NCJ Number
231452
Journal
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice Volume: 10 Issue: 3 Dated: May-June 2010 Pages: 214-223
Date Published
May 2010
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This article examines criminal profiling (CP) research and the predictive accuracy of profilers.
Abstract
In a recent narrative review and meta-analysis of the criminal profiling (CP) literature, Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, and Cullen (2007) found that self-labeled profilers and/or self-labeled profilers/experienced detectives did not decisively outperform lay individuals in their ability to produce accurate profiles. Combined with their finding that the CP literature is based largely on commonsense rationales, they cautioned police officers about using CP in investigations. In a recent issue of this journal, Kocsis, Middledorp, and Karpin (2008) (KMK) challenged some of the methodological decisions of Snook et al. and questioned their interpretation of their meta-analytic findings. In addition, KMK suggested that the work by Snook et al., and that of Bennell, Jones, Taylor, and Snook (2006) is based not on a desire to move profiling research forward but on a hidden agenda to promote an investigative psychology (IP) approach to profiling. In response, we argue that KMK have failed to consider important issues of knowledge cumulation when criticizing the meta-analysis by Snook et al. and that KMK's views with respect to IP have no basis in our previous research. Instead of trying to find a nonexistent hidden agenda in our work, we suggest that efforts would be better directed toward conducting high-quality CP research. References (Published Abstract)