The Typology Approach (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note

The American (FBI) approach

• The typology approach is also known as the American approach to offender profiling, as it was developed, primarily, by Robert Ressler from the FBI’s Behavioural Sciences Unit in the 1970s

• The typology approach is used when pre-determined theories or ideas are applied to data – in the case of offender profiling, the data comes in the form of the crime scene

• The typology approach is deductive as it applies ideas, theories and concepts to the information at the crime scene and bases conclusions on it, i.e., it tests an existing theory/idea 

• The approach was based on interviews conducted with 36 violent offenders, which included some notorious serial killers (e.g. Charles Manson and Ted Bundy), some of whom had committed sexually motivated murders

• The interviews covered details such as:

  • was each murder planned and if so, how?

  • how was each murder carried out?

  • what went through the mind of the killer when they were committing the murder?

  • whether each murderer had regular fantasies about killing?

  • what each murderer did in between killings?

• The data obtained from these interviews, combined with crime scene data, helped Ressler and his colleagues to identify two typologies of murderers: organised and disorganised

• These two typologies are used by the FBI as a template from which to examine and analyse crime scene data and ‘fit’  the offender into, i.e., does the crime scene indicate an organised or a disorganised offender?

Organised & disorganised types of offender

• Offender typologies are based on the idea that each type of offender will use a distinct modus operandi (MO), which distinguishes them and the characteristics of their crimes

• An MO is like an offender’s signature in that it includes details and features of their crimes and may help to identify them from other similar offenders, e.g., Homer always leaves doughnut crumbs at the site of his crimes compared to other thieves who do not

• An example of an MO is that some offenders may bring items to the crime scene or take items with them (e.g., ‘souvenirs’ of the crime), and this can tell investigators about the personality and behaviours of the offender 

• Based on the above typologies Ressler and his colleagues concluded that organised offenders:

  • are likely to have a high IQ and be in a professional or skilled occupation

  • are socially competent and have several friends and colleagues

  • are likely to be in a relationship

  • may have been suffering from some kind of negative mental state e.g. depression, anxiety, anger, when the crime was committed

  • are aware of media interest in and coverage of the crime (some offenders may even communicate with the police or media as a way of prolonging their involvement in the crime)

• Based on the above typologies Ressler and his colleagues concluded that disorganised offenders are:

  • likely to have a low IQ and be in an unskilled or semi-skilled occupation (or unemployed)

  • socially incompetent with few friends and colleagues

  • likely to live alone or have a problematic relationship history

  • likely to have been abused as a child

  • likely to show confusion, fear and panic at the crime scene and in general when confronted with stressful situations

  • more likely to live near the crime scene

Summary of organised vs disorganised offenders

Research which investigates the typology approach to offender profiling

• Snook et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of profiling research and concluded that most profiling was based on little more than common-sense justifications and that profilers were not significantly better at predicting offence behaviours than non-profilers, but were slightly better at identifying overall offender characteristics 

• Canter et al. (2004) – 100 American serial murders were analysed: the results showed that the label organised/disorganised could not easily be applied to the crimes and that there may be a subset of organised characteristics that typify serial murder, whereas disorganised murder rarely fits into a distinct typology

Evaluation of the typology approach to offender profiling

Strengths

• The typology approach may be useful for identifying (and subsequently apprehending) sexually-motivated murderers due to the standardised template which can be applied to such crimes 

• The typology approach has been used successfully in 17% of cases, which may seem like a negligible number; however, it means that the perpetrators of some very serious crimes were caught before they could harm anyone else (Holmes, 1998)

Limitations

• The typology approach is based on interview data from 36 serial killers in the 1970s, which means that it lacks temporal validity and may suffer from several types of bias (e.g., social desirability bias, confirmation bias), which would damage the validity of the approach

• The typology approach is not necessarily appropriate for every type of crime, as its basis lies in the documenting of (mainly) sexually-motivated serial murder, which means that it lacks consistency (and, by association, reliability) across crimes

Issues & Debates

• The typology approach was developed using American offenders, largely white, male, sexually motivated serial killers

  • This means the approach may be culturally biased and less valid when applied to different populations or non-sexual crimes

• The top-down approach is deterministic, as it assumes that personality traits (e.g., high IQ, childhood abuse) determine an offender’s behaviour and crime scene organisation

  • This ignores the role of free will, spontaneity, or situational influences in criminal behaviour