to date.
Conducting a systematic and scientific evaluation of the field of OP is vital for two
reasons. First, OP is not only extremely popular in the media and pop culture, it is also a popular
area of research for scholars in psychology, criminology, and beyond. Unfortunately, there is
very little within the field of OP that is well-established and agreed upon, which is perhaps due
to the lack of uniformity in methods, data, or even the basic terminology used by those
conducting research on OP (Bosco, Zappala`, & Santtila, 2010; Ebisike, 2008; Fox & Farrington,
2015; Wilson, Lincoln, & Kocsis, 1997). For instance, some use a clinical approach to OP,
where profiles are developed on a case-by-case basis by a profiler who has considerable training,
experience, and practice in the field, but with no clear process or methodology outlined (e.g.,
Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Snook, Cullen, Bennell, Taylor, & Gendreau, 2008). Conversely,
others conduct and have begun to evaluate OP using objective and replicable measures and
1
It is important to note that (1) there is not a single agreed upon definition for offender profiling used by all in the field, and (2) there are other
related (and arguably synonymous) terms/concepts, including criminal profiling, criminal investigative analysis, and personality profiling, which
are also used in the field based solely upon author preference and background, not substantive differences in terminology or meaning.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
4
scientific methods in subfields such as investigative psychology (Canter, 1995a; Canter, 2011),
case linkage analysis (Bennell & Canter, 2002; Bennell, Mugford, Ellingwood, & Woodhams,
2014), and evidence-based profiling (Farrington & Lambert, 2000; Fox & Farrington, 2012,
2015).
Although a more statistical approach to OP is beginning to be adopted, there is no
synthesis of the numerous methodologies, terminology, and recurring findings from research
within OP. This synthesis appears to be essential in a field that has such substantial practical
implications, and is aiming to become a true scientific practice (Farrington & Lambert, 2000).
Therefore, systematically and scientifically identifying, analyzing, and summarizing the extant
body of research is critical to the advancement of the OP field.
The second key issue stems from the fact that OP is inherently an applied discipline, as
the findings are routinely used in active investigations by law enforcement around the globe
(Homant & Kennedy, 1998; Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007). However,
there is currently no standardization in the profiling techniques or even awareness of the
recurring offender profiles in existence. There are also very few evaluations on the effectiveness
of the multitude of methodologies and profiles that are being implemented by law enforcement in
unsolved cases. The primary concern is that, although OP is utilized regularly in police
investigations, the field currently does not rise to the level of scientific credibility according to
the 1993 Daubert standard (see Bosco et al., 2010; Ebisike, 2008; Fox & Farrington, 2015;
Pakkanen, Bosco, & Santtila, 2014; Turvey & Freeman, 2012). Specifically, there is no known
reliability or error rate for the vast number of methodologies or profiles developed in the field,
largely because it is unclear what methodologies and resultant profiles currently exist.
Additionally, it is unknown what proportion of the profiles used in practice have undergone the
peer review process and if that proportion is changing over time. Without this information,
general acceptance of OP in the psychological field is unlikely to be achieved. Although there is
great hope in OP, there are many questions that need to be answered for it to become a more
credible and scientific field.
Prior Reviews and Meta-Analyses of OP
Three systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted in the field of OP
(Bennell et al., 2013; Dowden et al., 2007; Snook et al., 2007). The latter two, conducted about a
decade ago, noted that in the OP field “there has been very little synthesis of the research to date
to identify how things have developed, if at all” (Dowden et al., 2007, pp. 44–45) and that there
is an “absence of well-defined profiling framework and cumulated empirical knowledge” (Snook
et al., 2007, p. 437) in OP. Therefore, these studies aimed to conduct a synthesis of the literature
to provide a clear indication of the status of the field, and the methodologies, scholars, and
findings on which the practice of OP is based. A major goal of this study is to replicate and
expand upon prior work by Dowden et al. (2007), Snook et al. (2007), and Bennell et al. (2013).
Dowden et al. (2007): Review of OP Journal Articles
The review conducted by Dowden et al. (2007) used a content analysis of published
journal articles on OP to conduct a “preliminary quantitative synthesis” of the available literature
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
5
from 1976 to 2007 (p. 45). A total of 132 published articles were identified for inclusion through
searches of electronic databases for the following terms: profiling, homicide, serial killing, and
criminal investigative analysis. All books, book chapters, and published reports were excluded
from analysis. Additionally, articles on related fields such as geographic profiling and case
linkage analysis were removed from the study.
The results of Dowden and colleagues’ (2007) review showed that the number of articles
on OP increased substantially over time, with over 61% of the articles published between 1995
and 2007. The proportion of studies that underwent peer review also showed a significant
increase during that time frame, in addition to a significant change in statistical sophistication of
the studies over time. Nearly four times as many studies used inferential statistics between 1995
and 2006, as compared with those published before 1995. Each article was also coded on the
basis of its “emphasis,” with discussion pieces being most prevalent. Also, although most studies
discussed profiling in general (41%), the most common crime type profiled was homicide (30%).
Finally, with respect to the authors of OP research, most (34%) were psychologists, whereas 7%
were FBI agents, 5% were criminologists, 3% were forensic psychologists, and the remainder
were in other professions. Only 18 authors had published three or more articles on OP by 2007.
Snook and Colleagues (2007): Review of OP Publications and Analysis of Profiler Accuracy
The study by Snook and colleagues (2007) was unique in that it included a narrative
review of all peer reviewed publications on OP up to 2007. A total of 130 publications were
identified in database searches using the keywords criminal profiling, psychological profiling,
and offender profiling. Snook et al.’s review focused on the processes used to develop profiles,
with results indicating that 60% of publications used anecdotal inferences to develop profiles,
42% were based on some scientific evidence, and 23% used intuition as a data source in the
publications.
2
However, statistically oriented articles were published significantly more often
after 2000 as compared with before, tended to be written by authors outside the United States,
and were conducted by academics versus law enforcement or FBI agents.
The “meta-analysis” of profiler accuracy was based upon four studies that evaluated the
accuracy of self-labeled profilers as compared with other groups (e.g., psychologists, police
officers, college students, psychics). No effect sizes or other meta-analytic data were collected or
reported. It was found that profilers were generally more accurate than the comparison groups
when predicting physical features, cognitive processes, and the social history of offenders on the
basis of crime scene behaviors. When predicting the overall offender from a lineup, the profilers’
accuracy rate was 62%, as compared with 38% for the nonprofiler groups. Snook and colleagues
concluded that, whereas the field appears to be undergoing a scientific transformation, and
profilers may be more accurate than nonprofilers, OP may not yet rise to the level of “science,”
at least as it stood in 2007.
Bennell and Colleagues (2013): Analysis of Research on Case Linkage Analysis (CLA)
The final review was conducted by Bennell et al. (2013) on a subset of research in OP
known as CLA. CLA, which was first conducted by Bennell and Canter (2002), assesses the
2
The methods used in OP publications are not mutually exclusive and do not add to 100%.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
6
ability to statistically link crimes to a single offender on the basis of various crime scene
behaviors and evaluates the accuracy of the linking decision made. Typically, CLA researchers
use receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate behavioral similarity across
offenses, and determine the likelihood of case linkage (Bennell et al., 2013). The follow-up
draws upon area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis, a technique commonly used in the
psychological and medical fields to make two-alternative diagnostic decisions (e.g., cancer vs.
noncancer), to determine the level of accuracy when linking crimes to a serial offender (Bennell
et al., 2013; Steadman et al., 2000). Given the statistical sophistication of CLA, and the applied
uses in criminal investigations, CLA appears to be a rapidly growing subset of OP research.
Bennell and colleagues (2013) conducted a descriptive analysis of all available CLA
research from 2002 through January 2013. A total of 17 published articles were identified
through electronic database searches for case or crime linkage analysis. The results indicated that
there was considerable variability in AUCs across all CLA studies, with some AUCs as low as
.45, which indicates an accuracy below chance, whereas others were as high as .96, indicating
near perfect accuracy in linking decisions. Overall, about half of the reported AUCs fell into the
moderate accuracy range (.70 to .89), whereas 14% were considered highly accurate (over .90),
36% indicated low accuracy (.50 to .69), and 1% were below chance. Burglary and sexual assault
were the most common crime types in the CLA studies, although AUC values were the highest
for homicide, followed by sexual assault, arson, burglary, and then robbery and car theft.
Average AUCs for each offense type were not provided.
With respect to linking accuracy by nation in which the data were collected, considerable
variability in AUCs by country were reported, with Finland showing the highest average AUC
(.72). AUCs for all other countries were not reported. Finally, the behavioral domains used to
make the linking decision were also evaluated. Bennell and colleagues (2013) reported that
intercrime distance resulted in some of the most accurate linking decisions, whereas modus
operandi (MO; i.e., behaviors that indicate offenders’ method when committing a crime)
produced lower average AUCs (the specific values were not reported). Bennell et al. concluded
by stating that, whereas the field of CLA has substantial potential, and the overall accuracy
found for certain crimes and behavioral domains could lead to effective crime-solving strategies
when applied in police investigations, more research was clearly needed on the topic (see also
Ebisike, 2008; Fox & Farrington, 2015; Pakkanen et al., 2014; Turvey & Freeman, 2012).
Current Aim
Although the three aforementioned studies paved the way for this research in terms of a
better understanding of the variety of approaches, data, methodologies, researchers, and
ultimately, findings in the field of OP, the current study aims to replicate and build on these past
analyses in four ways. First, this study collected and analyzed an additional decade of
publications, as the previous systematic reviews of OP literature were conducted by Dowden et
al. (2007) and Snook et al. (2007) over 10 years ago.
Second, a broader array of publications on OP are drawn upon, so a thorough evaluation
of all forms of literature on the topic (to include peer reviewed journal articles, books, and book
chapters, as well as non-peer reviewed publications including nonacademic books, reports, and
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
7
trade journal articles, which were excluded from prior reviews) as well as the methods, findings,
outlets, citations, and authors who produced these works. An emphasis is placed on the overall
prevalence and changes over time in the methods, statistical sophistication, peer review, author
types, affiliations and departments, and assessment of impact of OP publications.
Third, to benefit the readers of this article and provide a comprehensive view on the state
of the field of OP, two additional analyses were conducted. A systematic review was conducted
to identify the recurring profiles proposed for each crime type (no effect sizes are available). As
a field it is essential that we take stock of what profiles are being developed, how, and if certain
offender types are consistently linked to certain offending behaviors. No such summary of extant
profiles currently exists in any form.
Finally, a meta-analysis of CLA research is also conducted, in order to determine the
average accuracy of CLA, a rapidly growing field within OP, as well as how this accuracy rate
specifically varies according to the type of crime, behavioral domain, and location of the offense
data of interest. This builds upon prior research, and provides the first meta-analysis on the
active and growing subfield of CLA.
This comprehensive and holistic approach allows for a more accurate and complete
assessment of the unique methodologies, findings, and when available, effect sizes, within OP,
and provides a “state of the art” analysis of the field. (To date, no other study has evaluated the
state of OP in this manner.) Additionally, to have a true assessment of where we are, it is
important to evaluate where we came from. Older OP literature (particularly the work developed
by FBI profilers in the 1970s and 1980s) still impacts police and public perception of the field of
OP. Omitting this literature from an analysis of OP, particularly when it has played such an
important (albeit controversial) role in the field’s history, only serves to ignore it, not evaluate it.
The ultimate goal of this study is to evaluate the current state of OP, its evolution, and the
cumulative impact of 4 decades of work in order to benefit the researchers and practitioners who
study and use OP around the world.
Method
Data
This study aimed to identify and collect all available publications on OP, including peer
reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, magazine articles, research reports, and trade
journal articles published from 1976 through 2016. To do this, an electronic search of
psychological, criminological, and medical journal databases including PsycINFO, PubMed,
Criminal Justice Abstracts, Medline, Web of Science, and the National Criminal Justice
Reference System was conducted to identify suitable publications to be included in this study.
Additional searches were conducted using Google Scholar, Thomson Reuters Institute for
Scientific Information, and the lead author’s university international library catalog to help
identify books, book chapters, trade journals, and other types of publications not included in
academic journal databases.
Selection Criteria
As noted, OP has been defined in multiple ways by various authors, based largely on
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
8
their preference and background (Ebisike, 2008). Furthermore, OP is also referred to by various
names, including criminal profiling, psychological profiling, criminal investigative analysis,
crime scene analysis, behavioral profiling, personality profiling, case linkage analysis,
behavioral consistency analysis. Consequently, each database was searched using the following
key words: offender profiling, criminal profiling, psychological profiling, criminal personality
profiling, personality profiling, criminal investigative analysis, investigative psychology,
behavioral profiling, behavioral evidence analysis, and geographic profiling. Additional
keywords were case linkage analysis, crime linkage, crime linkage analysis, crime scene
analysis, behavioral linkage, behavior linkage, crime behavior consistency, and behavioral
consistency analysis.
3
The search period was January 1, 1976 to December 31, 2016. To
supplement these database searches, the reference lists of prior systematic reviews as well as all
publications identified through the search were examined to identify additional relevant works.
Publications were included in the study if they provided (1) a general, legal, or theoretical
discussion of OP (or any of the aforementioned keyword variants used in the search string); (2) a
case study applying OP; (3) proposed or developed a profile; (4) performed case linkage analysis
(or any of the keyword variants, as identified in the search string); (5) compared profiling
methods; or (6) conducted an evaluation of a profiling technique. All identified publications were
scanned to ensure that they met the inclusion criteria and were not mistakenly identified. For
instance, articles that developed profiles of “lymphokine activities” and “electron density” were
eliminated, so only publications relating profiling to criminal behavior were included.
In total, 513 publications met the initial inclusion criteria for the present study. However,
as geographic profiling (GP) appeared to be dissimilar for direct comparison to traditional OP
because of the mathematical versus behavioral/psychological-based theory and measures,
distinctive GP analytical techniques (e.g., unique algorithms and computer software), and the
case-specific (vs. generalizable) application of the findings, all GP publications (n = 87) were
removed from the study. This left a total of 426 publications included in the study.
It should be noted that in addition to general analysis of the full population of OP
publications, two distinct analyses were conducted using a subset of the 426 publications: (1) a
meta-analysis of all publications which developed offender profiles and (2) a meta-analysis of
studies on CLA’s ability to successfully link cases based upon various crime scene behaviors. To
be included in the meta-analysis of existent profiles, a publication must provide sufficient
information on the number and type of profiles that were developed for a specific crime (e.g., not
a general discussion of profiling or a case study). A total of 62 of the 426 publications fit the
inclusion criteria for the existent profiles analysis. Publications were excluded from the CLA
meta-analysis if they lacked adequate statistics on the effect size and estimates of variance
regarding the ability to successfully link cases based upon various crime scene behaviors. A total
of 18 studies (yielding 34 total effect sizes) fit the inclusion criteria for the CLA meta-analysis.
Measures
All 426 publications were coded for the following measures: (a) year of publication, (b)
3
All variations for each key word (such as profile, profiles, profiler, linking, linkage, behavior, behavioral) were used. Example of a search
string: [offender] AND [profiling OR profiler OR profiles OR profiler].
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
9
type and (c) topic of publication, (d) author(s) names, (e) position, and (f) department/agency, (g)
outlet name, (h) peer review status, (i) data collection location, (j) sample size, (k) sampling
technique, (l) crime type, (m) use of statistics, (n) variables used in analysis, (o) results of study,
and (p) number of citations. Most of this information was clearly and readily available, but to
ensure consistency in coding across the large population of studies, we developed and used a
standardized codebook for data collection. To increase comparability with prior review findings,
the coding scheme(s) and measures used by Bennell et al. (2013), Dowden et al. (2007), and
Snook et al. (2007) studies were used when possible.
The year of publication was coded according to the year each publication was made
available to the public. Publication type refers to outlet of publication and coded into six
categories, which are largely based on the “publication emphasis” measure in Dowden et al.’s
(2007) review of OP literature. These categories include the following: peer reviewed journal
article, book, book chapter, trade journal, report, or magazine article. In concordance with
Dowden et al.’s (2007) description, general discussion pieces aim to explain OP, such as how it
is conducted, a description of various profiles, or how OP is generally applied. Legal/theoretical
publications focus on the theoretical underpinnings of OP, such as the assumptions required to
evaluate behavioral consistency or to profile offenders, the implications of using OP such as the
admissibility of profiling in court, or the “Daubert status” of expert witnesses in the OP field.
Autobiographies, typically written by OP practitioners, describe personal experiences and cases
relating to OP, whereas case studies typically develop or apply profiles, but do so to a very small
sample of cases (typically fewer than five), and generally do not conduct any statistical analysis.
CLA articles are empirical studies which aim to statistically evaluate the ability to accurately
match multiple offenses to a single offender, and/or evaluate the consistency of behaviors in a
serial offender’s crime series over time. Profile development articles aim to create a “profile” of
offenders or offenses, but can range from using nonstatistical information to advanced scientific
methodologies. Comparison of methods articles compare results and accuracy of different
approaches to profiling, or compare the abilities of profilers with different groups of individuals.
Finally, evaluations aim to assess the accuracy and/or utility of profiling.
Author affiliation refers to the self-identified professional affiliation of all authors (based
on general field of employment or self-described title) included in the study. The potential
responses include psychologist, criminologist, forensic psychologist/psychiatrist (in independent
practice), FBI Special Agent, law enforcement/government, student, or another field. To expand
on past work (but maintain a manageable amount of data), the name and affiliation for the first
three authors of each publication were coded for analysis, as this represented the author(s) with
the greatest contribution to each publication. The specific department/agency in which each
author was employed at the time of publication was coded on the basis of information provided
in each publication or a review of the author’s curriculum vitae for the time of the publication.
The name of each outlet for publication (e.g., journal, book, magazine) was recorded, as
well as the peer review status (peer reviewed vs. not peer reviewed). All publications were
evaluated on the basis of the location at which data were collected and coded into seven
categories: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, “no
location” (i.e., if the publication did not use data from a specific location or discussed profiling
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
10
in general), and “other” (i.e., if the study sample was derived from another geographic location
or from multiple countries). The size of the sample was also collected. For quality evaluations,
samples were dichotomized to indicate either fewer than 400 cases or 400 or more cases
(Murray, Farrington, & Eisner, 2009). The sampling technique was also coded for the quality
evaluations, reflecting the use of a convenience or nonprobability sampling strategy, or
population or probability/random sample. Each publication was assigned to one of eight
categories for the type of crime that was profiled: homicide (all forms), sexual assault, arson,
burglary, robbery, pedophilia, no specific offense (general/multiple offenses), or some other
type of offense.
Each article was classified into one of three categories on the basis of the analysis used
and its statistical sophistication. Although we accept that the choice of appropriate statistics (or
no statistics) depends on the questions being addressed, we nevertheless thought that it would be
useful and informative to document the extent to which statistical methods have been used in OP
research in different time periods. The categories were the use of: no statistics, basic descriptive
statistics, and more advanced statistical methods (e.g., inferential statistics such as regressions,
cluster analysis, latent class analysis, multidimensional scaling, and ROC analysis). The latter
examples represent advanced scientific work, whereas descriptive studies (or publications based
upon intuition and guesswork of profilers) are not scientifically advanced. In addition to
evaluating descriptive trends in OP research, a meta-analysis of empirical OP and CLA research
is also conducted. To do this, we also coded available results from publications including number
and types of profiles developed and number of variables used to develop the profiles (one to five
or six or more), effect sizes, and estimates of variance.
Citations for all publications in the dataset were determined using Google Scholar and
were collected on January 8, 2017. To standardize citation counts for publications produced
across 4 decades, the number of citations for each publication was divided by the number of
years since the article was published.
4
For instance, if an article published in 1986 generated 300
citations by 2016, the standardized impact score would be 10. The operationalization of all
measures in an official codebook is available on request.
Results
Overview of OP Publications From 1976 to 2016
A total of 426 OP publications were included in the present review and meta-analysis. To
measure the quality of included studies, a risk of bias evaluation was conducted. The descriptive
statistics for each variable in this analysis are presented in Table 1. All publications included in
this study are on the reference list, preceded by an asterisk. As traditional methodological quality
criteria do not apply to most OP publications (see Farrington, 2003), we developed a series of
measures to evaluate study quality on the basis of items included in the Cochrane Effective
Practice and Organization of Care (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care
4
In an analysis of top 15 highest impact publications based upon total (unstandardized) citation count, nine were also on the top 15 highest
impact publication list using the standardized citation count. Interestingly, all items on the unstandardized list were books or autobiographies, and
all but one (93%) were published prior to 2000.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
11
Review Group, 2017) and Cambridge Quality Checklists (Murray et al., 2009).
The resulting methodological quality evaluation contained five indicators: (1) sample
size, (2) peer review, (3) sampling technique, (4) number of variables used in the analysis, and
(5) statistical technique used. A total methodological quality score ranging from 1 to 10 was also
calculated by totaling a score on all quality indicators.
5
In total, half of all publications did not use a sample, 43% drew upon a sample less than
400 (n = 184), and 7% used a sample of 400 or greater (n = 29). The results indicated that nearly
two thirds of publications went through a blinded peer review process (n = 269), whereas one
third of publications did not (n = 157). Although 57% of the publications did not report or did
not use a sampling strategy, nearly a quarter used a convenience or nonprobability sample (n =
5
The methodological quality evaluation comprising five items, scored as sample size (0= not applicable, 1= 0–399, 2= 400+),
peer review (1= not peer reviewed, 2= peer reviewed), sampling (0= not reported or applicable, 1= convenience or non
probability sample, 2= population or probability/random sample), number of variables (0= none, 1= 1–5 variables, 2= 6+
variables), statistical technique (0= none, 1= descriptives, 2 =advanced/inferential statistics). The methodological quality scale
ranged from a potential total score of 1 to 10.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
12
102), and 19% drew on a population, probability sample, or random sampling technique (n _ 81).
In terms of the number of variables or control measures used in these publications, slightly over
half did not use any variables (n = 222), 14% used one to five variables (n = 61), and 34% used
six or more variables in the analyses (n = 143). Finally, of the 426 texts published on OP to date,
over half used no statistics of any kind (n = 218). About 22% used descriptive statistics (n = 95),
and 26% used more advanced statistical analysis in the profiling methodology (n = 113). The full
sample of 426 studies yielded a mean total quality score of 4.38 (SD = 3.11) out of 10.
A large proportion (47%) of OP publications were produced in the last decade (2006 to
2016), and an upward trend in OP publications can be seen over time. Between 1976 and 1985
an average of less than two publications per year were produced on OP (n = 19), whereas nearly
20 publications on OP per year were produced between 2006 and 2016 (n = 198). In short, the
rate and number of OP publications per decade has dramatically increased since 1976,
particularly in the last 10 years.
In the last four decades, most publications have fallen into the profile development (32%;
n = 135) or general discussion of profiling categories (31%; n = 134). The remaining areas have
considerably fewer publications, with 9% of studies in the CLA (n = 39) and profile evaluation
categories (n = 40), and 5% were classified as legal/theoretical articles (n = 22), comparison of
method publications (n = 22), or case studies (n _ 20). Approximately 3% of the publications are
profiler autobiographies (n = 14).
When the self-identified professional affiliation of all authors (on the basis of department
of employment or self-described title) in the analysis were evaluated (n = 852), the plurality
(43%; n = 364) of authors identified as psychologists, whereas 17% identified as criminologists
(n = 145). A total of 10% were law enforcement or government officials (n = 84), and less than
7% of all authors were a FBI Special Agent or profiler in the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit
(BSU; n = 56). Only 6% of authors identified as a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist in
independent practice (n = 51), and 6% of the authors were graduate students (n = 50). A total of
12% of authors identified in a position not covered by the traditional affiliations coded for this
analysis (n = 102), such as mathematicians and statisticians, epidemiologists, journalists, and so
on.
When evaluating the types of author(s) who have published on profiling over time, there
are several considerable changes. First, although FBI Special Agent profilers made up nearly half
(45%; n = 13) of those who published on OP between 1976 and 1985, this decreased
substantially each subsequent decade, down to 28% between 1986 and 1995 (n = 29), 5%
between 1996 and 2005 (n = 14), and finally down to zero between 2006 and 2016. Authors in
other law enforcement agencies wrote 24% of all publications between 1976 and 1985 (n = 7),
but they were responsible for less than half that proportion (9%) by 2006 to 2016 (n = 40). The
largest increase in OP publications occurred among psychologists, as this group authored just 5
of the articles published between 1976 and 1985, but this rose to 122 articles between 1996 and
2005, and nearly 200 between 2006 and 2016 (46%). The number of articles written by
criminologists and graduate students also increased considerably, with criminologists initially
authoring just 2 articles published between 1976 and 1985 (7%), but the rate increased over
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
13
300% as criminologists authored 90 OP publications between 2006 and 2016 (21%). Although
graduate students wrote no articles on OP between 1976 and 1985, they authored 38 (9%) of the
publications between 2006 and 2016. The remaining two author groups (forensic psychologists
and all other positions) stayed relatively stable in their proportion of authorship over time.
Overall, the relationship between author position and decade is statistically significant,
suggesting that the changes in the types of people writing articles on OP differs significantly
compared with what is expected by chance, χ2(18)= 217.53, p< .0001.
The peer review status of each publication was also coded to determine the proportion of
publications that undergo this important evaluation process, and whether this has changed
significantly over time. Although peer review was far less common between 1976 and 1985
(peer reviewed n = 3; non-peer reviewed n = 16), by 1996 to 2005 peer reviewed publications
outnumbered non-peer reviewed publications (n = 93 vs. 55, respectively). Between 2006 and
2016, the number of peer reviewed publications increased considerably to 147 whereas the
number of non-peer reviewed publications decreased to 51. The relationship between peer
review status and decade of publication is statistically significant, χ2(3) = 41.59, p< .0001.
With respect to the type of each OP publication, the majority (63%) were peer reviewed
journal articles (n = 269), whereas 7% were articles in trade journals such as the FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin and Police Chief (n = 31). Book chapters are the second most common
form of publication on OP (n = 68; 16%), followed by books (n = 35; 8%), and finally magazine
articles (n = 17; 4%) and reports (n = 6; 1%). The type of crime profiled in each of the 426
publications was also examined. The results indicate that, although many articles did not focus
on a single specific crime (42%; n = 177), the most common offense studied was homicide
(26%; n = 113). Sexual assault was the second most common offense (13%; n = 57), followed by
all other offense types, which included fraud, terrorism, and cybercrime (8%; n = 33). Five
percent of profiling publications were conducted on burglary (n = 22), and arson comprised 3%
of the total publications (n = 13). Robbery (n = 7) and pedophilia (n = 4) were the least common
offenses profiled, at 2% or less of all publications.
The geographical locations of the crimes/offenders analyzed in each publication were
evaluated. Although one third of the publications did not have a specific geographic location (n
= 143), one quarter of all offender and crime data in profiling studies was collected in the United
States (25%; n = 107). About 17% of publications are based on data from the United Kingdom (n
= 74), whereas 8% are from Canada (n = 33), 4% are from Australia (n = 15), and 1% are from
the Netherlands (n = 6). Approximately 11% are from other nations (n = 48) such as France,
Spain, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Egypt, Israel, Cyprus, and
China (max “other” country n = 4).
The use of statistics in each publication was also evaluated. With respect to changes in
the use of statistics in OP publications over time, a statistically significant association was found,
χ2(6) = 36.42, p< .0001. Specifically, whereas 68% of publications between 1976 and 1985 used
no statistical analysis (n = 13), the remaining 32% of publications in that decade used only basic
descriptive statistics (n = 6). However, in the last decade (2006–2016), the proportion of
publications using no statistical analyses dropped to 40% (n = 80), and the use of more advanced
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
14
statistical methods rose to 33% (n = 66). Although just a third of the recent OP publications
using advanced statistics seems low, this is a considerable increase from zero publications three
decades earlier.
Most Prolific Authors and Cited Publications in OP From 1976 to 2016
Table 2 presents the 25 most prolific authors who published on OP from 1976 to 2016.
This analysis indicates those who are the most prolific in overall authorship, the most prolific
lead authors, and most prolific lead authors on just peer reviewed journal publications. While
prolificacy does not necessarily equate to quality of publications, prolific authors may have more
influence on the field, as his or her ideas and findings are being disseminated at a higher rate
than others (and if peer reviewed, indicate support by his or her peers in the field).
In each analysis, Richard Kocsis, a forensic psychologist in independent practice in
Australia, was found to be the top producer of OP publications in all categories since 1976.
Kocsis had 27 publications as lead author, was lead author on 22 peer reviewed journal articles,
and was one of the first three authors on 30 total publications. David Canter, Director of the
International Research Centre in Investigative Psychology at the University of Huddersfield in
the United Kingdom, was ranked in the top three on all productivity metrics, whereas Craig
Bennell, psychologist and Director of the Police Research Laboratory at Carleton University in
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
15
Canada, was consistently ranked in the top four on all metrics. Former FBI Special Agent and
BSU profiler John Douglas ranked fifth in terms of lead authorship and seventh for overall
authorship, but did not qualify as a prolific author in peer reviewed journal articles. All three
members of the original FBI profiling team (Douglas, Ressler, and Hazelwood) were ranked
among the most prolific authors in terms of lead authorship and any authorship, but not for peer
reviewed journal articles. However, being ranked as the most prolific author in OP using all three
criteria was a feat accomplished by only 13 people in the world (Kocsis, Canter, Alison, Bennell,
Beauregard, Santtila, Salfati, Woodhams, Goodwill, Snook, Häkkänen, Tonkin, and Fox). For a
full list of the most prolific authors in offender profiling, see Table 2.
To evaluate which authors and publications have had the highest impact within the field
of OP, measured objectively using a uniform standard, an analysis of the total citations in Google
Scholar for all 426 publications in the study was conducted. Like journal Impact Factors, which
reflect the frequency in which the average article in a journal has been cited in the previous year
as a primary measure of a journal’s impact on the field (Thomson Reuters, 2016), citation counts
also measure the number of times an article has been cited by other scholars, in order to measure
a publication’s impact on a given field.
On the basis of the standardized impact score for each item in the population of articles,
the 15 publications with the highest impact scores (i.e., relevance/impact on the field) are
presented in Table 3. It is interesting to note that, of the top 15 most cited publications, only five,
are peer reviewed journal articles (Canter, 2000; Canter et al., 2003, 2004; Canter & Fritzon,
1998; Robertiello & Terry, 2007). The remainder are either books, such as Holmes and Holmes
(1996) and Hickey (1991), book chapters, such as Canter (2010), or autobiographies, such as
Douglas and Olshaker (1995). It is also interesting to note that, although the field of OP has been
producing publications for 40 years, most of the highly cited research was produced between
1994 and 2004. Although the citation counts are not a measure the quality of publications, they
do measure the influence a publication has had on future works. Consequently, the high number
of citations for the OP publications is quite remarkable. Three of the top five most cited
publications had citation counts over 500 (and the other two were nearly at 500), and in total, the
top 15 OP publications were cited a total of 5,275 times.
Most Popular Outlets for OP Publications From 1976 to 2016
An analysis was conducted to determine the top 10 most popular outlets for publications
on OP over the last 4 decades. Of the 426 publications, 103 were published as book chapters or
books (24%), making this the most common outlet to date. The most popular journal outlet for
OP publications is the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (8%; n = 33),
followed by the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (6%;
n = 25). The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which is not a peer reviewed outlet, was the third
most common outlet for articles on OP (5%; n = 20), whereas the highly ranked journal Criminal
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
16
Justice and Behavior was the fourth most popular home of profiling publications (4%; n = 18).
6
7
The remaining most popular outlets were all peer reviewed journals, in the following order: 5,
Legal and Criminological Psychology (n = 12); 6, Psychology, Crime, & Law (n = 11); 7,
Homicide Studies and the Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology (n = 10); and a three-way tie
by Aggression and Violent Behavior, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, and the Journal of
Interpersonal Violence (n = 9).
Departments Producing Most OP Publications From 1976 to 2016
To determine the departments producing the highest volumes of publications on OP since
1976, an analysis of the first author’s departmental affiliation for all 426 identified publications
was conducted. The most prolific single department was the FBI’s BSU, as this unit produced
nearly 8% of all publications on OP (n = 33). The second largest producer of OP publications
was Richard Kocsis’ independent practice, accounting for about 6% of all publications (n =
24).
8
8 The International Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Huddersfield in
the United Kingdom was third (n = 15; 4%), and the Department of Psychological Science at the
6
Articles submitted to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin undergo an internal review by FBI employees selected by the editor (an
FBI employee) and may give preference to FBI employees and collaborators. Additionally, after an article receives approval by
reviewers, FBI management may (and have) rejected accepted articles for a variety of reasons that may or may not be made clear
to author(s). This process does not qualify as peer review.
7
Journal rankings were determined on the basis of each journal’s 2016 Impact Factor from the Thomson Reuters, 2016 Journal
Citation Reports Index. A journal’s impact factor is measured using the number of times that articles published in a specific
journal in the two previous years were cited the next year (Thomson Reuters, 2016). Of the eight journals, Criminal Justice and
Behavior had the highest Impact Factor (= 1.90).
8
Kocsis conducted OP research at the University of New England in Australia prior to starting his private practice.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
17
University of Liverpool ranked fourth (n = 14; 3%). Tied for fifth most prolific departments in
the field of OP are the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida in Tampa
and the Department of Psychology at Carleton University in Canada (n = 12; 3%). Seventh place
is the Psychology Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada (n = 8; 2%). A
three-way tie for eighth place was found for the Department of Psychology at John Jay College
of Criminal Justice in New York City, Department of Justice Administration at the University of
Louisville and the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University in Canada (n = 7; 2%). It
is important to note that the top 10 departments span four countries on three different continents,
and that psychology, criminology, law enforcement, and independent practice are all represented
on the list.
Analysis of Results in OP Publications From 1976 to 2016
Of the 426 total publications, there have been 370 articles, books, chapters, and reports
written on “traditional” OP from 1976 to 2016. However, it is currently unknown what
conclusions can be drawn from this body of literature. No study has analyzed the cumulative
findings from these publications to indicate the most replicated number and types of profiles for
a variety of crimes. Although no effect sizes are present in profile development publications, this
study is the first to conduct a meta-analysis of the existent literature on OP and indicate the most
consistent profiles developed based on 40 years of literature conducted across the globe.
In total, 62 publications have developed or proposed specific profiles for six major crime
types (homicide, sexual assault, burglary, robbery, arson, and pedophilia) and a number of other
minor offenses or subtypes of major crimes. These publications, including the number and type
of proposed profiles, sample size (if applicable), and study location, are presented in Table 4.
A second methodological quality evaluation was conducted for the 62 profile
development publications. In total, 71% were peer reviewed (n = 44), and over twice the rate of
publications in the full sample used a population, probability or random sampling (37%, n = 23)
whereas 40% used a convenience or nonprobability sampling method (n = 25). About 11% of
studies used a sample of 400 or more (n = 7) and 79% used samples of less than 400. The
majority (77%) of articles used six or more variables to develop the profiles (n = 48), and 13%
used one to five variables (n = 8). About 65% of profiles were developed using an advanced or
inferential statistical analysis (n = 40), whereas 19% used descriptive statistics (n = 12). The
profile development studies produced a mean total quality score of 7.03 (SD = 2.25) out of 10.
Overall, this analysis indicates the profile development publications tend to be of relatively high
quality.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
18
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
19
Homicide was the most common offense profiled, with 25 publications (40%) proposing
profiles for homicide. Of these, 11 publications focused specifically on sexual homicide, which
combines sexual assault and murder, and 14 publications developed profiles for homicide in
general. The second most common crime to profile was sexual assault, with 14 total. Eight
publications developed profiles for arson, and six profiles were developed for burglary
(including two for sexual burglary). Finally, two publications each proposed profiles for robbery,
pedophilia, fraud, and cybercrime, and one profile has been developed for terrorism. The
samples used to develop the profiles for these offenses over the last 40 years range in size from 0
to 125,513. Excluding the outlier, the largest sample comprised 1,016 cases. This yields a mean
sample size of 140.59 across 61 publications. The median sample size is 100.
The United States had the plurality (39%) of publications developing offender profiles (n
= 24), followed by the United Kingdom (19%; n = 12) and Canada (16%; n = 10). Over half of
the profiles developed for homicide were from the United States (52%; n = 13), whereas Canada
was the most common location for the studies on sexual assault (36%, n = 5). The United
Kingdom had the most offender profiling publications on burglary (38%; n = 3), and both of the
profiles developed for robbery (100%; n = 2). Other nations which produced profiles of
offenders include Australia (6%; n = 4), Finland (6%; n = 4), Japan (3%; n = 2), the Netherlands
(2%; n = 1), Hong Kong (2%; n = 1), Cyprus (2%; n = 1), and Belgium (2%; n = 1).
The results of the 62 profiling publications range in variety in terms of the number and
type of profiles developed. Although Table 4 presents a summary of findings from each
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
20
publication, Table 5 shows results of an analysis of the recurring profiles for each crime type.
Among the 14 publications which developed profiles for homicide, the number of
profiles ranged from two to six unique subtypes. The mode number of profile subtypes was four,
as 36% of the 14 studies (n = 5) suggested that four profiles of homicide exist. Although most
publications had unique labels for the profile subtypes, analysis of these labels indicates that the
most common recurring profiles for homicide are expressive, instrumental, visionary, hedonistic,
power/control, traveling, and local offenders. To illustrate the variation in these profile types, we
submit that expressive homicides as emotion-laden and committed to relieve the offender’s
emotional distress or anger (Salfati & DuPont, 2006); instrumental homicides achieve a goal
such as revenge, financial gain, or crime concealment (Zaitsu, 2010); visionary killers murder in
response to voices or visions from a good or evil power; hedonistic offenders are thrill-seekers
who gain satisfaction from the act of homicide; power/control offenders kill to feel power over
helpless victims; traveling murderers may kill across thousands of miles; and local offenders do
not leave their comfort zone (Hickey, 1991).
Sexual homicide is considered a unique subset within the OP field, and an analysis
suggests that 45% of publications (n = 5) indicate three profiles of sexual homicide exist. The
range of suggested profiles was more limited for sexual homicide, ranging from two to four
profile subtypes across the 11 publications. The most common profiles for sexual homicide are
sadistic, sexual, anger/fury, power/control, organized, and disorganized offenders. Profiles
developed for sexual assault ranged in from two to six subtypes, with four being the most
common across the 14 publications on the offense (43%; n = 6). There was a notable variety in
subtypes for sexual assault, with the most prevalent being hostility, involvement, opportunistic,
disorganized/chaotic, ritual, and power/control types of offenders.
The eight publications on arson suggested a wide variation in profiles, ranging from two
to 10 subtypes. The most common number of profiles for arson was four, as proposed by 38% of
the eight publications on arson (n = 3). The most common profiles proposed for arson were
limited, and include expressive, instrumental, crime concealment, and revenge offenders.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
21
A total of four articles proposing profiles for burglary have been published, and
incredibly, all indicate that there are four profiles of burglary. However, the specific types of
profiles proposed differ among the studies, and only two subtypes, opportunistic and
disorganized/pilferer offenders were repeatedly suggested in the resultant burglary profiles.
Two publications addressed the subset of sexual burglaries, but there was no consensus
on the number of profiles. Although one study found two subtypes and the other suggested that
three exist, both studies identified a profile of fetish offenders. Similarly, only two studies on
robbery profiles have been conducted, and neither resulted in the same number or types of profile
subtypes. Specifically, the number of profiles for robbery ranged from three to four, and there
were no recurring subtypes of profiles across the two studies on robbery. Additionally, two
studies aimed to develop profiles for pedophilia, and both suggested that there are three profiles
of offenders. However, there was no overlap in the profile subtypes proposed by each study.
Of the five remaining publications of other offense types, there was no consensus on the
number of profiles for fraud and cybercrime. In fact, the two studies conducted on each offense
yielded the widest array of proposed profiles, ranging from three to 12 subtypes for both fraud
and cybercrime. Although there were no recurring profile subtypes for cybercrime, there were
two subtypes identified in both studies on fraud offenders: novice/isolated and
experienced/career fraud offenders. The single study developing profiles for terrorism suggested
two profiles of terrorists exist: leaders and followers.
Meta-Analysis of CLA Research Conducted From 2002 to 2016
To determine the cumulative level of accuracy when linking cases in CLA, and how CLA
accuracy varies depending on crime types, data location, and crime scene behaviors, a meta-
analysis of all available CLA research and findings was conducted based upon the search terms:
case linkage analysis, case linkage, crime linkage, crime linkage analysis, behavioral linkage,
behavior linkage, crime behavior consistency, behavioral consistency, and behavioral
consistency analysis. This meta-analysis builds upon the study conducted by Bennell and
colleagues (2013), which presented a descriptive analysis of CLA research published from
January 2012 through January 2013, but did not contain an analysis of effect size.
To conduct the meta-analysis of CLA research, standardized effect size measures and
estimates of variance were required for inclusion, and coded for analysis (Lipsey & Wilson,
2001). Effect size is in CLA is typically determined using the AUC, which is a standardized
effect size measure of diagnostic accuracy, and typically provided for the behavioral domains
used to link crimes (e.g., MO, target selection behaviors, and intercrime distance). The AUC,
calculated using a ROC curve, indicates the probability that a finding based upon a certain
measure is accurate. AUC scores range from 0.0 to 1.0, where 1.0 indicates perfect accuracy, and
.50 indicates chance/randomness. Anything less than .50 indicates accuracy worse than chance.
In CLA, higher AUC values indicate a higher likelihood that a series of crimes was truly
committed by the same offender and are based the criminal behavior selected for analysis
(Bennell et al., 2013). According to Swets (1988), AUCs between .50 and .70 indicate low
predictive accuracy, AUCs between .70 and .90 indicate “good” predictive accuracy, and AUCs
of .90 to 1.0 indicate high to perfect predictive accuracy. When available, the standard error for
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
22
each AUC was used as the estimate of its variance. If the effect size or estimate of variance was
not provided, the study was noted, but could not to be used in meta-analysis calculations.
On the basis of the full dataset of all 426 publications, a total of 39 studies on CLA were
published from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 18 met the inclusion
criteria of utilizing empirical data and producing comparable effect sizes and measurements of
variance. These studies often included multiple case linkage results based upon various
behavioral domains, multiple crimes, and/or multiple data sets. As the most common behavioral
domains used in these studies related to intercrime distance, target selection, MO behaviors, and
a composite of all crime scene behaviors, these domains were selected for analysis, when
available. This yielded a total population of 40 AUC effect sizes. Of these, 34 were accompanied
with an estimate of variance.
9
Details on the 18 studies in the meta-analysis and their results are
presented in Table 6.
9
An effort was made to acquire missing information (e.g. estimates of variance) from the first authors of relevant publications for the meta-
analysis. However, because of the time elapsed and technological issues no missing information could be acquired.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
23
CLA has been performed on five types of crime (homicide, sexual offenses, burglary,
robbery, and car theft) using data derived from six countries (United Kingdom, Canada, United
States, Finland, South Africa, and Japan). The samples utilized in these studies ranged in size
from 49 to 720 offenses. An analysis of heterogeneity showed that the effect sizes in the 34
studies were generally homogeneous (Q = 10.17, I2 = 0.0; CI [0.0, 0.75]; df = 33; heterogeneity p
= 1.00, model p< .0001). Although the homogeneity in the results initially appears low, since
there was a broad confidence interval around the I2, a random effects model was used to
calculate the weighted mean effect sizes in the meta-analysis. Overall, AUCs ranged from .53
(target selection in residential burglary) to .96 (all MO behaviors in homicide). The overall effect
size for the articles in the population was .83 (95% CI [.76, .89]). This is a relatively high effect
size, suggesting that overall, research produced on CLA can link crimes in a series with
reasonably high accuracy. A forest plot depicting the 34 studies included in the CLA meta-
analysis, effect sizes, and standard errors is presented in Figure 1.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
24
As there may be a greater tendency for studies with high effect sizes to be published, a
publication bias analysis was conducted. Using a funnel plot (Light & Pillemer, 1984; Sedgwick,
2013), we analyzed the relationship between studies’ error rates and effect sizes. In this case, a
roughly even distribution among studies with strong and weak effect sizes was observed,
indicating that there is no positive skew toward strong effect sizes in published studies. Analysis
of the 40 AUCs indicates that 25.0% of results (n = 10) fall in the low (.50 to .69) range, 57.5%
are moderate (.70 to .89; n = 23), and 17.5% of results are strong (.90 to 1.0; n = 7) effect sizes
(Swets, 1988).
Additionally, a third methodological quality evaluation was conducted for the 18 CLA
studies. About 72% of CLA studies used samples less than 400 (n = 13), though 72% drew upon
a population or used probability or random sampling (n = 13). Over 94% of studies used six or
more variables in the analyses (n = 17), 94% used advanced statistics (n = 17), and 100%
underwent peer review (n = 18). The CLA studies produced a mean total quality score of 8.76
(SD = 0.83) out of 10, indicating that CLA studies have the highest level of overall quality
among the OP publications in this review.
To examine potential variations in effect size across crime types, data sources, and crime
scene behaviors, a series of follow-up analyses were conducted. A summary of findings for
effect size estimates for each offense type, standard errors for each of the crime types, behavioral
domains, and data locations are presented in Table 7.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
25
The results suggest that AUCs were slightly higher for person crimes compared with
property crimes. Homicide yielded the highest overall AUC (.96), followed by sexual offenses
(.86), and robbery (.84). Burglary yielded the highest AUC among property crimes at .73,
followed closely by car theft at .72. The composite of various crimes had an AUC of .90. All
AUC estimates for these offenses were in the “good” range, except for homicide, which is
considered a very strong effect (but was based on only one study). Each reported AUC estimate
was statistically significant at the p< .01 level.
When the major behavioral domains included in the analysis are disaggregated, it appears
that the composite measure of all crime scene behavior variables yielded the largest AUC across
crimes (.93), whereas all MO behaviors showed a relatively large AUC of .83. Intercrime
distance, or the distance between multiple offenses, had a large AUC of .87, whereas target
selection showed the lowest level of accuracy in predicting the likelihood of crimes being linked
(.69). Each AUC estimate for the behavioral domains was statistically significant.
Visual inspection of the forest plot indicates that AUC estimates for a behavioral domain
varies significantly across crime types. Specifically, target selection behaviors were the most
accurate when linking sexual offenses (AUC = .87), followed by robbery (.69), burglary (.66),
and finally car theft (.61). However, although target selection AUC estimates were statistically
significant for burglary and car theft (p< .01), they were not statistically significant for linking
sexual offenses and robberies (each based on only one study). With respect to the distance
traveled to commit each crime, only burglary (AUC = .82) and robbery (.84) showed statistically
significant AUC estimates, although the effect sizes for car theft (.84), across various crime types
(.91) and within various crime types (.90) were quite strong. The composite measure of all crime
scene behavior variables was only available for two crime types, sexual offenses (.92) and
robbery (.95), and neither showed statistically significant AUC estimates (but both had only one
case in the sample). Still, these AUC estimates for all variables were very large.
AUC estimates for all MO behaviors were calculated for five of the six crime types.
While the MO behaviors AUC values for burglary (.71), robbery (.70), and sexual offenses (.84)
were good, the AUC for MO behavior in homicide was an extremely strong predictor of crime
linkage (.96), but very weak for car theft (.56). However, only the AUC estimates for sexual
offenses and burglary were statistically significant among the all MO behavior domains,
presumably because each remaining crime had only a single case in the analysis.
Finally, the AUCs for the 34 complete results in the meta-analysis were analyzed for
strength of effect size across the nations that the crime samples were drawn from. As shown in
Table 7, there is variability in the accuracy when linking cases, depending upon the location
where the crimes took place. The strongest AUC was found in a study conducted in the United
States (.96), followed closely by crimes committed in Canada (.90). Both were considered strong
effects, although, the AUC estimate for the study in the United States (one case) was not
statistically significant. The next AUCs, falling in the moderate to strong range at .88 and .83
were drawn from South Africa and Japan, respectively. However, both (based on only one case)
were also not statistically significant predictors of overall case linkage accuracy. Finally, the two
largest samples of results, which were drawn from the United Kingdom (n = 23) and Finland (n
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
26
= 6), yielded the lowest overall AUCs, at .80 for the United Kingdom and .79 for Finland. Both
were statistically significant at the p< .01 level.
Discussion
This study presents a comprehensive statistical evaluation of 40 years of publications on
the field of OP. Although dozens of profiles have been developed for various offenses, no
analysis has been conducted to determine the specific recurring themes or profiles exist within
the body of publications on OP. Additionally, as nearly 50% of the 426 articles, books, chapters,
and reports written on OP were published in the last 10 years, after the last systematic reviews in
OP took place, an updated and more inclusive review of the OP field is required.
Results of the systematic review and meta-analysis in this study indicate several key
takeaway points regarding the state of the field. First, it is clear that there are stark new trends
emerging in the rate, type, statistical sophistication, location, and affiliation of authors of
publications in the field of OP. For instance, a sharp positive trend in the number of publications
on OP was identified for each decade from 1976 to the present. Although not in the majority,
many publications that were excluded from previous systematic reviews on OP, such as books,
book chapters, reports, and magazine articles, comprised of 30% of the population. Also, while,
there are a growing number of new profile proposals, very few evaluations of existing profiles or
profiling strategies (< 10% of all publications) have been conducted to determine the level of
accuracy of these profiles and methods. With respect to the scientific and statistical rigor of OP
publications, the proportion of publications using advanced statistical analyses rose from 0% to
33% over the last 4 decades, and in the past 10 years the number of peer reviewed studies out-
paced non-peer reviewed publications by a margin of three to one.
The present article was also the first to examine the location where OP research is being
conducted, and the results indicate that, whereas most data were collected in the United States,
far less research is currently conducted there. Instead, the United Kingdom and Canada have
been rapidly increasing their research and publications on OP. In terms of authorship, this study
showed that a growing number of criminologists and graduate students have been conducting
research on OP in recent years, whereas the number of FBI Special Agents and profilers, who
were once the highest proportion of OP authors, has now decreased to zero. Moreover, most
research on OP is conducted by psychologists, which also appears to be increasing in rate over
the last 2 decades. In general, academics are now producing the vast majority of literature on OP,
a finding shared by both prior systematic reviews. These findings on trends in OP are important
for future students, practitioners, attorneys, the news media, publishers, and our colleagues to be
aware of, as we hope to keep directing OP in a more scientific and empirical direction.
The second major takeaway is from the analysis of recurring profiles developed over the
last 40 years of OP. In the analysis of the 62 publications that have developed offender profiles,
there was a considerable variation found in the number, characteristics, and terminology used to
describe otherwise similar profile types. For instance, the modal number of homicide offender
profiles (the most common crime profiled) in the literature was four. This finding is in sharp
contrast to the pop culture depiction of the Organized and Disorganized serial killer profiles
originally proposed by agents in the FBI’s BSU in the 1980s (Douglas & Burgess, 1986).
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
27
Instead, studies on homicide clearly indicate that there are other profile types that fit the
characteristics of various types of homicide offenders. The recurring profiles found in this study
include expressive, instrumental, visionary, hedonistic, power/control, traveling, and local
homicide offenders (see Hickey, 1991; Salfati & Dupont, 2006; Zaitsu, 2010).
Furthermore, some authors proposed profiles on the basis of the authors’ investigative
experience, MO at the crime scene, and review of OP literature. Other studies utilize advanced
statistical analysis of all available crime scene information, to include MO and target selection
behaviors, and produced statistical profiles to fit the data. Given the wide variety in methods and
terminology used across the field, synthesis of the findings of OP as a whole is very difficult. In
short, it is important for OP researchers to aim to scientifically test, replicate, and ideally,
consolidate the terms used for profiles in order to streamline and advance the field of OP.
The final major takeaway stems from the meta-analysis of CLA research from 2002 to
2016. Results indicate that in general, CLA can be used successfully to link crimes in an offense
series committed by a single offender. In fact, well over half of all reported AUCs were in the
moderate to strong range, whereas almost 20% were very strong effect sizes. This aligns with,
but is slightly higher than, the findings of Bennell et al. (2013). Additionally, in contrast to
Bennell et al.’s (2013) findings, which found that ICD resulted in the highest effect sizes and
MO behaviors showed lower accuracy rates in linking, this updated analysis found that the
composite measure of all crime scene behavior variables yielded the largest mean effect size
across crimes, and linking crimes based upon MO behaviors was largely accurate across studies.
With respect to linking accuracy across countries, another variation was found between
the present and past research on the topic. While Bennell et al. (2013) reported that Finland had
the highest average linking accuracy, the effect sizes for all other countries were not reported. In
this study, the strongest effect was found in a study from the United States, followed by Canada,
South Africa, and Japan. The United Kingdom and Finland showed two of the lowest average
AUCs in this study. As these countries produced the most research on CLA, it is possible that
more variability was introduced which potentially lowered the average AUC compared with
other less-researched nations. However, with more data from the United Kingdom and Finland,
the generalizability of these findings are increased. In short, more research on CLA is needed
across nations including the United States, Canada, and beyond, in order to best determine the
cumulative level of accuracy when linking cases for various crimes, locations, and behavioral
domains.
Conclusion
In short, OP has exploded in popularity as both an investigative technique and a topic for
many books, chapters, reports, and journal articles over the past several decades (Dowden et al.,
2007). However, unlike many other fields where considerable research and practice is being
done, which typically have rigorous evaluations and reviews to establish the “state of the art” and
the overall success of the practice, the field of OP remains relatively close to where it started in
terms of scientifically assessing what profiles exist, and how the profiles perform in actual police
investigations. This has rightfully led to many strong critiques of OP, and caused a dark cloud
over the reputation and results being produced by the field (see Bennell, Jones, Taylor, & Snook,
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
28
2006; Kocsis, 2006).
The results of this review and meta-analysis indicate that there is considerable
improvement in the scientific rigor and self-assessment in the discipline. The last decade has
shown sharp increases in the proportion of OP publications utilizing advanced statistics, as well
as the number of evaluations conducted on the applied aspects of this work. Still, there is much
further for the field to go.
Specifically, to address concerns that the field does not rise to the level of scientific
credibility according Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993; Bosco et al., 2010;
Ebisike, 2008; Pakkanen et al., 2014), all future profiles should be developed using a solid
empirical approach that relies on advanced statistical analysis of large data sets (not the intuition
or experience of the author or the descriptive statistics of a handful of cases), and should undergo
peer review prior to publication. This will help to streamline the vast number of methodologies
used in the field, increase the quality of resultant profiles, and the acceptance of OP in the field.
Additionally, it is not enough to simply develop new profiles and then hope that their
impact is positive, or even effective. Profiles should be implemented in police investigations and
then evaluated for their effects on arrest rates in unsolved cases using an experimental design
(see, e.g., Fox & Farrington, 2015). This will establish a known reliability/error rate, and
evaluate which profiles are most effective when applied in actual police investigations. Although
results of this study indicate that OP started off as a very different field 4 decades ago, OP
appears to be on a positive trajectory in terms of the use of more scientific and statistical
methods, data and analyses, and evaluations of our work. Continuation on this trajectory,
particularly in the next 10 years, will help the field of OP transform from a “cocktail napkin
psuedoscience” into an evidence-based discipline that produces research used to help police,
inform policy, and ultimately, make the world a safer place.
Ultimately, the field of OP must consider Campbell’s (1976) original question and ask
“Are we better at this than a bartender?” Although we have come quite a long way since that
question was posed over 4 decades ago, the answer remains largely unknown. But, with the
continued use of the scientific tools at our disposal, such as quantitative data, advanced statistics,
experimental evaluations, and future meta-analyses, this goal can certainly be achieved.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
*Adjorlolo, S., & Chan, H. C. (2017). The nature of instrumentality and expressiveness of homicide crime scene behaviors: A review. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 18, 119–133.
*Ainsworth, P. (2001). Offender profiling and crime analysis. London, UK: Willan Publishing.
*Aitken, C. G. G., Connolly, T., Gammerman, A., Zhang, G., Bailey, D., Gordon, R., & Oldfield, R. (1996). Statistical modelling in specific case
analysis. Science and Justice, 36, 245–255.
*Aitken, C., Connolly, T., Gammerman, A., Zhang, G., & Oldfield, D. (1995). Predicting an offender’s characteristics: An evaluation of
statistical modelling. Home office police research group special interest series: Paper 4. London, UK: Home Office.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
29
*Alison, L. J. (2005). From trait-based profiling to psychological contributions to apprehension methods. In L. Alison (Ed.), The forensic
psychologists’ casebook: Psychological profiling and criminal investigation (pp. 3–22). London, UK: Routledge.
*Alison, L. J., & Barrett, E. (2004). The interpretation and utilisation of offender profiles: A critical review of “traditional” approaches to
profiling. In J. R. Adler (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Concepts, debates and practice (pp. 58–77). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
*Alison, L. J., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the
processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 115–135.
*Alison, L. J., & Canter, D. V. (1999a). Professional, legal and ethical issues in offender profiling. In D. V. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling
in policy and practice (pp. 21–54). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Alison, L. J., & Canter, D. V. (1999b). Profiling in policy and practice. In D. V. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp.
1–19). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Alison, L. J., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic solutions to offender profiling and behavioural investigative
advice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 115–132.
*Alison, L. J., & Kebbell, M. R. (2006). Offender profiling: Limits and potential. In M. R. Kebbell & M. G. Davies (Eds.), Practical psychology
for forensic investigations and prosecutions (pp. 152–163). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
*Alison, L. J., McLean, C., & Almond, L. (2007). Profiling suspects. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal
investigation (pp. 493–516). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
*Alison, L. J., Rockett, W., Deprez, S., & Watts, S. (2000). Bandits, cowboys and robin’s men: The facets of armed robbery. In D. V. Canter &
L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crimes (pp. 75–106). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Alison, L. J., Smith, M. D., Eastman, O., & Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin’s philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 173–183.
*Alison, L. J., Smith, M. D., & Morgan, K. (2002). Interpreting the accuracy of offender profiles. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 185–195.
*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.
*Almond, L. J., 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.
*Annon, J. S. (1995). Investigative profiling: A behavioral analysis of the crime scene. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13, 67–75.
*Åsgard, U. (1998). Swedish experiences in offender profiling and evaluation of some aspects of a case of murder and abduction in Germany. In
BKA-Forschungsreihe (Ed.), Method of case analysis: An international symposium (Vol. 38.2, pp. 125–130). Weisbaden, Germany:
Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut.
*Ault, R. L., & Hazelwood, R. R. (1991). Indirect personality assessment. In R. R. Hazelwood & A. W. Burgess (Eds.) Practical aspects of rape
investigation (2nd ed., pp. 205–218). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Ault, R. L., Hazelwood, R. R., & Reboussin, R. (1994). Epistemological status of equivocal death analysis. American Psychologist, 49, 72–73.
*Ault, R. L., & Reese, J. T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime profiling. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 22–25.
*Bache, R., Crestani, F., Canter, D. V., & Youngs, D. E. (2010). A language modelling approach to linking criminal styles with offender
characteristics. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 69, 303–315.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
30
*Badcock, R. J. (1997). Developmental and clinical issues in relation to offending in the individual. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.),
Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 9–41). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Barrow, L. M., Rufo, R. A., & Arambula, S. (2013). Police and profiling in the United States: Applying theory to criminal investigations. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Bateman, A. L., & Salfati, C. G. (2007). An examination of behavioral consistency using individual behaviors or groups of behaviors in serial
homicide. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 527–544.
*Beauregard, E. (2010). Rape and sexual assault in investigative psychology: The contribution of sex offenders’ research to offender profiling.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 1–13.
*Beauregard, E., & Field, J. (2008). Body disposal patterns of sexual murderers: Implications for offender profiling. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 23, 81–89.
*Beauregard, E., Lussier, P., & Proulx, J. (2005). The role of sexual interests and situational factors on rapists’ modus operandi: Implications for
offender profiling. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 265–278.
*Beauregard, E., Lussier, P., & Proulx, J. (2007). Criminal propensity and criminal opportunity. In R. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling:
International theory, research and practice (pp. 89–113). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Beauregard, E., & Martineau, M. (2013). A descriptive study of sexual homicide in Canada: Implications for police investigation. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 1454–1476.
*Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2002). Profiles in the offending process of nonserial sexual murderers. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 46, 386–399.
*Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2007). A classification of sexual homicide against men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 51, 420–432.
*Beech, A. (1995). Offender Profiling. Journal of Mental Health, 4, 5–8.
*Bekerian, D. A., & Jackson, J. L. (1997). Critical issues in offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 209–220). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Bennell, C. (2008). An introduction to the special issue on criminal profiling. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23, 49–50.
*Bennell, C., & Canter, D. V. (2002). Linking commercial burglaries by modus operandi: Tests using regression and ROC analysis. Science &
Justice, 42, 153–164.
*Bennell, C., Jones, N. J., Taylor, P. J., & Snook, B. (2006). Validities and abilities in criminal profiling: A critique of the studies conducted by
Richard Kocsis and his colleagues. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 344–360.
*Bennell, C., Bloomfield, S., Emeno, K., & Musolino, E. (2013). Classifying serial sexual murder/murderers: An attempt to validate Keppel and
Walter’s (1999) model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 5–25.
*Bennell, C., Bloomfield, S., Snook, B., Taylor, P., & Barnes, C. (2010). Linkage analysis in cases of serial burglary: Comparing the
performance of university students, police professionals, and a logistic regression model. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 507–524.
*Bennell, C., Corey, S., Taylor, A., & Ecker, J. (2008). What skills are required for effective offender profiling? An examination of the
relationship between critical thinking ability and profile accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 143–157.
*Bennell, C., Gauthier, D., Gauthier, D., Melnyk, T., & Musolino, E. (2010). The impact of data degradation and sample size on the performance
of two similarity coefficients used in behavioural linkage analysis. Forensic Science International, 199, 85–92.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
31
*Bennell, C., & Jones, N. J. (2005). Between a ROC and a hard place: A method for linking serial burglaries by modus operandi. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 23–41.
*Bennell, C., Jones, N. J., & Melnyk, T. (2009). Addressing problems with traditional crime linking methods using receiver operating
characteristic analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 293–310.
*Bennell, C., Mugford, R., Ellingwood, H., & Woodhams, J. (2014). Linking crimes using behavioural clues: Current levels of linking accuracy
and strategies for moving forward. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 29–56.
*Bennell, C., Snook, B., Macdonald, S., House, J. C., & Taylor, P. J. (2012). Computerized crime linkage systems: A critical review and research
agenda. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 620–634.
*Bijleveld, C., & Smit, P. (2006). Homicide in the Netherlands: On the structuring of homicide typologies. Homicide Studies, 10, 195–219.
*Boon, J. C. W. (1997). The contribution of personality theories to psychological profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender
profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 43–59). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Boon, J. C. W. (1998). Science, psychology and psychological profiling. In BKA-Forschungsreihe. (Ed.), Method of case analysis: An
international symposium (Vol. 38.2, pp. 143–154). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut.
*Boon, J. C. W., & Davies, G. (1993). Criminal profiling. Policing, 9, 218–227.
*Bosco, D., Zappala`, A., & Santtila, P. (2010). The admissibility of offender profiling in courtroom: A review of legal issues and court opinions.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 184–191.
*Bouhana, N., Johnson, S. D., & Porter, M. (2016). Consistency and specificity in burglars who commit prolific residential burglary: Testing the
core assumptions underpinning behavioural crime linkage. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21, 77–94.
*Bourque, J., LeBlanc, S., Utzschneider, A., & Wright, C. (2009). The effectiveness of profiling from a national security perspective. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: Canadian Human Rights Commission.
*Brennan, M., & Hammond, S. (2017). A methodology for profiling paraphilic interest in child sexual exploitation material users on peer-topeer
networks. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23, 90–103.
*Briggs, S. G. (2015). Computerized criminal profiling: More research is needed. UC Merced Undergraduate Research Journal, 8, 2–12.
*Britton, P. (1997). The Jigsaw Man: The remarkable career of Britain’s foremost criminal psychologist. Reading, UK: Bantam Books.
*Brown, P., & Andelman, B. (2010). The profiler: My life hunting serial killers and psychopaths. New York, NY: Hachette Books.
*Bumgarner, J. B. (2007). Criminal profiling and public policy. In R. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research and
practice (pp. 273–287). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Burgess, A. W., Groth, A. N., Ressler, R. K., & Douglas, J. E. (1980, September 16–20), Offender profiles: A multidisciplinary approach. FBI
Law Enforcement Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
*Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Ressler, R. K., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Sexual homicide: A motivational model. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 1, 251–272.
*Burrell, A., Bull, R., & Bond, J. (2012). Linking personal robbery offences using offender behaviour. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 9, 201–222.
*Campbell, C. (1976). Portrait of a mass killer. Psychology Today, 9, 110–119.
*Canter, D. V. (1989). Offender profiles. Psychologist, 2, 12–16.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
32
*Canter, D. V. (1995a). Criminal shadows: Inside the mind of the serial killer. London, UK: HarperCollins.
*Canter, D. V. (1995b). Psychology of offender profiling. In R. Bull & D. Carson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (pp. 343-
355). New York, NY: Wiley.
*Canter, D. V. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 23–46.
*Canter, D. V. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 1–15.
*Canter, D. V. (2010a). Investigative psychology. In J. M. Brown & E. A. Campbell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology
(pp. 81–85). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
*Canter, D. V. (2010b). Offender profiling. In J. M. Brown & E. A. Campbell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 236–
241). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
*Canter, D. V. (2011). Resolving the offender “profiling equations” and the emergence of an investigative psychology. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20, 5–10.
*Canter, D. V., & Alison, L. J. (2000). Profiling property crimes (Vol. 4). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorganized typology of serial murder: Myth or model?
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 293–320.
*Canter, D. V., Bennell, C., Alison, L. J., & Reddy, S. (2003). Differentiating sex offenses: A behaviourally based classification of stranger rapes.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 157–174.
*Canter, D. V., & Fritzon, K. (1998). Differentiating arsonists: A model of firesetting actions and characteristics. Journal of Criminal and Legal
Psychology, 3, 73–96.
*Canter, D. V., & Heritage, R. (1990). A multivariate model of sexual offence behaviour: Developments in “offender profiling”: I. Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 185–212.
*Canter, D., Heritage, R., Wilson, M., & Donald, I. (1991). A facet approach to offender profiling. London, UK: Home Office.
*Canter, D., Hughes, D., & Kirby, S. (1998). Paedophilia: Pathology, criminality, or both? The development of a multivariate model of offence
behaviour in child sexual abuse. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 532–555.
*Canter, D. V., & Kirby, S. (1995). Prior convictions of child molesters. Science & Justice, 35, 73–78.
*Canter, D. V., & Wentink, N. (2004). An empirical test of Holmes and Holmes’s serial murder typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31,
489–515.
*Canter, D. V., & Youngs, D. (2003). Beyond ‘offender profiling’: The need for an investigative psychology. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (2nd ed., pp. 171–205). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
*Carson, D. (2011). Investigative psychology and law: Towards collaboration by focusing on evidence and inferential reasoning. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 74–89.
*Carter, A. J., Hollin, C. R., Stefanska, E. B., Higgs, T., & Bloomfield, S. (2017). The use of crime scene and demographic information in the
identification of non-serial sexual homicide. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61, 1554–1569.
*Casey-Owens, M. (1984). The anonymous letter writer- A psychological profile? Journal of Forensic Science, 29, 816–819.
*Chan, H. C. O., Frei, A. M., & Myers, W. C. (2013). Female sexual homicide offenders: An analysis of the offender racial profiles in offending
process. Forensic Science International, 233, 265–272.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
33
*Chan, H. C. O., Heide, K. M., & Myers, W. C. (2013). Juvenile and adult offenders arrested for sexual homicide: An analysis of victim–
offender relationship and weapon used by race. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58, 85–89.
*Chan, H. C. O., Myers, W. C., & Heide, K. M. (2010). An empirical analysis of 30 years of U.S. juvenile and adult sexual homicide offender
data: Race and age differences in the victim– offender relationship. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1282–1290.
*Chan, V., Chow, K. P., Kwan, M., Fong, G., Hui, M., & Tang, J. (2014). An exploratory profiling study of online auction fraudsters. In G.
Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), IFIP advances in information and communication technology (pp. 43–56). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
*Chifflet, P. (2015). Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: An evidence-based approach. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 48, 238–255.
*Clark, D. (2002). Dark paths, cold trails: How a Mountie led the quest to link serial killers to their victims. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
HarperCollins.
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. (2017). Data collection checklist. Retrieved from
www.methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.bias/files/public/uploads/EPOC%20Data%20Collection%20Checklist.pdf
*Collins, P. I., Johnson, G. F., Choy, A., Davidson, K. T., & Mackay, R. E. (1998). Advances in violent crime analysis and law enforcement: The
Canadian violent crime linkage analysis system. Journal of Government Information, 25, 277–284.
*Cook, P. E., & Hinman, D. L. (1999). Criminal profiling: Science and art. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 230–241.
*Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: A study of offender profiling. London, UK: Home Office, Police Research Group.
*Copson, G., Badcock, R. J., Boon, J. W. C., & Britton, P. (1997). Editorial: Articulating a systematic approach to clinical crime profiling.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7, 13–17.
*Corovic, J., Christianson, S. Å., & Bergman, L. R. (2012). From crime scene actions in stranger rape to prediction of rapist type: Single-victim
or serial rapist? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 764–781.
*Crabbé, A., Decoene, S., & Vertommen, H. (2008). Profiling homicide offenders: A review of assumptions and theories. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 13, 88–106.
*Crace, J. (1995). Inside the criminal mind. New Statesman and Society, 8, 29–30.
*Daeid, N. N. (1997). Differences in offender profiling in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Forensic Science International,
90, 25–31.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.
*Davidovitch, L., & Ben-Haim, Y. (2011). Is your profiling strategy robust? Law, Probability & Risk, 10, 59–76.
*Davies, A. (1997). Specific profile analysis: A data-based approach to offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender
profiling: Theory, research and practice (pp. 191–207). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Davies, A., Wittebrood, K., & Jackson, J. L. (1997). Predicting the criminal antecedents of a stranger rapist from his offence behaviour. Science
and Justice, 37, 161–170.
*Davies, A., Wittebrood, K., & Jackson, J. L. (1998). Predicting the criminal record of a stranger rapist. London, UK: Home Office, Policing
and Reducing Crime Unit.
*Davies, K., Tonkin, M., Bull, R., & Bond, J. W. (2012). The course of case linkage never did run smooth: A new investigation to tackle the
behavioural changes in serial car theft. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9, 274–295.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
34
*Davis, J. A. (1995). The police psychologist: The emergence of behavioral scientists in law enforcement. Police Chief, 62, 36–39.
*Davis, J. A. (1997). Criminal psychological personality profiling: A contemporary investigative tool to assist law enforcement. Journal of
Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2, 138–142.
*Davis, J. A. (1998). Profile of a sexual predator: A psychological autopsy of an American serial killer. Forensic Examiner, 7, 28–33.
*Davis, J. A. (1999). Criminal personality profiling and crime scene assessment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 291–301.
*Davis, M. R. (2009). In defence of multidimensional scaling for the analysis of sexual offence behaviour: Cautionary notes regarding analysis
and interpretation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 507–515.
*Dean, G. (2007). Criminal profiling in a terrorism context. In R. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research and practice
(pp. 169–188). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*DeLisi, M., & Scherer, A. M. (2006). Multiple homicide offenders: Offense characteristics, social correlates, and criminal careers. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 33, 367–391.
*Depue, R. L. (1986). An American response to an era of violence. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55, 2–5.
*Dern, H., Dern, C., Horn, A., & Horn, U. (2009). The fire behind the smoke: A reply to Snook and colleagues. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
36, 1085–1090.
*Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2010). Victims’ routine activities and sex offenders’ target selection scripts: A latent class analysis.
Sexual Abuse, 22, 315–342.
*Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2013). Investigating offending consistency of geographic and environmental factors among serial sex
offenders: A comparison of multiple analytical strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 156–179.
*Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2014a). Consistency in crime site selection: An investigation of crime sites used by serial sex
offenders across crime series. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 123–133.
*Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2014b). Unravelling crime series patterns amongst serial sex offenders: Duration, frequency, and
environmental consistency. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 253–275.
*Devery, C. (2010). Criminal profiling and criminal investigation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 393–409.
*Dietz, P. E., Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. (1990). The sexually sadistic criminal and his offenses. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law Online, 18, 163–178.
*Doan, B., & Snook, B. (2008). A failure to find empirical support for the homology assumption in criminal profiling. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 23, 61–70.
*Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986). Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55,
9–13.
*Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (1992). Crime classification manual. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
*Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. M. (1992). Modus operandi and the signature aspects of violent crime. In J. E. Douglas, A. W. Burgess, A. G.
Burgess, & R. K. Ressler (Eds.), Crime classification manual (pp. 259–268). New York, NY: Lexington Books.
*Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992). Violent crime scene analysis: Modus operandi, signature, and staging. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61, 1–
10.
*Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mind hunter: Inside the FBI’s elite serial crime unit. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
35
*Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1997). Journey into darkness: The FBI’s premier investigator penetrates the minds and motives of the most
terrifying serial criminals. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
*Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1998). Obsession: The FBI’s legendary profiler probes the psyches of killer, rapists and stalkers and their
victims and tells how to fight back. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
*Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (2000). The cases that haunt us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
*Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling from crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 4, 401–421.
*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.
*Duff, S., & Kinderman, P. (2008). Predicting the behaviour of offenders with personality disorder: Issues for investigative psychology. Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5(1–2), 45–57.
*Dyson, S. B. (2014). Origins of the psychological profiling of political leaders: The U.S. Office of Strategic Services and Adolf Hitler.
Intelligence and National Security, 29, 654–674.
*Eastwood, J., Cullen, R., Kavanagh, J., & Snook, S. (2006). A review of the validity of criminal profiling. The Canadian Journal of Police &
Security Services, 4(2–3), 118–124.
*Eaton, T. V., & Korach, S. (2016). A criminological profile of white collar crime. Journal of Applied Business Research, 32, 129–142.
*Ebisike, N. (2008). Offender profiling in the courtroom: The use and abuse of expert witness testimony. London, UK: Praeger.
*Egger, S. A. (1990). Serial murder: An elusive phenomenon. New York, NY: Praeger.
*Egger, S. A. (1999). Psychological profiling: Past, present, and future. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 242–261.
*Egger, S. A. (2002). The killers among us: An examination of serial murder and its investigation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 587, 49–68.
Farrington, D. P. (2007). Book review: Kocsis (2007). Criminal profiling, principles and practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 51, 486 – 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07304732
*Farrington, D. P., & Lambert, S. (1997). Predicting offender profiles from victim and witness descriptions. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian
(Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–158). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Farrington, D. P., & Lambert, S. (2000). Statistical approaches to offender profiling. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property
crimes (pp. 233–274). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Farrington, D. P., & Lambert, S. (2007). Predicting offender profiles from offense and victim characteristics. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal
profiling: International theory, research, and practice (pp. 135–167). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Fox, B. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Creating burglary profiles using latent class analysis: A new approach to offender profiling. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 39, 1582–1611.
*Fox, B. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). An experimental evaluation of the utility of burglary profiles applied in active police investigations.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 156–175.
*Fox, B. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2016a). Behavioral consistency among serial burglars: Evaluating offense style specialization using three
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
36
analytical approaches. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1123–1158.
*Fox, B. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2016b). Is the development of offenders related to crime scene behaviors for burglary? Including situational
influences in developmental and life-course theories of crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60,
1897–1927.
*Fox, B. H., Farrington, D. P., & Chitwood, M. (2014, February). An evidence-based offender profile for burglary. Police Chief. Retrieved from
www.policechiefmagazine.org/research-in-brief-an-evidencebased-offender-profile-for-burglary/
*Francis, B., Barry, J., Bowater, R., Miller, N., Soothill, K., & Ackerley, E. (2004). Using homicide data to assist murder investigations. London,
UK: Home Office.
*Francis, B., Soothill, K., & Fligelstone, R. (2004). Identifying patterns and pathways of offending behaviour: A new approach to typologies of
crime. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 48–87.
*Fritzon, K. (2000). The contribution of psychological research to arson investigation. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property
crime (pp. 149–184). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Fujita, G., Watanabe, K., Yokota, K., Kuraishi, H., Suzuki, M., Wachi, T., & Otsuka, Y. (2013). Multivariate models for behavioral offender
profiling of Japanese homicide. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 214–227.
*Fuller, G. (2014). Where and when: A profile of armed robbery by location. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 479, 1–8.
*Gadelrab, M. S., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2016). Cybercriminal profiling. In M. Hadji-Janev & M. Bogdanoski (Eds.) Handbook of research on civil
society and national security in the era of cyber warfare (pp. 49–67). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
*Geberth, V. J. (1981). Psychological profiling. Law and Order, 29, 46–52.
*Geberth, V. J. (1995). Criminal personality profiling. Law and Order, 43, 45–49.
*Geberth, V. J. (Ed.). (1996). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
*Geberth, V. J., & Turco, R. N. (1997). Antisocial personality disorder, sexual sadism, malignant narcissism, and serial murder. Journal of
Forensic Science, 42, 49–60.
*Gee, D., & Belofastov, A. (2007). Profiling sexual fantasy. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and
practice (pp. 49–71). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Gekoski, A., & Gray, J. M. (2011). It may be true, but how’s it helping?’:U. K. police detectives’ views of the operational usefulness of offender
profiling. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13, 103–116.
*George, J. A. (2008). Offender profiling and expert testimony: Scientifically valid or glorified results. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61, 221–260.
*Gerard, F., Mormont, C., & Kocsis, R. N. (2007). Offender profiles and crime scene patterns in Belgian sexual murders. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.),
Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and practice (pp. 27–47). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Girod, R. J. (2004). Profiling the criminal mind: Behavioral science and criminal investigative analysis. New York, NY: iUniverse, Inc.
*Gladwell, M. (2007, November 12). Dangerous minds: Criminal profiling made easy. The New Yorker, 36–45.
*Glicksohn, J., Ben-Shalom, U., & Lazar, M. (2004). Elements of unacceptable risk taking in combat units: An exercise in offender profiling.
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 203–215.
*Godwin, M. (1998). Reliability, validity, and utility of extant serial murderer classifications. The Criminologist, 22, 194–210.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
37
*Gogan, D. (2008). Investigative Experience and Profile Accuracy. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and
practice (pp. 383–392). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Goodwill, A. M., & Alison, L. J. (2007). When is profiling possible? Offense planning and aggression as moderators in predicting offender age
from victim age in stranger rape. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 823–840.
*Goodwill, A. M., Alison, L. J., & Beech, A. R. (2009). What works in offender profiling? A comparison of typological, thematic, and
multivariate models. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 507–529.
*Goodwill, A. M., Allen, J. C., & Kolarevic, D. (2014). Improvement of thematic classification in offender profiling: Classifying Serbian
homicides using multiple correspondence, cluster, and discriminant function analyses. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender
Profiling, 11, 221–236.
*Goodwill, A. M., Lehmann, R. J., Beauregard, E., & Andrei, A. (2016). An action phase approach to offender profiling. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 21, 229–250.
*Goodwill, A. M., Stephens, S., Oziel, S., Sharma, S., Allen, J. C., Bowes, N., & Lehmann, R. (2013). Advancement of criminal profiling
methods in faceted multidimensional analysis. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 71–95.
*Gregory, N. (2005). Offender profiling: A review of the literature. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 7, 29–34.
*Grubin, D. (1995). Offender profiling. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 6, 259–263.
*Gudjonsson, G. H., & Copson, G. (1997). The role of the expert in criminal investigation. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender
profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 61–76). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Häkkänen, H. (2007). Murder by manual and ligature strangulation: Profiling crime scene behaviors and offender characteristics. In R. N.
Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and practice (pp. 73–88). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Häkkänen, H., Hurme, K., & Liukkonen, M. (2007). Distance patterns and disposal sites in rural area homicides committed in Finland. Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 181–197.
*Häkkänen, H., & Laajasalo, T. (2006). Homicide crime scene behaviors in a Finnish sample of mentally ill offenders. Homicide Studies, 10, 33–
54.
*Häkkänen, H., Lindlöf, P., & Santtila, P. (2004). Crime scene actions and offender characteristics in a sample of Finnish stranger rapes. Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 17–32.
*Häkkänen, H., Puolakka, P., & Santtila, P. (2004). Crime scene actions and offender characteristics in arsons. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 9, 197–214.
*Harbers, E., Deslauriers-Varin, N., Beauregard, E., & Kemp, J. J. (2012). Testing the behavioural and environmental consistency of serial sex
offenders: A signature approach. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9, 259–273.
*Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (1996). A typology of mentally disordered firesetters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 351–363.
*Hazelwood, R. R. (1987). Analyzing the rape and profiling the offender. In R. R. Hazelwood & A. W. Burgess (Eds.), Practical aspects of rape
investigation: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 169–199). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Hazelwood, R. R., & Burgess, A. (1993). The behavioral-oriented interview of rape victims. In R. R. Hazelwood & A. W. Burgess (Eds.),
Practical aspects of rape investigation: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 151–168). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980). The lust murderer. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 18–22.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
38
*Hazelwood, R. R., Ressler, R. K., Depue, R. L., & Douglas, J. E. (1995). Criminal investigative analysis: An overview. In R. R. Hazelwood &
A. W. Burgess (Eds.), Practical aspects of rape investigation: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 115–126). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. (1989). The serial rapist: His characteristics and victims. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2, 19–25.
*Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. L. (1990). The criminal behavior of the serial rapist. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 59, 11–16.
*Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. L. (2000). The sexually violent offender: Impulsive or ritualistic? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 267–
279.
*Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. I. (2003). Linkage analysis: Modus operandi, ritual, and signature in serial sexual crime. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 8, 587–598.
*Herndon, J. S. (2007). The Image of profiling: Media treatment and general impressions. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International
theory, research, and practice (pp. 303–323). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Hewitt, A., & Beauregard, E. (2014). Offending patterns of serial sex offenders: Escalation, de-escalation, and consistency of sexually intrusive
and violent behaviours. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 57–80.
*Hickey, E. W. (1991). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
*Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
*Higgs, T., Carter, A. J., Stefanska, E. B., & Glorney, E. (2015). Toward identification of the sexual killer: A comparison of sexual killers
engaging in post-mortem sexual interference and non-homicide sexual aggressors. Sexual Abuse, 29, 479–499.
*Holmes, R. M. (1998). Psychological profiling: Uses in serial murder cases. In R. M. Holmes & S. T. Holmes (Eds.) Contemporary perspectives
on serial murder (pp. 173–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
*Holmes, R. M., & De Burger, J. E. (1985). Profiles in terror: The serial murderer. Federal Probation, 49, 29–34.
*Holmes, R. M., & De Burger, J. (1988). Serial murder. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
*Holmes, R. M., De Burger, J., & Holmes, S. T. (1988). Inside the mind of the serial murder. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 1–9.
*Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1994). Murder in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
*Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1996). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
*Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1998). Serial murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
*Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1998). Psychological aspects of crime scene profiling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 319–343.
*Horgan, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Hammond, S. (2003). Offender profiling: A critical perspective. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 24, 1–21.
*Horning, A. M., Salfati, C. G., & Crawford, K. (2010). Prior crime specialization and its relationship to homicide crime scene behavior type.
Homicide Studies, 14, 377–399.
*House, J. C. (1997). Towards a practical application of offender profiling: The RNC’s criminal suspect prioritization system. In J. L. Jackson &
D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 177–190). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Howitt, D. (2002). Introduction to forensic and criminal psychology. London, UK: Prentice Hall.
*Icove, D. J. (1986). Automated crime profiling. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55, 27–30.
*Icove, D. J., & Estepp, M. H. (1987). Motive-based offender profiles of arson and fire-related crimes. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 56, 17–23.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
39
*Innes, B. (2003). Profile of a criminal mind. Leicester, UK: Silverdale Books.
*Ioannou, M., & Hammond, L. (2013). Call for papers. Special issue of Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling on the
detection of deception within investigative contexts. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 289.
*Jackson, J. L., & Bekerian, D. A. (1997). Does offender profiling have a role to play? In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender
profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–7). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Jackson, J. L., Herbrink, J. C. M., & van Koppen, P. J. (1997). An empirical approach to offender profiling. In V. G. S. Redondon, J. Perez, &
R. Barbaret (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 333–345). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
*Jackson, J. L., van den Eshof, P., & de Kleuver, E. E. (1997). A research approach to offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian
(Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 107–132). Chichester, England: Wiley.
*Jackson, J. L., Van Koppen, P. J., & Herbrink, J. C. M. (1993). Does the service meet the needs? An evaluation of consumer satisfaction with
specific profile analysis and investigative advice offered by the Scientific Research Advisory Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Division
(CRI Report NSCR WD94-03). Leiden, the Netherlands: Institute for the Study of Criminality and Law Enforcement.
*James, J., & Proulx, J. (2014). A psychological and developmental profile of sexual murderers: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 19, 592–607.
*James, J., & Proulx, J. (2016). The modus operandi of serial and nonserial sexual murderers: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 31, 200–218.
*Jeffers, H. P. (1991). Who killed Precious? How FBI special agents combine psychology and high technology to identify violent criminals. New
York, NY: Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society Books.
*Jenkins, P. (1994). Using murder: The social construction of serial homicide. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
*Jung, S. J. (2014). A study on the effectiveness of criminal profiling. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 14, 686–694.
*Kapardis, A., & Krambia-Kapardis, M. (2004). Enhancing fraud prevention and detection by profiling fraud offenders. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 14, 189–201.
*Kapardis, A., & Krambia-Kapardis, M. (2016). Applying evidence-based profiling to disaggregated fraud offenders. In M. Dion, D. Weisstub,
& J.-L. Richet (Eds.), Financial crimes: Psychological, technological, and ethical issues (Vol. 68, pp. 269–294). Basel, Switzerland: Springer.
*Kennedy, D. B., & Homant, R. J. (1997). Problems with the use of criminal profiling in premises security litigation. Trial Diplomacy Journal,
20, 223–229.
*Keppel, R. D. (2000). Signature murders: A report of the 1984 Cranbrook, British Columbia cases. Journal of Forensic Science, 45, 508–511.
*Keppel, R. D., & Walter, R. (1999). Profiling killers: A revised classification model for understanding sexual murder. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 417–437.
*Keppel, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (1993). Improving the investigation of violent crime: The homicide investigation and tracking system. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
*Kim, Y. S., & Park, M. S. (2016). Linking wound interpretation to behavioral evidence analysis. Korean Journal of Legal Medicine, 40, 1–7.
*Knight, R. A., Warren, J. I., Reboussin, R., & Soley, B. J. (1998). Predicting rapist type from crime-scene variables. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 25, 46–80.
*Kocsis, R. N. (1999). Criminal profiling of crime scene behaviors in Australian sexual murders. Australian Police Journal, 53, 113–116.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
40
*Kocsis, R. N. (2003a). An empirical assessment of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 47, 37–46.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2003b). Criminal psychological profiling: Validities and abilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 47, 126–144.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2004a). Profiling the criminal mind: Does it actually work? The Lancet, 364, 14–15.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2004b). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An assessment of skills and accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
31, 341–361.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2006). Validities and abilities in criminal profiling: The dilemma for David Canter’s investigative psychology. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 458–477.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2007). Skills and accuracy in criminal profiling. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling. International theory, research, and
practice (pp. 365–382). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2010). Criminal profiling works and EVERYONE agrees. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10, 224–237.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2013). The criminal profiling reality: What is actually behind the smoke and mirrors? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice,
13, 79–91.
*Kocsis, R. N. (2015). The name of the rose and criminal profiling: The benefits of VICAP and ViCLAS. Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 15, 58–79.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Cooksey, R. W. (2002). Criminal psychological profiling of serial arson crimes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 46, 631–656.
*Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002a). Psychological profiling of offender characteristics from crime behaviors in serial rape
offences. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 144–169.
*Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R., & Irwin, H. J. (2002b). Psychological profiling of sexual murders: An empirical model. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 532–554.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). Believing is seeing? Investigating the perceived accuracy of criminal psychological profiles. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 149–160.
*Kocsis, R. N., Hayes, A. F., & Irwin, H. J. (2002). Investigative experience and accuracy in psychological profiling of a violent crime. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 811–823.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Heller, G. Z. (2004). Believing is seeing: II. Beliefs and perceptions of criminal psychological profiles. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 313–329.
*Kocsis, R. N., Heller, G. Z., & Try, A. (2003). Visual versus narrative case material: The impact of criminal psychological profiling.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 664–676.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Irwin, H. J. (1998). The psychological profile of serial offenders and a redefinition of the misnomer of serial crime. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 5, 197–213.
*Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., & Hayes, A. F. (1998). Organised and disorganised criminal behaviour syndromes in arsonists: A validation study of
a psychological profiling concept. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 5, 117–131.
*Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., Hayes, A. F., & Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in psychological profiling. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 311–
331.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
41
*Kocsis, R. N., & Middledorp, J. (2004). Believing is seeing: III. Perceptions of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 477–494.
*Kocsis, R. N., Middledorp, J., & Try, A. C. (2005). Cognitive processes in criminal profile construction: A preliminary study. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 662–681.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2007). Contemporary problems in criminal profiling. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International
theory, research, and practice (pp. 327–345). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2007). Critiques and conceptual dimensions to criminal profiling. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling:
International theory, research, and practice (pp. 327–345). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2015). Disentangling criminal profiling: Accuracy, homology, and the myth of trait-based profiling.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 313–332.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016a). Criminal profiling as expert witness evidence: The implications of the profiler validity research.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 55–65.
*Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016b). New horizons: The obstacles to space exploration and disentangling criminal profiling. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1226–1232.
*Kuznestov, A., & Pierson, T. A. (1992). Victim age as a basis for profiling sex offenders. Federal Probation, 56, 34–38.
*Kuznestov, A., Pierson, T. A., & Harry, B. (1992). Victim age as a basis for profiling sex offenders. Federal Probation, 56, 34–38.
*Labuschagne, G. (2004). Features and investigative implications of multimurder in South Africa. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 1, 191–206.
*Labuschagne, G. N. (2006). The use of a linkage analysis as evidence in the conviction of the Newcastle serial murderer, South Africa. Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3, 183–191.
*Labuschagne, G. (2015). Criminal investigative analysis: An applied perspective. In R. Zinn & S. Dintwe (Eds.), Forensic investigation:
Legislative principles and investigative practice (pp. 275–304). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta & Co.
*Lai, P., Chow, K. P., Fan, X. X., & Chan, V. (2013). An empirical study profiling internet pirates. In G. Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances
in digital forensics (pp. 257–272). New York, NY: Springer.
*Last, S. K., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Investigating the nature of expressiveness in stranger, acquaintance and intrafamilial homicides. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 179–193.
*Lehmann, R. J., Goodwill, A. M., Gallasch-Nemitz, F., Biedermann, J., & Dahle, K. P. (2013). Applying crime scene analysis to the prediction
of sexual recidivism in stranger rapes. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 241–254.
*Leyton, E. (1983). A social profile of sexual mass murderers. In T. Fleming & L. Visano (Eds.), Deviant designations: Crime law and deviance
in Canada (pp. 98–107). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworth.
*Liebert, J. A. (1985). Contributions of psychiatric consultation in the investigation of serial murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 29, 187–200.
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Quantitative procedures. Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
42
*Lynch, I., & Dale, A. (1994, June). Profiling the burglars. Police Review, 102, 18–19.
*Macdonald, J. M., & Michaud, D. L. (1987). Criminal profiles. In J. M. Macdonald & D. L. Michaud (Eds.), The confession: Interrogation and
criminal profiles for police officers (pp. 191–196). Denver, CO: Apache Press.
*Markson, L., Woodhams, J., & Bond, J. W. (2010). Linking serial residential burglary: Comparing the utility of modus operandi behaviours,
geographical proximity, and temporal proximity. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 91–107.
*Marshall, B. C., & Alison, L. J. (2007). Stereotyping, congruence and presentation order: Interpretative biases in utilizing offender profiles.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 285–303.
*Martineau, M. M., & Corey, S. (2008). Investigating the reliability of the violent crime linkage analysis system (ViCLAS) crime report. Journal
of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23, 51–60.
*McCann, J. T. (1992). Criminal personality profiling in the investigation of violent crime: Recent advances and future directions. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 10, 475–481.
*McCrary, G., & Ramsland, K. (2003). The unknown darkness: Profiling the predators among us. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
*McGrath, M. G. (2000). Criminal profiling: Is there a role for the forensic psychiatrist? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law, 28, 315–324.
*McPoyle, T. J. (1981). The investigative technique of criminal personality profiling. Your Virginia State Trooper Magazine, 3, 87–91.
*Melnyk, T., Bennell, C., Gauthier, D. J., & Gauthier, D. (2011). Another look at across-crime similarity coefficients for use in behavioural
linkage analysis: An attempt to replicate Woodhams, Grant, and Price (2007). Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 359–380.
*Merry, S., & Harsent, L. (2000). Intuders, pilferers, raiders and invaders: The interpersonal dimension of burglary. In D. V. Canter & L. J.
Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crimes. Offender profiling series Vol. IV (pp. 31–57). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*Messer, C. (2008). The professionalization of criminal profiling. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 36, 67–74.
*Meyer, C. B. (2007). Criminal profiling as expert evidence? An international case law perspective. In R. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling:
International theory, research and practice (pp. 207–247). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Michaud, S. G., & Hazelwood, R. R. (1999). The evil that men do. New York, NY: Martin’s Press.
*Miethe, T. D., & McCorkle, R. (1998). Crime profiles: The anatomy of dangerous persons, places, and situations. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury
Publishing Co.
*Miller, L. (2006). The terrorist mind: II. Typologies, psychopathologies, and practical guidelines for investigation. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 255–268.
*Miller, L. (2014a). Serial killers: I. Subtypes, patterns, and motives. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 1–11.
*Miller, L. (2014b). Serial killers: II. Development, dynamics, and forensics. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 12–22.
*Miscoll, D. A. (2001). A study of crime scene analysis in the forensic evaluation of criminal responsibility in homicide cases. American Journal
of Forensic Psychology, 19, 33–64.
*Mokros, A., & Alison, L. J. (2002). Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted homology of crime scene actions and background
characteristics in a sample of rapists. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 25–43.
*Morrison, B. W., Wiggins, M. W., Bond, N. W., & Tyler, M. D. (2013). Measuring relative cue strength as a means of validating an inventory
of expert offender profiling cues. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7, 211–226.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
43
*Muller, D. A. (2000). Criminal profiling: Real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide Studies, 4, 234–264.
*Muller, D. A. (2011). Qualitative approaches to criminal profiling as ways of reducing uncertainty in criminal investigations. Policing: A
Journal of Policy and Practice, 5, 33–40.
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Eisner, M. (2009). Drawing conclusion about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: The Cambridge
Quality Checklists. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 1–23.
*Nezan, P. (2007). Ready in one hour? Time to dispel a few myths about criminal profiling. RCMP Gazette, 69, 14–15.
*Norris, G. (2014). The evolution of criminal profiling: Whitechapel to Quantico and beyond. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Profiling and serial crime
(pp. 3–16). Waltham, MA: Anderson.
*Norris, G., & Petherick, W. (2010). Criminal profiling in the courtrooms: Behavioral investigative advice or bad character evidence. Cambrian
Law Review, 41, 39–54.
*Norris, G., Rafferty, E., & Campbell, J. (2010). An Examination of Content Preference in Offender Profiles. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 412–429.
*Nowikowski, F. (1995). Psychological offender profiling: An overview. The Criminologist, 19, 225–226.
*Nykodym, N., Taylor, R., & Vilela, J. (2005). Criminal profiling and insider cyber crime. Digital Investigation, 2, 261–267.
*O’Keeffe, C., & Alison, L. J. (2000). Rhetoric in “psychic detection”. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 64, 26–38.
*Oleson, J. C. (1996). Psychological profiling: Does it actually work? Forensic Update, 46, 11–14.
*Ormerod, D. C. (1996a). Psychological profiling. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 341–352.
*Ormerod, D. C. (1996b). The evidential implications of psychological profiling. Criminal Law Review, 717, 863–877.
*Ormerod, D. C. (1999). Criminal profiling: Trial by judge and jury, not criminal psychologist. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in
policy and practice (pp. 209–249). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
*O’Toole, M. E. (1999). Criminal profiling: The FBI Uses criminal investigative analysis to solve crimes. Corrections Today, 61, 44–47.
*Owen, D. (2004). Criminal minds: The science and psychology of profiling. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble.
*Oziel, S., Goodwill, A., & Beauregard, E. (2015). Variability in behavioural consistency across temporal phases in stranger sexual offences.
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30, 176–190.
*Paclebar, A. M. R., Myers, B., & Brineman, J. (2007). Criminal profiling: Impact on mock juror decision making and implications for
admissibility. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research and practice (pp. 249–265). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Pakkanen, T., Bosco, D., & Santtila, P. (2014). Crime linkage as expert evidence–making a case for the Daubert standard. In J. Woodhams & C.
Bennell (Eds.), Crime linkage: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 225–250). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Palcu, P., & Morostes, A. F. (2016). Profiling as a logical form of reasoning in order to solve controversial circumstances on the crime scene.
Journal of Legal Studies, 17, 46–57.
*Palermo, G. B. (2002). Criminal profiling: The uniqueness of the killer. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 46, 383–385.
*Palermo, G. B., & Kocsis, R. N. (2005). Offender profiling: An introduction to the sociopsychological analysis of violent crime. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
44
*Park, J. S., & Choi, N. B. (2012). Perception of offender profiling and its development strategies. The Journal of the Korea Contents
Association, 12, 413–423.
*Pedneault, A., Harris, D. A., & Knight, R. A. (2012). Toward a typology of sexual burglary: Latent class findings. Journal of Criminal Justice,
40, 278–284.
*Petherick, W. A. (2003). What’s in a name? Comparing applied profiling methodologies. Journal of Law and Social Challenges, 5, 173–188.
*Petherick, W. (2005). The fallacy of accuracy in criminal profiling. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in
behavioral profiling (pp. 53–64). Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
*Petherick, W. (2014a). Criminal profiling methods. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in behavioral profiling
(3rd ed., pp. 67–108). Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
*Petherick, W. (2014b). Induction and deduction in criminal profiling. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in
behavioral profiling (3rd ed., pp. 17–38). Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
*Petherick, W., & Ferguson, C. (2014). Behavioral consistency, the homology assumption and the problems of induction. In W. Petherick (Ed.),
Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in behavioral profiling (3rd ed., pp. 39–66). Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
*Petherick, W., Field, D., Lowe, A., & Fry, E. (2014). Criminal profiling as expert evidence. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Serial crime: Theoretical and
practical issues in behavioral profiling (3rd ed., pp. 171–212). Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
*Pinizzotto, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profiling. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32–40.
*Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215–233.
*Porter, B. (1983). Mind hunters: Tracking down killers with the FBI’s psychological profiling team. Psychology Today, 17, 44–52.
*Porter, M. D. (2016). A statistical approach to crime linkage. The American Statistician, 70, 152–165.
*Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). “I’m sorry I did it . . . but he started it”: A comparison of the official and self-reported homicide
descriptions of psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 91–107.
*Promish, D. I., & Lester, D. (1999). Classifying serial killers. Forensic Science International, 105, 155–159.
*Rainbow, L., Almond, L., & Alison, L. (2011). BIA support to investigative decision making. In L. Alison & L. Rainbow (Eds.),
Professionalizing offender profiling: Forensic and investigative psychology in practice (pp. 35–50). New York, NY: Routledge.
*Rainbow, L., & Gregory, A. (2009). Behavioural investigative advice: A contemporary view. The Journal of Homicide and Major Incident
Investigation, 5, 71–82.
*Ramsland, K. (2010). The forensic psychology of criminal minds. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
*Ramsland, K. (2014, March). Criminal profiling: How it all began. An unsolved kidnapping proved the value of psychology in crime solving.
Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/201403/criminal-profiling-how-it-all-began
*Reiser, M. (1982). Crime-specific psychological consultation. Police Chief, 49, 53–56.
*Reiser, M., Ludwig, L., Saxe, S., & Wagner, C. (1979). Evaluation of the use of psychics in the investigation of major crimes. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 7, 18–25.
*Ressler, R. K., & Burgess, A. W. (1985a). Classifying sexual homicide crime scenes: Interrater reliability. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 54,
2–5.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
45
*Ressler, R. K., & Burgess, A. W. (1985b). Crime scene and profile characteristics of organized and disorganized murders. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 54, 18–25.
*Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
*Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & D’Agostino, R. B. (1986). Sexual killers and their victims: Identifying patterns
through crime scene analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 288–308.
*Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Murderers who rape and mutilate. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 1, 273–287.
*Ressler, R. K., Douglas, J. E., Groth, N. A., & Burgess, A. W. (1980). Offender profiles: A multidisciplinary approach. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 49, 16–20.
*Ressler, R. K., & Shachtman, T. (1993). Whoever fights monsters: My twenty years tracking serial killers for the FBI. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press.
*Rider, A. O. (1980). The firesetter: A psychological profile. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 40, 6–13.
*Risinger, D. M., & Loop, J. L. (2002). Three card Monte, Monty Hall, modus operandi, and “offender profiling”: Some lessons of modern
cognitive science for the law of evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 24, 193–285.
*Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12,
508–518.
*Rogers, M. (2003). The role of criminal profiling in the computer forensics process. Computers and Security, 22, 292–298.
*Rogers, M. K. (2015). Psychological profiling as an investigative tool for digital forensics. In J. Sammons (Ed.), Digital forensics Threatscape
and best practices (pp. 45–58). Waltham, MA: Syngress.
*Rossi, D. (1982). Crime scene behavioral analysis: Another tool for the law enforcement investigator. Police Chief, 1, 152–155.
*Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J., & Nussbaum, K. (2000). Elderly female serial sexual homicide: A limited empirical test of criminal investigative
analysis. Homicide Studies, 4, 294–307.
*Salfati, C. G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implications for offender profiling. Homicide Studies, 4,
265–293.
*Salfati, C. G., & Bateman, A. L. (2005). Serial homicide: An investigation of behavioural consistency. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 2, 121–144.
*Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 17, 391–406.
*Salfati, C. G., & Dupont, F. (2006). Canadian homicide: An investigation of crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 10, 118–139.
*Salfati, C. G., & Haratsis, E. (2001). Greek homicide: A behavioral examination of offender crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 5, 335–
362.
*Salfati, C. G., Horning, A. M., Sorochinski, M., & Labuschagne, G. N. (2015). South African serial homicide: Consistency in victim types and
crime scene actions across series. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 12, 83–106.
*Salfati, C. G., & Taylor, P. (2006). Differentiating sexual violence: A comparison of sexual homicide and rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12,
107–125.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
46
*Santtila, P., Fritzon, K., & Tamelander, A. L. (2005). Linking arson incidents on the basis of crime scene behavior. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 19, 1–16.
*Santtila, P., Häkkänen, H., Alison, L., & Whyte, C. (2003). Juvenile firesetters: Crime scene actions and offender characteristics. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 8, 1–20.
*Santtila, P., Häkkänen, H., Canter, D. V., & Elfgren, T. (2003). Classifying homicide offenders and predicting their characteristics from crime
scene behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 107–118.
*Santtila, P., Häkkänen, H., & Fritzon, K. (2003). Inferring the characteristics of an arsonist from crime scene actions: A case study in offender
profiling. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 5, 1–15.
*Santtila, P., Junkkila, J., & Sandnabba, N. K. (2005). Behavioural linking of stranger rapes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender
Profiling, 2, 87–103.
*Santtila, P., Pakkanen, T., Zappala, A., Bosco, D., Valkama, M., & Mokros, A. (2008). Behavioural crime linking in serial homicide.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 245–265.
*Santtila, P., Ritvanen, A., & Mokros, A. (2004). Predicting burglar characteristics from crime scene behaviour. International Journal of Police
Science and Management, 6, 136–154.
*Santtila, P., Runtti, M., & Mokros, A. (2004). Predicting presence of offender’s criminal record from antisocial lifestyle indicators of homicide
victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 541–557.
*Scherer, J. A., & Jarvis, J. P. (2014a). Criminal investigative analysis: Applications for the courts. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved
from https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/september/criminal-investigative-analysispracticioner-perspectives-part-four-of-four
*Scherer, J. A., & Jarvis, J. P. (2014b). Criminal investigative analysis: Measuring success. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/august/criminal-investigative-analysis-practicioner-perspectives-part-three-of-four
*Scherer, J. A., & Jarvis, J. P. (2014c). Criminal investigative analysis: Practitioner perspectives. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/june/criminal-investigative-analysispractiioner-perspectives-part-one-of-four
*Scherer, J. A., & Jarvis, J. P. (2014d). Criminal investigative analysis: Practitioner perspectives. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/july/criminal-investigative-analysispracticioner-perspectives-part-two-of-four
*Schlesinger, L. B. (2007). Sexual homicide: Differentiating catathymic and compulsive murders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 242–
256.
*Schlesinger, L. B. (2009). Psychological profiling: Investigative implications from crime scene analysis. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 37,
73–84.
*Schlesinger, L. B., & Revitch, E. (1999). Sexual burglaries and sexual homicides: Clinical, forensic, and investigative considerations. Journal of
the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 27, 227–238.
*Schmidt, P. H., Padosch, S. A., Rothschild, M. A., & Madea, B. (2005). Forensic case profiling aspects on multiple homicides from the
Cologne–Bonn Metropolitan Area 1985–2000. Forensic Science International, 153, 168–173.
*Schurman-Kauflin, D. (2014, February). Does criminal profiling work? How criminal profiling benefits law enforcement. Psychology Today.
Retrieved from www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201402/does-criminal-profiling-work
*Scott, D., Lambie, I., Henwood, D., & Lamb, R. (2003). Profiling stranger rapists: It’s not so elementary, Doctor Watson. American Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 21, 31–49.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
47
*Scott, D., Lambie, I., Henwood, D., & Lamb, R. (2006). Profiling stranger rapists: Linking offence behaviour to previous criminal histories
using a regression model. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12, 265–275.
Sedgwick, P. (2013). Meta-analyses: How to read a funnel plot. British Medical Journal, 346, 342–343.
*Sewall, L. A., Krupp, D. B., & Lalumière, M. L. (2013). A test of two typologies of sexual homicide. Sexual Abuse, 25, 82–100.
*Shaw, E. D. (2006). The role of behavioral research and profiling in malicious cyber insider investigations. Digital Investigation, 3, 20–31.
*Shaw, E. D., & Fischer, L. (2005). Ten tales of betrayal: An analysis of attacks on corporate infrastructure by information technology insiders.
Monterrey, CA: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center.
*Slahor, S. (1991). Making profiling work. Law and Order, 39, 76–77.
*Slater, C., Woodhams, J., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2015). Testing the assumptions of crime linkage with stranger sex offenses: A more
ecologically-valid study. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30, 261–273.
*Smith, C. (1993). Psychological offender profiling. The Criminologist, 17, 244–250.
*Smith, R. (2016). Of bad-seed, black-sheep and prodigal-sons: Profiling crime and enterprise in a small-business-community. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22, 39–62.
*Snook, B., 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.
*Snook, B., Haines, A., Taylor, P. J., & Bennell, C. (2007). Criminal profiling belief and use: A study of Canadian police officer opinion. The
Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 5, 1–11.
*Snook, B., Luther, K., House, J. C., Bennell, C., & Taylor, P. J. (2012). The violent crime linkage analysis system: A test of interrater reliability.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 607–619.
*Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., Gendreau, P., & Bennell, C. (2009). On the need for scientific experimentation in the criminal profiling field: A reply to
Dern and colleagues. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1091–1094.
*Snook, B., Wright, M., House, J. C., & Alison, L. J. (2006). Searching for a needle in a needle stack: Combining criminal careers and journey-to
crime research for criminal suspect prioritization. Police Practice and Research, 7, 217–230.
*Sorochinski, M., & Salfati, C. G. (2010). The consistency of inconsistency in serial homicide: Patterns of behavioural change across series.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 109–136.
Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Monahan, J., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., . . . Banks, S. (2000). A classification tree approach to
the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 83–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005478820425
*Stefanska, E. B., Beech, A. R., & Carter, A. J. (2016). A systematic review of the literature comparing male non-serial sexual killers and sexual
aggressors: Examining homogeneous and heterogeneous characteristics of these groups. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22, 323–341.
*Stefanska, E. B., Carter, A. J., Higgs, T., Bishopp, D., & Beech, A. R. (2015). Offense pathways of non-serial sexual killers. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 43, 99–107.
*Stevens, J. A. (1997). Standard investigatory tools and offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 77–91). Chichester, England: Wiley.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
48
*Strano, M. (2004). A neural network applied to criminal psychological profiling: An Italian initiative. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 48, 495–503.
*Strentz, T. (1988). A terrorist psychosocial profile: Past and present. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 57, 13–19.
*Sturidsson, K., Långström, N., Grann, M., Sjöstedt, G., Åsgård, U., & Aghede, E. M. (2006). Using multidimensional scaling for the analysis of
sexual offence behaviour: A replication and some cautionary notes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 221–230.
*Sturidsson, K., Långström, N., Grann, M., Sjöstedt, G., Åsgård, U., & Aghede, E. M. (2009). MDS use with crime scene data replicates poorly:
Response to Goodwill, Alison, and Humann (this issue) and Davis (this issue). Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 525–529.
Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293.
*Taylor, L. M. (1993). The role of offender profiling in classifying rapists: Implications for counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 6,
325– 348.
*Thijssen, J., & de Ruiter, C. (2011). Instrumental and expressive violence in Belgian homicide perpetrators. Journal of Investigative Psychology
and Offender Profiling, 8, 58–73.
*Tonkin, M., Grant, T., & Bond, J. W. (2008). To link or not to link: A test of the case linkage principles using serial car theft data. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 59–77.
*Tonkin, M., Santtila, P., & Bull, R. (2012). The linking of burglary crimes using offender behaviour: Testing research cross-nationally and
exploring methodology. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 276–293.
*Tonkin, M., Woodhams, J., Bull, R., & Bond, J. W. (2012). Behavioural case linkage with solved and unsolved crimes. Forensic Science
International, 222, 146–153.
*Tonkin, M., Woodhams, J., Bull, R., Bond, J. W., & Palmer, E. J. (2011). Linking different types of crime using geographical and temporal
proximity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1069–1088.
*Tonkin, M., Woodhams, J., Bull, R., Bond, J. W., & Santtila, P. (2012). A comparison of logistic regression and classification tree analysis for
behavioural case linkage. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9, 235–258.
*Torres, A. N., Boccaccini, M. T., & Miller, H. A. (2006). Perceptions of the validity and utility of criminal profiling among forensic
psychologists and psychiatrists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 51–58.
Thomson Reuters. (2016). Journal citation reports. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/
journal_citation_reports/
*Trager, J., & Brewster, J. (2001). The effectiveness of psychological profiles. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 16, 20–28.
*Trojan, C., & Salfati, C. G. (2011). Linking criminal history to crime scene behavior in single-victim and serial homicide: Implications for
offender profiling research. Homicide Studies, 15, 3–31.
*Turco, R. N. (1990). Psychological profiling. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 147–154.
*Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Turvey, B., & Freeman, J. (2012). Jury psychology. In V. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 495–452),
London, UK: Elsevier Science.
*Van Wijk, A. P., Mali, B. R., Bullens, R. A., & Vermeiren, R. R. (2007). Criminal profiles of violent juvenile sex and violent juvenile non–sex
offenders: An explorative longitudinal study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1340–1355.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
49
*Verma, A. (1997). Construction of offender profiles using fuzzy logic. Policing: An International Journal, 20, 408–418.
*Vettor, S., Woodhams, J., & Beech, A. R. (2013). Offender profiling: A review and critique of the approaches and major assumptions. Journal
of Current Issues in Crime, Law & Law Enforcement, 6, 354–387.
*Villejoubert, G., Almond, L., & Alison, L. (2009). Interpreting claims in offender profiles: The role of probability phrases, base-rates and
perceived dangerousness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 36–54.
*Vorpagel, R. E. (1982, January). Painting psychological profiles: Charlatanism, coincidence, charisma, chance or new science. Police Chief,
156–159.
*Wachi, T., Watanabe, K., Yokota, K., Suzuki, M., Hoshino, M., Sato, A., & Fujita, G. (2007). Offender and crime characteristics of female
serial arsonists in Japan. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 29–52.
*Warikoo, A. (2014). Proposed methodology for cyber criminal profiling. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 23(4–6), 172–
178.
*Warren, J. I., Hazelwood, R. R., & Dietz, P. E. (1996). The sexually sadistic serial killer. Journal of Forensic Science, 41, 970–974.
*Warren, J., Reboussin, R., Hazelwood, R. R., Gibbs, N. A., Trumbetta, S. L., & Cummings, A. (1999). Crime scene analysis and the escalation
of violence in serial rape. Forensic Science International, 100, 37–56.
*Warren, J. I., Reboussin, R., Hazelwood, R. R., & Wright, J. A. (1991). Prediction of rapist type and violence from verbal, physical, and sexual
scales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 55–67.
*Weinerman, L. (2004a). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. Monitor on Psychology, 35, 66–69.
*Weinerman, L. (2004b). Does profiling really work? Monitor on Psychology, 35, 67.
*West, A. (2000). Clinical assessment of homicide offenders: The significance of crime scene in offense and offender analysis. Homicide Studies,
4, 219–233.
*White, J. H., Lester, D., Gentile, M., & Rosenbleeth, J. (2011). The utilization of forensic science and criminal profiling for capturing serial
killers. Forensic Science International, 209, 160–165.
*Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. N. (1997). Validity, utility and ethics of profiling for serial violent and sexual offenders. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 4, 1–12.
*Wilson, P., & Soothill, K. (1996, January). Psychological profiling: Red, green or amber? Theory, Practice and Principles, 69, 12–20.
*Winter, J. M., Lemeire, J., Meganck, S., Geboers, J., Rossi, G., & Mokros, A. (2013). Comparing the predictive accuracy of case linkage
methods in serious sexual assaults. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 28–56.
*Wiseman, R., & West, D. (1997). An experimental test of psychic detection. The Police Journal, 70, 19–25.
*Witkin, G. (1996, April 22). How the FBI paints portraits of the nation’s most wanted. U.S. News and World Report, 120, 32.
*Woodhams, J., Bull, R., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). Case linkage. In R. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and
practice (pp. 117–133). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
*Woodhams, J., Hollin, C. R., & Bull, R. (2007). The psychology of linking crimes: A review of the evidence. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 12, 233–249.
*Woodhams, J., & Labuschagne, G. (2012). A test of case linkage principles with solved and unsolved serial rapes. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 27, 85–98.
B. FOX & D. FARRINGTON: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OFFENDER PROFILING?
50
*Woodhams, J., & Toye, K. (2007). An empirical test of the assumptions of case linkage and offender profiling with serial commercial robberies.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 59–85.
*Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (1999). Historical foundations and current applications of criminal profiling in violent crime investigations. Expert
Evidence, 7, 241–264.
*Wright, M. (2013). Homicide detectives’ intuition. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 182–199.
*Yokota, K., Fujita, G., Watanabe, K., Yoshimoto, K., & Wachi, T. (2007). Application of the behavioral investigative support system for
profiling perpetrators of serial sexual assaults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 841–856.
*Yokota, K., Watanabe, K., Wachi, T., Otsuka, Y., Hirama, K., & Fujita, G. (2017). Crime linkage of sex offences in Japan by multiple
correspondence analysis. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 14, 109–119.
*Youngs, D. (2004). Personality correlates of offence style. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 99–119.
*Yu, S. (2013). Behavioral evidence analysis on Facebook: A test of cyber-profiling. Defendologija, 16, 19–30.
*Zaitsu, W. (2010). Homicidal poisoning in Japan: Offender and crime characteristics. International Journal of Police Science & Management,
12, 503–515.
*Zappala`, A., & Bosco, D. (2008). The phenomenon of serial murder and the judicial admission of criminal profiling in Italy. In R. Kocsis (Ed.),
Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and practice (pp. 263–272). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
- A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Psychological Bulletin
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
