The Data-driven Approach (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note
Syllabus Edition
First teaching 2025
First exams 2027
Exam code: 7182
The British approach & investigative psychology
The data-driven approach
The data-driven approach to offender profiling contrasts with the typology approach developed by the FBI in the USA
It does not begin with the assumption that each crime will fit into a pre-existing typology, and instead uses the crime scene itself as the basis for creating a profile
The approach is inductive, as it starts with small, seemingly irrelevant details from the crime scene and works up to a 'bigger picture', developing a theory from the data rather than testing one against it
The data-driven approach is popularly known as the British approach to profiling, as it was devised by a British researcher, Professor David Canter
The approach relies on computational and statistical analysis of crime scene details, principally smallest space analysis, which identifies correlations between the behaviours occurring most frequently across offences
Examiner Tips and Tricks
The AQA spec does not cite smallest space analysis as one of the key factors you need to know for the data-driven approach, but it will add some value to higher-mark questions (e.g., 16 marks) if you can mention it alongside investigative psychology and geographical profiling.
You can go online to find diagrams of smallest-space analysis examples, but do be warned that these include references to violent, often distressing acts, so caution is advised.
Investigative psychology
Investigative psychology (IP) applies statistical procedures alongside psychological theory to the analysis of crime scene evidence, aiming to establish patterns of behaviour likely to occur or co-exist across crime scenes
This develops a statistical 'database' of which acts act as a baseline for comparison, so that details of an offence can be matched against the database to reveal important details about the offender, such as their personal history or family background, and to determine whether a series of offences are linked
IP may be broken down into the following components:
Interpersonal coherence – the way an offender behaves at the scene, including how they interact with the victim, may reflect their behaviour in more everyday situations, e.g., Dwyer (2001) found that whilst some rapists want to maintain maximum control and humiliate their victims, others are more apologetic
This might tell police something about how the offender relates to women more generally
The significance of time and place – the timing and location of offences is also a key variable, and as in geographical profiling may indicate where the offender is living
Forensic awareness – those individuals who have previously been the subject of police interrogation may show behaviour denoting how mindful they are of 'covering their tracks'
Geographical profiling
Geographical profiling (GP), also known as 'crime mapping', was first described by Rossmo (1997) and uses information about the location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about the likely home or operational base of an offender
GP is used to analyse the geographical locations of offences which appear to be linked, i.e., committed by the same offender
GP can be used alongside IP to develop a profile, as together these two systems form a complete picture of the likely offender (or offenders – some serial crimes have been carried out by more than one person, as was the case with John Duffy below)
GP operates along the assumption that serial offenders fall into two categories: marauders or commuters
Marauders commit crimes within their neighbourhood, not far from where they live/work, possibly as this is where they feel safe, plus they are more likely to know the escape routes to exit the scene as quickly as possible
Commuters commit crimes away from their neighbourhood, which may be as a result of travelling a lot for work or as a way of avoiding detection
Canter & Larkin (1993) proposed circle theory, in which the pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around the offender's usual residence, and this becomes more apparent the more offences there are
The assumption is that serial offenders restrict their 'work' to geographical areas they are familiar with, and an understanding of the spatial pattern of their behaviour provides investigators with a 'centre of gravity', often in the middle of the spatial pattern, which may help investigators make educated guesses about where the offender is likely to strike next
John Duffy
One of the first cases of the successful use of GP was in the identification of the ‘Railway Rapist’ John Duffy
Duffy had committed several rapes and murders around railway stations in North London in the 1980s
David Canter was asked to analyse the crimes and to come up with a profile of the likely offender
Canter studied the location of the crimes using circle theory: this helped him to identify where the attacker lived, and the resulting pattern suggested that the offender was a marauder
Years later (2001) it emerged that Duffy had a partner in these crimes – David Mulcahy – which is something that the police had suspected but which they had no proof of until Duffy confessed this detail in prison
Canter’s profile alongside facts about Duffy
Canter's profile | Facts about John Duffy |
Likely to live in Kilburn or Cricklewood Likely to be married Probably has no children Likely to have marriage problems Will be a loner with few friends Will be physically small Will have feelings of unattractiveness Will be interested in martial arts/bodybuilding Will need to dominate women Likely to have a fascination with weapons Will have fantasies about sex and violence Will have a semi-skilled job Will be aged between 20 and 30 years old | Lived in Kilburn Was married Was infertile Had separated from his wife Only had 2 male friends Was 5'4" Had acne Was a member of a martial arts club Was violent and often attacked his wife Was a collector of martial arts weapons Was a collector of hardcore porn videos Was trained as a British Rail carpenter Was aged 28 |
Research which investigates the data-driven approach to offender profiling
Canter & Heritage (1990) conducted a content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases, examining the data using smallest space analysis, and identified several characteristics as common in most cases, such as the use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim
These characteristics occur in different patterns in different individuals, which can lead to an understanding of how an offender's behaviour may change over a series of offences, or establish whether two or more offences were committed by the same person
Lundrigan & Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the USA, and smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers
The location of each body disposal site created a 'centre of gravity', with the offender's base invariably located in the centre of the pattern, and the effect was more noticeable for offenders who travelled short distances (marauders)
Evaluation of the data-driven approach to offender profiling
Strengths
Canter argues that data-driven profiling is more objective and scientific than the typology approach, as it is more grounded in evidence and psychological theory and less driven by speculation and hunches
With the aid of advanced artificial intelligence, investigators are able to manipulate geographical, biographical and psychological data quickly to produce insights and results that assist in the investigation
The data-driven approach can be applied to a wider range of offences than the typology approach, as techniques such as smallest space analysis and the principle of spatial consistency can be used in the investigation of crimes such as burglary and theft as well as more serious offences such as murder and rape
Limitations
Studies examining the effectiveness of offender profiling have produced mixed results, e.g., Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police forces and found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be useful in 83% of cases, but in only 3% did it lead to accurate identification of the offender
Kocsis et al. (2002) found that chemistry students produced a more accurate offender profile on a solved murder case than experienced senior detectives
When profiling goes wrong the consequences can be serious, as in the case of Rachel Nickell, where the profile led police to pursue a suspect who was later cleared, while the actual offender remained at large and went on to commit further offences
Issues & Debates
The data-driven approach is largely nomothetic, using statistical analysis and patterns across many crimes to form general rules about offender behaviour
However, it can incorporate idiographic elements when building a profile specific to one offender, especially in cases like John Duffy
The data-driven approach may be criticised as reductionist for focusing heavily on patterns and crime scene details, possibly overlooking broader psychological or social factors
However, the integration of investigative psychology and geographical profiling allows for a more holistic understanding of the offender
Worked Example
Here is an example of a 16-mark question that you might be asked on this topic.
AO1: You need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of key concepts, ideas, theories and research.
AO3: You need to analyse and evaluate key concepts, ideas, theories and research.
Q. Describe and evaluate the two approaches to offender profiling. Refer to relevant research in your answer.
[16 marks]
Model answer:
AO1:
The FBI’s typology approach focuses on offender typology, based on data collected from 36 interviews with serial killers, providing a template from which to match crime-scene details to produce a profile of the type of offender per crime scene
Offenders are therefore classified according to the criteria ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’. An organised offender is likely to bring weapons and exercise great control at the scene
In contrast, the British data-driven approach focuses on systematic statistical analysis of the crime scene and then works its way up to a profile based on that evidence
The British approach does not work with fixed typologies; instead, the profile is data-driven and is more grounded in psychological theory
AO3:
The typology approach is based on outdated accounts from interviewees, which may be unreliable, as the 36 killers may have had mental disorders or could easily have lied about their crimes
Classifying offenders according to type is only based on the interview information, and it may well be overly reductionist and deterministic
The typology approach reduces crimes to only two broad categories, where there may be overlapping features and the labelling of ‘organised/disorganised’ does not allow for offenders to change the M.O. from crime to crime
The data-driven approach is more scientific than the typology approach and is therefore less likely to be biased
The data-driven approach has a wider application than the typology approach, as it is based on practical, achievable methods rather than on a subjective appraisal (e.g., the crime scene must fit into one of two typologies)
Unlock more, it's free!
Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams
the (exam) results speak for themselves:
Was this revision note helpful?
Build on this topic
