Mad Science...or Refined Art???

As criminal profiling gains prominence in the entertainment industry, the question on the minds of many is: how accurate is profiling in reality? This is not an easy question to answer. While there are early accounts of some doctors, criminologists, and psychiatrists dabbling in profiling work, development of this technique didn’t really take off until the 1970s when the FBI undertook a systematic study of the procedure at the Behavioral Science Unit. Due to the fact that profiling is still quite young, and there exist only a small number of true profilers, research in this field has been difficult.

Of the studies that have been conducted, mixed results have emerged. Overall, a majority of professionals in the mental health field believe that profiling lacks empirical evidence to demonstrate its reliability and validity. Those in law enforcement, however, tend to feel that profiling has been a useful element of investigations and has assisted in the apprehension of suspects. One study polled 161 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to determine how useful they believed profiling to be. Of the total population, only 10% had experience with profiling, though 25% considered themselves knowledgeable about the field. Interestingly, large discrepancies occurred depending on the title given to profiling. For instance, fewer than 25% of those polled felt “profiling” was scientifically reliable and valid; this number jumped to 40% when the title “criminal investigative analysis” was employed. Another study, however, revealed that 95.4% of the psychiatrists polled felt that profiling is a useful investigative tool, while 84.9% of psychologists agreed (Torres, et al., 2006, p. 54).

An additional study attempted to determine the utility of profiling, rather than its acceptance among those in relevant fields. Kocisis and a team of researchers gathered together professional profilers, psychologists, self-identified psychics, college students, and law enforcement officials, asking them to “review crime descriptions and case materials from actual solved cases” (Torres, et al., 2006, p. 52). The results showed the profilers as most accurate, with accuracy rates ranging from 46% to 70%. Kocsis cautioned that it is unclear whether the variability between the profilers “…was due to overall differences in the profilers’ skills or to specific aspects of the cases” (Torres, et al., 2006, p. 52). According to McCann and findings of the most current and valid research, “…the findings point to greater accuracy in profiling by those who have experience in the procedure and who have specialized training in both criminal investigation and human behavior” (1992, p. 478).

Looking at the studies presented here, one can see the difficulty in drawing any concrete conclusions about the utility and reliability of profiling at this time. As the field continues to grow, so will the sample sizes of profiles and profilers that can be accessed for more reliable results. Currently profiling is teetering between a science and an art; however, enough evidence exists in favor of this technique to say that the future of profiling seems optimistic as views among those in law enforcement and psychology appear to support further research and refinement of the skill.

Torres, A., Boccaccini, M., & Miller, H. (2006, February). Perceptions of the Validity and Utility of Criminal Profiling Among Forensic Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 37(1), 51-58. Retrieved June 11, 2009, doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51

McCann, J. (1992, October). Criminal Personality Profiling in the Investigation of Violent Crime: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10(4), 475-481. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.