In order for the light to shine so brightly, the darkness must be present.
—Sir Francis Bacon
Military psychologists are uniquely qualified to support many aspects of national security, applying their expertise in psychological science and the understanding of both human behavior and military culture to assist with operational challenges. This chapter will highlight the important role of military investigative psychologists in applying scientific psychological principles to criminal investigations and operations. Investigative psychologists typically have a background in clinical or research psychology and must develop a sound understanding of cognitive, clinical, organizational, developmental, social, criminal, and forensic psychology (Canter & Youngs, 2009). They typically serve in a consultant, not clinical, role, and therefore, must have a judicious grasp of ethical implications regarding the differences between the two. Finally, it is crucial that investigative psychologists are able to translate scientific terminology and evidence-based research into language that is advantageous to law enforcement.
The operational definition of investigative psychology (IP) has developed over the years from a narrow description of applying scientific psychological principles to profiling an unidentified subject based on behavioral clues left at the crime scene. Such a process was largely anecdotal,2 until it was given a broader, more pertinent, characterization. The current definition of IP is the application of psychological principles to every aspect of the investigative process, from start to finish and from crime scene to legal proceedings (Canter & Youngs 2009). This more-encompassing description of IP is what is typically used by many federal law enforcement agencies and military criminal investigation organizations (MCIOs),3 such as the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). However, as IP is a relatively new and emerging field of applied psychology, consensus on applications across the many different types of law enforcement agencies at the federal or local levels has yet to be reached. As a result, each department or agency may have a different approach to applying behavioral science capabilities to a criminal investigation. After a brief summary of the history of IP, this chapter will summarize how to utilize the research-based principles of IP as applied to criminal investigation organization, using the AFOSI’s Behavioral Sciences Directorate as an example, and will end with a discussion on ethical considerations.
IP is often assumed to be a synonym for the term “criminal profiling,” which involves the development of psychological profiles on serial killers based on crime scene evidence. IP, however, encompasses much more than criminal profiling. The origins of IP can be traced back to the late 1800s when physicians attempted to use crime scene evidence to make predictions about “Jack the Ripper.” The interaction between psychology and the legal system was further cultivated with Hugo Munsterberg’s book On the Witness Stand (1908) about treating legal issues from a psychological standpoint (as cited in Kebbell & Davies, 2006). This book advocated the importance and potential of a union between psychology and the law; however, it lacked a foundation in research. This began to change with the infamous “Mad Bomber” case. Over the course of 16 years, in the 1940s and 1950s, George Metesky set off dozens of bombs around New York. Despite considerable effort, the investigation stalled. In frustration, investigators turned to psychiatrist James Brussel in 1956 for assistance. Using psychological theories, Brussel formed a profile, which proved to be spot on, leading to the arrest of Metesky (Winerman, 2004). From there, police began to seek help from the psychology community in developing profiles of unidentified subjects in difficult cases like the “Son of Sam” (David Berkowitz) in the late 1960s.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) jumped head first into the criminal profiling approach in the 1970s when the Behavioral Science Unit4 was formed at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. At the time, this approach to criminal profiling was not without criticism. It was primarily a product of FBI agents’ investigative experience and intuition, and mostly anecdotal in nature. It was not based on sound, evidence-based research. However, it did lead to mainstream fascination with criminal profiling by the public due to subsequent popular movies and TV shows like The Silence of the Lambs and Criminal Minds. As the public’s fascination with criminal profiling grew, so did the emergence of a commitment to the theoretical basis, professional application, and rigor of a more scientific approach (Youngs & Canter, 2006). Thus, the specialty of investigative psychology materialized. Furthermore, it developed into more than just a scientific approach to developing profiles of unknown subjects in bizarre crimes into the “psychological input to the full range of issues that relate to the management, investigation, and prosecution of crime” (Cantor & Youngs, 2009, p. 4).
With this newly formed academic and scientific approach came a flood of possibilities where psychological principles could be applied to the entirety of the investigative process. To begin, there is a plethora of research and knowledge on the science of human behavior that is directly applicable to investigations, including how memory works and can be distorted; the impact of trauma on victims and witnesses; the impact of cognitive bias; the psychology of victims; understanding criminal behavior and personalities; the detection of deception; understanding different types of violence (sexual violence, intimate partner violence, child sexual crimes, target violence, etc.); and threat assessment and mitigation, to name a few. In addition, there is the mounting body of research on the best methods for interviewing victims, witnesses, and subjects. Not to be omitted is the decision-making process at the heart of developing investigative strategies in a particular case. Criminal behavior is complex human behavior impacted by several different biopsychosocial factors. It only makes sense that the experts who study human behavior (psychologists) team up with the law enforcement experts who are assigned to investigate those behaviors. Investigative psychologists may consult on individual cases, educate and train investigators, conduct research, and help develop policies and procedures. This chapter will summarize these topics and illustrate how AFOSI’s investigative psychologists provide direct consultation to criminal investigations and participate in training advanced investigative interviewing techniques.
The U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) conducts criminal investigations and counterintelligence operations in support of the air force. With a workforce of approximately 3,000 personnel, including 2,000 special agents, AFOSI operates from over 250 field units worldwide (AFOSI, 2018). Special agents include a mix of both active-duty and civilian agents, augmented by 400 reservists. AFOSI’s Behavioral Sciences Directorate is a multidisciplinary team of specially trained psychologists and other behavioral science experts who support a broad range of organizational, personnel, and operational functions agency-wide. Organizational functions include leadership consultation, personnel assessment and selection, training development, policy, and international liaison. Personnel support functions include employee assistance services, confidential counseling, operational resilience, crisis response, and post-deployment decompression and reintegration of personnel. Operational functions include direct consultation to criminal investigations, counterintelligence operations and investigations, counterterrorism, insider threat, threat assessment and mitigation, expeditionary counter-threat operations, and special agent training. An AFOSI psychologist who provides consultation to investigations and operations is referred to as an “ investigative/operational psychologist” (IOP).
All AFOSI psychologists and other behavioral science personnel, regardless of role or duty assignment, organizationally fall within the Behavioral Sciences Directorate. This includes IOPs who are assigned to geographically separated locations in the United States. or overseas, and those embedded within operational units. Thus, a psychologist’s organizational and supervisory chain is separate and distinct from that of the customers for whom they consult, allowing for IOPs to be fully embedded and seamlessly integrated within operational units, while ensuring that they remain objective, avoid conflicted roles, and are accountable to and supervised by qualified IOPs. Psychologists must exercise professional and ethical discipline, recognizing and respecting the boundary between the consultant and the operational customer. It is important that every IOP recognize that his or her perspective is one of many used by the customer in the course of decision making and managing a case. Guided by a stringent code of ethics, IOPs must remain disciplined in what they offer in consultation, ever mindful of the boundaries of their competence and role in a given case.
Before moving on to the specific work of IOPs, it is important to make mention of a couple of personnel-support programs developed to address unique psychological aspects of investigative and operational work.
SafeGuard is an education and consultation program designed to enhance operational resilience and build effective strategies for performing high-stress, high-threat, emotionally challenging and psychologically demanding investigative and operational activities. Its purpose is to help mitigate the potential negative impact that may result from recurrent or prolonged exposure to graphic materials or highly stressful or emotional experiences. Criminal investigators and analysts are routinely exposed to child pornography, horrific images or videos of violence and torture of children, graphic crime scenes of homicides and suicides, dismembered bodies, autopsies, interacting with traumatized victims, undercover operations against sexual predators, and encountering traumatic deployment-related experiences. They often report recurrent disturbing dreams or nightmares, increased irritability, anger, impatience, emotionally detaching or distancing from their families, job dissatisfaction and burnout, avoidance of specific people or places, difficulty concentrating, loss of interest in activities, and other thoughts and feelings that interfere with personal and professional effectiveness, happiness, and sense of well-being. SafeGuard training presentations, support groups, and individual counseling sessions cover these topics and provide strategies for addressing them.
AFOSI’s Employee Assistance Service provides pre-deployment support and education to deploying personnel and their families. The goals of the pre-deployment program are to prepare personnel for a successful deployment experience by helping them address individual and family stressors, establish a support plan to care for family members, mentally prepare for the combat environment, increase performance and resilience, facilitate a smooth reintegration with family and friends following deployment, understand and cope with deployment-related stress, and learn how to access additional support or treatment if needed. Prior to returning to their home units, redeploying AFOSI personnel attend a two-day decompression and reintegration program in Germany or other third-country location. The program allows redeployers an opportunity to decompress and prepare for the upcoming reintegration with their families, coworkers, and communities back home. During these two days, they participate in educational discussions on a variety of topics, including effects of combat-related stress (cognitive, physical, emotional, and behavioral); family reunification; impact of deployments on self, coworkers, spouses, and children of various ages; recommendations for successfully readjusting back to normal life routines, relationships and roles; what to do if “normal” post-deployment effects don’t improve; information on traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder: and other topics customized to the unique circumstances and experiences of the specific participants. AFOSI was one of the first military agencies to establish a dedicated post-deployment decompression and reintegration program.
Psychological assessment is a standard component of the process of applying for and being selected to become a special agent. There are a number of specialized investigative and operational roles that experienced special agents may be involved in at some point in their careers that require more comprehensive psychological assessment. Two examples of such roles include undercover operations and Internet crimes against children (ICAC) operations. Both of these jobs require agents to play undercover roles, one being in-person and the other being behind a computer keyboard. Both can be extremely stressful and psychologically demanding, for different reasons. Undercover agents are under significant real-time pressure and in some cases may be in situations where they face high personal risk, whether they are hanging with drug dealers or riding with a dangerous motorcycle gang. ICAC agents are not only routinely exposed to offensive images but must also participate in very disturbing Internet conversations with child predators; ICAC agents must convincingly behave and communicate like an underage child, while the online child predator is carefully attending to every word and expression to verify that it’s not actually a cop on the other end. Psychological assessments for undercover and ICAC agents are used not only to select agents who are the right fit for the role but also to provide feedback and coaching to help agents effectively leverage their own psychological and personality characteristics that will help them safely and successfully do their jobs, and to help them mitigate the impact of personal characteristics that could put them at risk or increase their operational vulnerabilities. Psychologists also help the undercover agents and the entire operational team to craft and develop their covers to maximize effectiveness and reduce the risk of their covers being blown. Finally, psychologists must periodically monitor undercover and ICAC agents to assess their continued suitability for the role, and to ensure that their work does not take a psychological toll on them and lead to burnout.
IOPs provide case consultation, training, and analysis designed to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, success, and impact of AFOSI operations and investigations. Simply stated, IP consultation in criminal investigations focuses on human factors that may help explain past and present events and behaviors; may help anticipate future events and behaviors; or may be useful in planning and executing a successful investigation or operation. AFOSI IOPs are embedded within dedicated operational units. Being embedded allows the IOP to provide consultation to investigators from inception through the lifespan of a case, which puts them in a better position to understand behavior within the unfolding context of the investigation. IOPs do not control or make decisions regarding any case, investigation, or operation. Rather, they contribute expert opinions that investigators can use to make informed decisions. They aim to provide objective, honest, unbiased assessments and recommendations, based on the integration and analysis of many pieces of data, including personality, cognitive, historical, biographical, contextual, cultural, and all other relevant data that is available. IOPs bring to the table not only their own expertise but also that of their colleagues and affiliates, which adds significantly to the richness, creativity, applicability, and quality of their products and services. The remainder of this chapter will illustrate some of the common areas in which IOPs provide consultation. While there are a number of ways an IOP can be used as a consultant in a criminal investigation, a few select examples of topics have been chosen to illustrate the utility of an investigative psychologist.
The IP approach to offender profiling differs in fundamental ways from the “criminal profiling” approach to offender profiling. Both approaches are intent on examining the evidence to develop descriptive characteristics of the offender that may assist investigators in identifying said offender or developing further investigative leads. The criminal profiling approach is often used for serial offenses or bizarre crimes. Investigative inferences based on the criminal profiling approach are constructed on anecdotal intuition (e.g., what is remembered from past similar cases about perpetrators?); the assumption here is that the “profiler” has a unique skill to read the evidence and develop a useable profile of the unknown offender (Wilson, Jackson, & Kaur-Rana, 2010). Investigative inferences based on the IP approach to offender profiling, on the other hand, are derived from various factors about the crime (behavior, context, location, victimology, etc.) that lead to determining certain characteristics of the offender based on the current research on the relationship between offender behavior and characteristics (Canter, 2011). IP considers the unique circumstances and context of a particular crime, then compares those to psychological assumptions founded in scientific research on certain actions and consistencies in personalities (Youngs, 2007). IP methods can be applied to all types of criminal behavior, including sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual crimes against children, theft, fraud, espionage, targeted violence, and others.
For example, an AFOSI special agent who requests consultation from an IOP on a sexual assault investigation will provide the IOP information on all known facts about the case, including the context (time, location, and other contextual factors), events before/during/after the assault, actions/behaviors of all involved, and as much information as possible about the suspect under investigation, as well as the victims and witnesses. The IOP is given access to all evidence in the case file, including all victim and witness interviews. This information is then examined and compared to current scientific knowledge on human behavior to make inferences about a suspect’s personality, interpersonal style, emotional liability, familiarity to victim, suspected previous assault history, and so on. It is the role of the IOP to then translate the analysis of the research into easy-to-understand, useful information. This would lead to identification of any salient aspects of the case that could lead to a description of the characteristics and typical behavior of the suspect, possible location of the offender (if unknown), and possible linkage to other cases. This information is used to narrow down a list of potential suspects or if the subject is known, to recommend investigative strategies to enhance the collection of corroborating evidence, find other possible victims, and inform interview approaches.
For instance, say the information in a case led an investigative psychologist to surmise, based on the evidence and research, that the perpetrator is likely to exhibit hypermasculine traits, believe in token resistance, subscribe to rape myths, engage in sexual narcissism, have a history of reactive aggression, and have a history of perpetration of similar acts in the past (see Shafer, Ortiz, Thompson, & Huemmer, 2018). These inferences are then translated into language that can be useful in an investigation. For example, the subject would likely have a history of “cat calling,” be known to make comments about the appearances of women, brag about sexual conquests, voice opinions about traditional male roles (i.e., belief that male gender is dominant), be known to have prior incidents of boundary probing (e.g., unwanted touching and sexual harassment), be likely to respond aggressively when he believes he has been disrespected (e.g., bar fights), strive to be seen as aggressive and unfeminine, ignore sexual communication signals from female partners, and rationalize his behavior by believing women are purposely resistant. Furthermore, he may believe that when women say “no” they really mean “yes” and that resistance to sexual advances is a necessary barrier to overcome (e.g., token resistance), which is observable by a history of being overly persistent (i.e., continues to try to kiss even when being told no, or being pushed away) or using coercion tactics to pressure sexual activities such as obsessive begging, threating to harm self, and blackmail (Beres, 2010). In addition, he is likely to blame the victim, thinking she actually wanted it, even when there was a lack of consent to all sexual activity (Muehlenhard, Andrews, & Beal, 1996).
The aforementioned information can be used to search for corroborating evidence (i.e., develop questions to ask a potential witness) or to create an interview strategy for the subject and/or other possible victims. For instance, in the previously mentioned case, say the kissing was actually consensual at first but then the victim began to object and behaviorally resist, that the offender ignored the victim’s objection/resistance, and that the victim then “froze.” An investigative psychologist can explain to the investigator the phenomenon of paralysis that some victims experience during a traumatic event, such as during a sexual assault, caused by the rush of chemicals released by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (Kalaf et al., 2017). This is one of several possible reasons that the victim may not have been able to explicitly yell “no.” A reasonable sex partner would be able to tell something was not okay and stop. However, given the personality traits of the individual described earlier, it is likely that the offender would not care and proceed. Likewise, considering the personality of the offender described earlier, it is possible that the offender may be eager to talk to investigators, emphatically claim that the victim never said “no,” and yet still willingly describe her as stiff or even crying during the incident, not recognizing that this admission may be problematic. As this example illustrates, research-based psychological knowledge can be very helpful to investigators.
Another area where an investigative psychologist’s expertise and ability to translate research findings can be helpful to investigators is with regard to cases involving intimate partner violence. The research, laws, and overall understanding of the complex factors involved in this type of violence are constantly evolving. Furthermore, intimate partner violence is fairly common, so typical law enforcement officers are likely to spend an abundant amount of time dealing with these types of cases. One out of four women and one out of nine men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner (Black et al., 2011). Recent research has found that over half of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former intimate partner (Petrosky et al., 2017). The overwhelming method used to kill intimate partners is with a firearm, and simply having access to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner homicide by over 500 percent (Zeoli et al., 2018). It is exactly this type of behavioral and social science research that has led a number of states to enact laws preventing domestic violence perpetrators from accessing firearms. The research has further concluded that the states that have laws restricting domestic violence offenders from obtaining access to guns have significantly decreased the number of intimate partner homicides (Zeoli et al., 2018). Before these laws can apply, a quality investigation leading to successful prosecution must occur. However, domestic violence allegations are often multifaceted and can be difficult to investigate for many reasons. In the more complex cases, an astute investigator will elicit the services of an investigative psychologist.
One example of an intimate partner violence case that could pose some difficulties in investigation is one involving allegations of strangulation. Nonlethal strangulation during a domestic violence incident has become one of the most statistically predictive precursors for murder. A victim who has experienced nonlethal strangulation from an intimate partner is eight times more likely to be killed by that partner in a future incident (Glass et al., 2008). Psychologically, strangulation is all about power and control. It is communication to the victim that the batterer holds the power to take the victim’s life within seconds and with minimal effort. The use of strangulation is also indicative of an escalating pattern of violence. Almost 90 percent of nonlethal strangulation cases were preceded by a history of abuse (Glass et al., 2008). Perpetrators of strangulation are also likely to commit other violent acts. These individuals are statistically more prone to kill law enforcement officers and innocent people. Half of perpetrators who killed police officers in the line of duty had a previous documented domestic violence case with strangulation as an element of the case (Gwinn, 2014). Several mass murderers had a history of nonlethal strangulation domestic violence incidents. Simply relaying these facts to investigators shines a light on this issue and motivates investigators to do all that is necessary to fully scrutinize these allegations. Furthermore, it is important to educate investigators that an offender can strangle someone nearly to death as it only takes seconds of pressure to cause physical and psychological symptoms; however, less than 50 percent of strangulation victims will show visible signs of injury (Strack, McClane, & Hawley, 2001). Death from strangulation can occur even when there are no observable signs of strangulation (e.g., bruising on the neck or petechial eye).
Due to the lack of observable physical evidence in these cases, investigators must be diligent in collecting non-visible evidence (e.g., involuntary incontinence and fear of death) and documenting strangulation appropriately. An investigative psychologist can help investigators devise a solid investigative plan to ensure all relevant evidence is collected. For example, AFOSI investigative psychologists often consult with agents on strangulation cases and provide interview outlines and evidence collection strategies focused on the non-visible signs of strangulation. The method used to interview the victim is imperative in eliciting the non-visible evidence of strangulation. Good teamwork between agents and an investigative psychologist can be valuable in complex cases involving nonlethal strangulation and increase the possibility of preventing future violence at the hands of the perpetrator.
An additional area where investigative psychologist can be useful for a case consultation is with death cases. In a case where the death is suspicious, the manner of death (natural, accident, suicide, homicide) is not always clear. The cause of death, for example, a gunshot wound, may be easily determined, yet the manner of death may need further inquiry. In other death cases, the manner of death may be clearly determined, but there may be valuable information obtained from understanding the factors involved in the death (i.e., mass murders). There are two types of indirect assessments an investigative psychologist can perform to shed light into what manner of death is most likely to have occurred or what salient factors preceded the death. These are psychological autopsies and psychological death case reviews. The psychological autopsy is a more official and specialized form of indirect assessment designed to assist law enforcement and the medical examiner in determining the manner of death in equivocal or high-profile cases. This type of assessment is the more formal of the two, is conducted only at the request of a pathologist or medical examiner, and is relatively uncommon. Psychological death case reviews, on the other hand, are more common and are designed to help investigators explain the mind-set and possible motivations in cases where the manner of death has already been determined. Investigative psychologists conducting death case reviews will work closely with the case agents to collect and assess all relevant data. Of interest to an investigative psychologist would be information from records, reports, or collateral interviews regarding personality, reaction to stress, interpersonal relationships, personal and family history of psychiatric or psychological problems, personal or family history of alcohol/substance abuse, utilization of counseling or other helping agencies (or lack thereof), evidence of pathway to violence behaviors, and evidence of the typical signs/indicators of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
One emerging area in direct case consultation critical to investigative agencies is threat assessment, mitigation, and management. The increase in targeted violence, workplace and school violence, mass shootings, murder-suicide, and hate crimes in recent years cannot be ignored—the news is replete with recent examples. The military has certainly experienced its fair share of notorious incidents in the past decade. In 2009, an active-duty officer, and psychiatrist, shot and killed 13 people and injured 32 at Fort Hood Army Base in Texas. In 2013, a military contractor murdered 12 and injured 3 in a mass shooting at the Naval Sea Systems Command on the Navy Yard military base in Washington, D.C. In 2016, an air force technical sergeant (E-6) gunned down his commander Lt. Col. William Schroeder (whose brave actions saved countless other lives) before killing himself at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland. In addition to these infamous cases, there have been several murder-suicides involving active-duty military members and veterans. For instance, in November 2017 an air force veteran murdered 26 and wounded two dozen at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. More recently, in November 2018 a marine veteran killed 12 in Thousand Oaks, California. These cases highlight the need for threat assessment and management processes and procedures in the military.
As the psychological research continues to flourish in the area of threat assessment, and organizations such as the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) start to merge the relationship between psychology and law enforcement, IP expertise has developed as a crucial component in the assessment, mitigation, and management of threats. As the surge in this type of violence continues, MCIOs such as AFOSI have also seen their role in investigating threatening and concerning behaviors increase dramatically. It is not clear if there is an actual increase in threat-making and concerning behaviors or if individuals who observe such activity are simply taking this type of behavior more seriously. In any case, the role of the investigator has intensified in threat cases; and therefore, the demand for investigative psychological consultation has as well.
It is important to have a behavioral science professional who is proficient in threat assessment; who understands the biological elements, psychological factors, social influences, contextual dynamics, and neuroscience aspects; and who is knowledgeable of the most up-to-date research in threat assessment to consult on such a specific type of violence. Investigative psychologists often serve as a liaison between the scientific community and law enforcement in order to translate research on biopsychosocial factors that correlated with targeted violence. The threat assessment scientific community has extensively researched premeditated, emotionless, and predatory violence and has developed a model to help identify individuals who exhibit behavioral signs indicating an escalation toward possible violence. This has been coined “the pathway to violence” (Calhoun & Weston, 2015; Simons & Meloy, 2017). Helping law enforcement understand behavioral and contextual factors consistent with the pathway to violence is vital as they investigate individuals who have made threats or are engaging in pathway-to-violence behavior in order to mitigate and manage those individuals.
To appreciate how valuable investigative psychologists can be in this area, a few recent cases will be presented with a discussion of the biopsychosocial and contextual factors involved. Also presented will be a brief analysis of the psychological research on how those factors are related to violence against a targeted group. It is important to note that the cases presented here have a theme of hatred toward a targeted group that is a slightly different type of violence than workplace or interpersonal violence where threat assessment research is applicable.
During the time this chapter was being authored, there were several high-profile violent incidents involving hateful ideology.5 A man who was a radicalized supporter of a predominant political party mailed homemade bombs to 14 high-profile members of the other prevalent political party. A man who attempted to enter a black church to kill churchgoers was unable to do so and murdered two unsuspecting black individuals at a nearby grocery store in Kentucky. A few days later, a man walked into the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and murdered 11 worshippers. Days later, a man who was a self-proclaimed involuntary celibate or “Incel”6 murdered two and injured four before killing himself at a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida. Understanding the biopsychosocial factors of violence in incidents like these can help inform the public and law enforcement in order to interrupt similar attacks in the future.
Research shows that frequent exposure to hate speech (language expressing hatred or disgust for a particular group of people) increases prejudice (Soral, Bilewicz, & Winiewski, 2017). This can lead to desensitization, dehumanization, and lack of empathy—the major ingredients for violent behavior (Morris & Nicoletti, 2018). In addition, when individuals surround themselves (either in person or on social media) with hateful ideology against an “out-group” (i.e., those who are different from the individual), the hateful language stokes the fear and anger part of the brain, releasing a surge of hormones and neurotransmitters. This activates the brain’s center for threat processing, the amygdala (Insenberg et al., 1999). The activation of the amygdala and the rush of chemicals such as norepinephrine, corticosteroids, cortisol, and catecholamines impact the individual’s ability to think rationally (Insenberg et al., 1999). This biological effect can then progress into a psychological grievance. The individual who adheres to anger and hatred toward a targeted group begins to feel victimized to the point of believing violence against members of the targeted group is justified (Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, 2011). Encircling oneself with like-minded individuals (in person or on social media) reinforces the radical beliefs and creates a cognitive bias (the false-consensus bias) whereby the individual overestimates the extent to which his or her beliefs and opinions are shared among everyone else (Wojcieszak & Price, 2009). Take these aforementioned biopsychosocial factors and add contextual variables such as stress, peer pressure, or the most influential—approval from an authority figure (Milgram, 1963), and you now have the contextual elements that increase the propensity of aggressive behaviors toward a target group. Now, add access and availability of weapons, with the ability to use them, and the threat is more serious. Combine all of the aforementioned with evidence of planning, preparation, and practice behaviors; and you have an individual clearly escalating on the pathway to targeted violence (Calhoun & Weston, 2015; Simons & Meloy, 2017); or, said differently, you have a ticking time bomb.
Obviously, when an investigative psychologist is asked to consult on a threat assessment, it would not be helpful to ask the referring party if there is evidence to suggest the individual has exhibited indications of amygdala activation and neurochemical dump, displayed indications of dehumanization or desensitization, illustrated signs of the false-consensus bias, or has been psychologically influenced by an authority figure. Nor would it be helpful to ask what type of social reinforcement schedule is observable. This type of psychobabble would cause a blank stare of confusion and instant regret of calling upon a psychologist for assistance. There is an immense demand to translate the scientific jargon into applicable information that can be useful to those assigned with investigating an individual who has made a threat or is engaged in concerning behaviors. There is a plethora of scientific research on the biopsychosocial and contextual factors that can inform a threat assessment and mitigation/management strategies, but again it takes an expert to apply it to everyday cases.7 Unfortunately, our armed forces are not immune from insider personnel escalating on the pathway to violence.
It is not uncommon for AFOSI to investigate individuals who make threats, who engage in concerning behaviors, or who post something troubling on social media. AFOSI IOPs assist with the analysis of anomalous conduct or concerning behaviors in the workplace, assist investigators in developing strategies for effective data collection, and recommend strategies for mitigation and management of the individual. They analyze suspicious behavioral patterns and insider-threat indicators on many levels, ranging from looking at an individual’s specific intention and motivation to act in a malicious manner (e.g., disgruntlement, entitlement, vengeance) to examining the bigger picture of how an organization or an individual’s culture either contributes to or mitigates insider-threat behavior. Furthermore, AFOSI investigative psychologists integrate all available data, including social factors, personality, history, cultural and religious context, behavioral and social patterns, motivations, social and organizational influences, risk factors, and vulnerabilities in order to provide AFOSI agents with a quality threat assessment on an individual of concern, along with recommendations for mitigation and management strategies to discuss with key players (e.g., the individual’s command, base mental health providers, base security forces). This complex process is guided by threat assessment and insider-threat research, along with lessons learned from past cases (e.g., Fort Hood mass murder) to assist in generating ideas to inform the anomaly detection process. AFOSI IOPs can also assist with training on kinetic insider threat to enhance military members’ and leaders’ abilities to recognize suspicious activity or concerning behaviors, consult with managers, and report when appropriate. Most important is the ability to utilize scientific research on biopsychosocial, contextual factors and threat assessment and translate it into language that special agents can discern.
IOPs play significant roles in the development of training for special agents. Cognitive, psychological, and social factors impact nearly every aspect of criminal investigations, counterterrorism, and counterintelligence operations. All of these activities, after all, deal directly with human behavior. Due to their intimate knowledge of current and past criminal investigations cases, IOPs are uniquely qualified to train investigators on a broad range of topics involving psychological factors, such as in the areas of child forensic interviewing, sex crimes investigations, trauma, eyewitness memory, perception, criminal behavior, victimology, human motivation, threat assessment, espionage, investigative decision making, cognitive biases, social influence, and advanced law enforcement interviewing techniques. These topics have been incorporated into AFOSI’s basic training for new special agents, and into several advanced training courses at the U.S. Air Force Special Investigations Academy (USAFSIA), located at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia. Some of these topics are also taught by IOPs at the DOD Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA) in Quantico, Virginia, and at other training centers. In addition to teaching specific topics within existing law enforcement courses, IOPs have played principal roles over recent years in developing or co-developing new courses for investigators. AFOSI’s one-week child forensic interviewing course, for instance, is run and taught by IOPs. They co-developed AFOSI’s two-week sex crimes investigations course, in which they teach several blocks of instruction. IOPs also built AFOSI’s two-week advanced interviews and interrogations course, where they play primary roles as instructors and interview coaches.
Perhaps one of the most significant impacts of IOPs in recent years has been their influence on changing AFOSI’s investigative interviewing and interrogation methods. This has resulted in a progressive shift away from traditional law enforcement interview methods, which rely heavily on questioning and are often confrontational, in favor of evidence-based interview methods that are rapport-based and informed by scientific knowledge of human behavior, memory, cognitive processes, social dynamics, and interpersonal communication. As a result, AFOSI agents are now being taught more effective techniques such as, among others, cognitive interviewing (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992), strategic use of evidence (Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, 2006), and cognition-based approaches to assessing credibility (Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2017). Key to influencing these changes in AFOSI’s approach to investigative interviewing was the partnership between AFOSI’s Behavioral Sciences Directorate and the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), which is described in a separate chapter in this book. The training developed and taught by the HIG, in conjunction with a field study conducted by the HIG on the use of the newly taught techniques by AFOSI agents, successfully demonstrated to AFOSI leadership the increased effectiveness of the “new” interview methods over traditional law enforcement methods. As a result, AFOSI IOPs took on a prominent role alongside USAFSIA instructors in the training of investigative interview techniques. In 2016, AFOSI’s Interviews and Interrogations Program was formally transferred to the Behavioral Sciences Directorate, which is now responsible for all policy and training requirements related to investigative interviewing and interrogation techniques.
New AFOSI special agents initially go through an 11-week, entry-level training course at FLETC, immediately followed by an 8-week course that is AFOSI-specific, the basic special investigations course (BSIC). The introduction of psychological principles that apply to criminal investigations and operations begins early in their BSIC training, starting with the fundamental concepts and techniques that will apply to all activities special agents will perform throughout their careers, such as relationship-building, adaptive communication, social influence, memory and perception, and effective interviewing skills. Upon graduation from BSIC, special agents complete a one-year probationary period at their first AFOSI detachment. USAFSIA offers several advanced training courses for special agents, covering a myriad of topics, including specialized areas in criminal investigations, sexual assault investigations, forensic sciences, cyber investigations and operations, counter-threat operations, criminal case management, among others.
In 2012, AFOSI recognized the need to improve its methods for interviewing victims of sexual assault, to find a rapport-based approach that would increase the quantity and quality of information obtained from victims, and to better educate its investigators on sexual assault matters to enhance their understanding of victim experiences, memory, cognitive biases, stereotypes, and trauma. AFOSI turned to its IOPs to find the best interview method and to help develop a new advanced Sex Crimes Investigations Training Program (SCITP).
SCITP is an advanced course for AFOSI sexual assault investigators and air force lawyers that covers a broad range of investigative, forensic, legal, psychological, and behavioral aspects of sex crimes investigations. This comprehensive and dynamic course is taught by subject matter experts in the field, including experienced IOPs, criminal investigators, forensic science consultants, lawyers, and others. Psychological factors taught include victim behavior, perpetrator behavior, serial offenders, memory formation and retrieval, impact of trauma on victims and witnesses, and other topics. Students are taught cognitive interviewing techniques to interview victims of sex crimes, to enhance memory retrieval of victims and witnesses, and to recognize and address cognitive biases that often negatively impact the course of an investigation. It is an absolute necessity to have an investigative psychologist involved in the development and teaching of programs like SCITP due to the amount of behavioral science and psychological topics discussed.
IOPs serve an important training role when it comes to crimes involving children. Children are our most vulnerable victims; they are often not only the victim but also the sole witness to the crimes against them. Interviewing children is a difficult skill to master given the need to understand the applicable psychological, legal, and investigative techniques necessary to minimize suggestive questions and maximize reliability.8 It is critical for investigators who interview children to be trained in the most up-to-date evidence-based interview methods in order to gather reliable information that can be used as evidence. Child forensic interviews (CFIs) are a perfect illustration of the interrelated relationship between developmental psychology, forensic psychology, psychology of memory, science of interviewing, knowledge of laws and case precedents, and law enforcement processes. Thus, AFOSI’s child forensic interview course (CFIC) is taught by IOPs, experienced CFI instructors, and lawyers. In addition to developing and teaching CFIC, AFOSI IOPs serve as the focal point for providing guidance and consultation to field agents on active cases involving child victims or witnesses.
The Cognitive Interviews and Interrogations Training Program (CIITP) is a key component of AFOSI’s strategy to bring the field up to speed on evidence-based interview methods. CIITP is an advanced course that provides in-depth training on advanced elicitation skills and interviewing techniques, with a primary focus on the use of the cognitive interview with victims, witnesses, subjects, and sources. In addition to teaching new skills, the course addresses the principles that underlie each technique and why they are effective, giving agents the ability to creatively adapt and use the principles in a variety of situations in the field. Topics include cognitive interviewing, strategic use of evidence, motivational interviewing, priming, influence and persuasion techniques, relationship-building, and many other evidence-based methods. The course requires students to be actively engaged throughout each day, playing various roles to facilitate their own learning and that of fellow students. They are required to request and receive critical feedback from instructors and other students, and to actively provide constructive feedback to fellow students to improve their skills. Practical learning exercises include complex scenarios with multiple actors and role-players, requiring students to interview real witnesses to real events. Prior to attending the course, each student completes a personality assessment and receives feedback from IOPs on the results, aimed at enhancing their effectiveness as interviewers.
The courses described earlier illustrate the important role of IOPs in course development and training for criminal investigators. They highlight the value of a robust relationship between the fields of psychology and law enforcement, specifically in the area of criminal investigations. As a matter of practice, topics taught by AFOSI IOPs are founded on evidence-based research and best practices. While knowledge of behavioral science principles and techniques is critical to being an effective criminal investigator, it is unrealistic to expect an investigator to have a graduate-level knowledge of psychology in order to apply psychological principles to his or her work. Likewise, it is unrealistic to expect psychologists to become sworn law enforcement officers in order to apply their expertise to help criminal investigators be more successful. AFOSI’s IOP consultative model, which embeds IOPs with criminal investigators and incorporates them into special agent training, is a practical and effective way to bring together the expertise of IOPs and special agents to improve the success of criminal investigations.
As with any area of psychology, it is imperative for investigative and operational psychologists to judiciously comprehend the complexities involved in their work and be ardently familiar with the ethical standards that apply to any given situation. The ethical foundation for any military investigative and operational psychologist is the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principals of Psychologist and Code of Conduct, hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code (2017). In addition to the Ethics Code, there are a number of specialty guidelines that are available for more specific applications, such as the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (2013) and Association of Threat Assessment Professionals Code of Ethical Conduct (2010). For the purposes of this discussion, the focus will be on the APA’s (2017) Ethics Code.
The APA’s Ethics Code begins with a description of aspirational goals in order to guide psychologists to the highest ideals for the profession (APA, 2017). These principles—beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice, and respect of people’s rights and dignity—are fundamental to the practice of applied psychology, especially as it relates to investigative and operational psychology. Even though they are not enforceable rules, they are the very framework that guides ethical decision making in the context for which these professionals operate (APA, 2017). In addition to these aspirational goals, all psychologists and military IOPs have accompanying values to which they must subscribe. The Ethics Code’s ideals parallel directly with each of the armed force’s core values. For example, in the performance of their duties, AFOSI IOPs are responsible not only for upholding professional values, standards, ethical guidelines, and licensing requirements within the profession of psychology but also the values and standards of AFOSI and the U.S. Air Force.
Beyond the aspirational principles of the Ethics Code and the core values of the military branch in which they serve, military IOPs are bound by the enforceable rules of the APA’s code of conduct, just like civilian psychologists. All the standards are applicable and important; however, for the purposes of this discussion, only a select few will be highlighted here as they relate to investigative psychology. Specifically, 1.02, Conflicts between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority; 1.03, Conflicts between Ethics and Organizational Demands; 2.01, Boundaries of Competence; 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments; 3.04, Avoiding Harm; 3.05, Multiple Relationships; and 9.01, Bases for Assessments (APA, 2017).
The Ethics Code Standards 1.02, 1.03, and 3.04 are not mutually exclusive. The former two are essentially a means to ensure the latter one is upheld, avoiding harm. When there is a situation when an ethical conflict arises between ethics, laws, regulations, or organization demands, the investigative and operational psychologist must communicate their commitment to the Ethics Code and take reasonable actions to resolve the dilemma in a consistent manner with the Ethics Code (APA, 2017). Explicitly stated in both standards is the absolute proclamation that neither standard could ever be used to “justify or defend violating human rights” (APA, 2017, p. 4). Avoiding harm (3.04) is defined as demanding that psychologists “not participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in torture” (APA, 2017, p. 6). As an example, it is the ethical duty of an IOP to promote only humane interviewing methods when teaching courses on interviewing and when consulting on interview strategies. For instance, AFOSI psychologists have been at the forefront in challenging the effectiveness of traditional confrontational law enforcement methods for interviewing suspects, and advocating for rapport-based, non-confrontational methods such as the cognitive interview.
Standard 2 of the Ethics Code deals with competence. Simply put, psychologists must provide services only in the areas in which they are competent. Competence is obtained through education, training, supervised experience (i.e., being supervised by someone who is competent in that specialty), and continuing education (APA, 2017). For instance, a clinical psychologist who practices at a mental health clinic should not be conducting threat assessments unless he or she has specialized education, training, or experience in that specialization. All AFOSI IOPs are required to maintain a high level of competency and proficiency in their respective areas of expertise. In addition, they are required to remain current on the latest research, best practices, legal matters, technological advances, and techniques of the trade, both within psychology and within law enforcement operations, through continuing education and continued experience. In concert with competence is Standard 2.04, which dictates that professional opinions and judgments should be based on reputable scientific and professional knowledge of the specific discipline (APA, 2017). AFOSI IOPs emphasize the application of scientific research and evidence-based methods when supporting any of AFOSI’s agent trainings or when consulting on cases.
Given that IOPs often have several different roles within agencies (e.g., teaching and consulting), a discussion of multiple relationships is warranted. Professional discretion and adherence to role boundaries are fundamental principles of psychological consultation. No matter the specialty of a psychologist, refraining from unethical multiple relationships is an essential requirement. Standard 3.05 defines multiple relationships as when the psychologist enters into more than one professional role with an individual or entity or has a personal relationship with said customer/client. However, this standard makes clear that multiple relationships themselves are not unethical; only those that are likely to “impair objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions” are deemed unethical (APA, 2017, p. 6). For instance, teaching sections of SCITP and then consulting on a case with an agent who took that course is not only the norm; it is expected. Engaging in these diverse relationships would not reasonably impair the investigative psychologist’s objectivity or judgment for either role; therefore, they are ethical. This is applicable whether the consultation relates to an organizational problem, an applicant’s background investigation, a special agent’s psychological or disciplinary problems, an inspector general (IG) investigation, a criminal investigation, or a counterintelligence operation. Investigative and operational psychologists exercise professional and ethical discipline, recognizing and respecting the boundary between the differing roles and relationships with the operational customer.
One domain that pertains to IOPs more so than to traditional psychologists is that of conducting indirect assessments. In most cases, a traditional psychologist will have the luxury of being able to directly evaluate an individual, whereas an investigative psychologist is often in a situation where an indirect assessment is necessary. In order to be compliant with Standard 9.01 (Bases for Assessments), an investigative psychologist needs to ensure that any opinions and recommendations are based on sufficient information to substantiate the findings (APA, 2017). Furthermore, when a direct examination is not possible or warranted, an investigative psychologist must make clear what sources of information were used to determine the conclusions, opinions, and recommendations. A common practice in investigative psychology, when conducting an indirect assessment, is to list the sources of information that were reviewed and include a caveat statement asserting that the individual in question (e.g., victim, witness, and subject) was not directly examined.
The application of psychological methods and principles in a complex operational environment, such as a military criminal investigation organization, may present unique professional and ethical challenges. Consulting with other investigative and operational psychologists and supervisors is encouraged. It is common practice to seek peer consultation, as needed, from other investigative psychologists and subject matter experts to optimize the quality and impact of services and products in order to remain competent, objective, and ethical.
The integrity, quality, and applicability of the consultative process in IP are of primary importance. The ideal outcome is to help operators, agents, analysts, and other customers achieve operational success. Adherence to all applicable ethical codes and guidelines is essential.
This chapter illustrated some of the invaluable contributions of investigative psychology toward enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency, and success of criminal investigations. From direct case consultation to education and training of investigators, there is a critical demand for the expertise of investigative psychologists. At the core of identifying suspects and bringing them to justice are multifaceted patterns of human behavior that can be illuminated and facilitated by drawing on concepts, research, theories, and scientific methods from psychology (Canter & Youngs, 2011). The application of psychology to criminal investigations is a bright light in the dark world of pursuing and catching criminals.
AFOSI Fact Sheet. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.osi.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/349945/air-force-office-of-special-investigations/
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Beres, M. (2010). Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners. Journal of Cultural, Health & Sexuality, 12, 1–14.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., … & Stevens, M. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
Calhoun, F. S., & Weston, S. W. (2015). Perspectives on threat assessment. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 2(3–4), 258–267.
Canter, D. V. (2011). Resolving the offender profiling equations and the emergence of an investigative psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 5–10.
Canter, D. V., & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative psychology offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Journal of Psychological Science, 22(3), 306–313.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The Cognitive interview. Springfield IL: C.C. Thomas.
Glass, N., Laughon, K., Campbell, J., Wolf, A. D., Block, C. R., Hanson, G., … Taliaferro, E. (2008). Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 35(3), 329–335.
Gwinn, C. (2014). Men who strangle women also kill cops. Domestic Violence Report, 19(6), 85–91.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619.
High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/national-security-branch/high-value-detainee-interrogation-group
Insenberg, N., Silbersweig, D., Engelien, S., Emmerich, K., Malavade, B., Beattie, B., … Stern, E. (1999). Linguistic threat activates the human amygdala. Journal of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(18), 10456–10459.
Kalaf, J., Coutinho, S. F., Vilete, L. M., Luz, M. P., Berger, W., Mendlowicz., … Figueira, I. (2017). Sexual trauma is more strongly associated with tonic immobility than other types of trauma—A population-based study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 215, 71–76.
Kebbell, M. R., & Davies, G. M. (2006). Practical psychology for forensic investigations and prosecutions. West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
Morris, H. L., & Nicoletti, J. (2018). Kinetic insider violence and mass shootings. In C. Bollinger, R. Flintoft, J. Nicoletti, S. Spencer-Thomas, & M. Dvoskina (Eds.), Violence goes to college: The authoritative guide to prevention, intervention, and response (3rd ed., pp. 316–346). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1996). Beyond “just saying no.” Dealing with men’s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 141–168.
Petrosky, E., Blair, J. M., Betz, C. J., Fowler, K. A., Jack, S. P., & Lyons, B. H. (2017). Racial and ethnic difference in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—United States, 2003–2014. MMWR and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(28), 741–746.
Shafer, A., Ortiz, R. R., Thompson, B., & Huemmer, J. (2018). The role of hypermasculinity, token resistance, rape myth, and assertive sexual consent communication among college men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(3), S44–S50.
Simons, A., & Meloy, J. R. (2017). Foundations of threat assessment and management. In V. B. Van Hasselt & M. L. Bourke (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral criminology (pp. 627–644). New York: Springer.
Soral, W., Bilewicz, M., & Winiewski, M. (2017). Exposure to hate speech increase prejudice through desensitization. Journal of Aggressive Behavior, 44(2), 136–146.
Strack, G. B., McClane, G. E., & Hawley, D. (2001). A review of 300 attempted strangulations cases part I: Criminal legal issues. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 21(3), 305–306.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088
Wilson, D., Jackson, C. A., & Kaur-Rana, B. (2010). Against the medical-psychological traditions of understanding serial killing by studying the killers. Amicus Journal, 22, 8–16.
Winerman, L. (2004). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. The Monitor, 35(7), 66–71.
Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2009). What underlies the false consensus effect? How personal opinion and disagreement affect perception of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(1), 25–46.
Youngs, D. (2007). Contemporary challenges in investigative psychology: Revisiting the Canter offender profiling equations. In D. Canter & R. Zukauskiene (Eds.), Psychology and law: Bridging the gap (pp. 23–30). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Youngs, D. E., & Canter, D. V. (2006). Introducing investigative psychology. In C. Tredoux, D. Foster, A. Allan, A. Cohen, & D. Wassenaar (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 321–342). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta & Co.
Zeoli, A. M., McCourt, A., Buggs, S., Frattaroli, S., Lilley, D., & Webster, D. W. (2018). Analysis of the strength of legal firearms restrictions for perpetrators of domestic violence and their associations with intimate partner homicide. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(11), 2365–2371.