Interpreting the accuracy of offender profiles

Abstract

Two studies investigated the hypothesis that individuals are prepared to perceive ambiguous statements, when presented in the from of an ‘offender profile’, as being relatively accurate descriptions of complete strangers. Study one used a bogus profile with a real case with two distinctly different offender outcomes (one genuine, one fabricated) given to two groups of police officers (n = 24, n = 22). Over half of both groups classified the profile as accurate and, despite distinct differences between the offenders, there were no differences in accuracy ratings of the genuine offender and fabricated offender. Study two examined whether this effect transferred to a genuine profile, again using professional groups (senior police officers, n = 33; forensic professionals, n = 30). Despite receiving different offenders, over 75% of each sample rated the profile as at least somewhat accurate and over 50% as a generally or a very accurate assessment. Mean ratings of the genuine offender did not differ from ratings of the fabricated offender. The majority of individuals rated the profile as useful. These studies lend preliminary support to the hypothesis that individuals tend to construct meaning around ambiguous statements about a third party within the context of offender profiling. We suggest this might be best explained as an extension of the Barnum Effect. The methodological weaknesses of the studies are discussed, as are suggestions for future research.