You will be assigned into a study group in Week 2. Each group will be asked to identify a single historical closed case (or sequence of cases involving the same offender/offenders), to collect and pool information on that case, and to then individually produce a summary of that case (i.e., one submission per person).

Using journal articles, or books, and media reports, identify a solved case in which criminal offender profiling was used. Answer the following questions about that case:

1. Identify the case (offence type, location, year, etc).

2. What characteristics of the offender were identified? (e.g., race, age, etc).

3. Was the profile accurate? Which characteristics of the offender were accurately or inaccurately identified?

4. Was the profile useful in the investigation? Why/why not?

Your report, in its entirety, should be submitted on maximum of four A4 pages, comprising:

Page 1: Cover page (your name, names of your group members, your student id number, title of your report)

Pages 2-3: Answers to questions 1-4.

Page 4: References

The assignment may be submitted in standard essay-style format, Wikipedia-style format, or newspaper-style format (e.g., multiple columns).

Note: no matter which format you choose, APA style referencing is required.

Assignment will be marked according to the Rubric on Moodle.

Marks available for each section of the report are as follows:

Case summary 20%

Summary of the offender profile 20%

Assessing the accuracy of the profile 20%

Impact of the profile on the investigation 20%

Presentation and referencing 20%

This assignment is based on an original study by Hughes and Grieve (1980) which attempted to show how children will try to make sense of any question, no matter how strange it may be. Children, aged 5 and 7, were asked "bizarre" or "conceptually ill-formed" questions like, "Is milk bigger than water?", and "Is red heavier than yellow?" Although these questions were apparently meaningless, the children would typically give answers. While the answers were often sophisticated, they were all wrong. A meaningless question should not elicit a meaningful response, but something about the question and answer format in interviews elicits responses, even when the respondent does not understand the question. Is it conformity, suggestion, or something else?

The basic pattern of results has been replicated across different populations and across different types of bizarre questions. This then prompts the following question: how can interviews be modified to ensure that respondents reject the underlying premise of bizarre questions?

The assignment requires you to conduct two interviews (with either two children OR two adults) featuring a series of “bizarre” questions.The two interviews should differ in some significant way. For example, the first interview could be conducted in a formal setting, the other in a more informal setting; one might be conducted seated at a desk, the other sitting on the floor; and so on). This introduces an experimental design into your study, albeit one with a sample of 2. The type of interview (format, style) becomes an independent variable. Responses to the questions are the dependent variable.

You will then write a brief report (1500 words maximum) based on those interviews, drawing attention to your chosen experimental design.

The report must follow the conventions of a psychological report (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, References, Appendix).

Further instructions about how to conduct the interviews and possible experimental designs will be available on Moodle.

Marks available for each section of the report are as follows:

Abstract 100 words maximum 10%

Introduction

    Approximately 400 words 25%

Method

    Approximately 300 words15%

Results

    Approximately 300 words15%

Discussion

    Approximately 400 words25%

References

    No word limit 10%

Full marking criteria and formatting instructions are on Moodle.