EXPRESSIVENESS AND INSTRUMENTALITY IN HOMICIDE: HYBRID CRIME SCENES AND THE LINKS AMONG SITUATIONS, PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES, AND ACTIONS

Transcription

1 EXPRESSIVENESS AND INSTRUMENTALITY IN HOMICIDE: HYBRID CRIME SCENES AND THE LINKS AMONG SITUATIONS, PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES, AND ACTIONS A dissertation by Dara C. Drawbridge Presented to The School of Criminology and Criminal Justice In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Criminology and Justice Policy Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts February, 2016

2 1 EXPRESSIVENESS AND INSTRUMENTALITY IN HOMICIDE: HYBRID CRIME SCENES AND THE LINKS AMONG SITUATIONS, PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES, AND ACTIONS by Dara C. Drawbridge ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Criminology and Justice Policy in the College of the Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University February, 2016

3 2 Abstract The expressive/instrumental classification of homicide (Salfati, 2000) can categorize the majority of crime scenes in datasets. However, hybrid scenes cannot be allocated into a subtype because they do not display a dominant behavioral style. Addressing the problem of hybrids involved assessing the individual behaviors that comprise the classification system. Study one confirmed the model within a U.S. dataset comprised of 210 single offender homicide cases and classified 69% of crime scenes. The behaviors that comprised expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes were examined and behavioral similarities among instrumental and hybrid crime scenes were identified. Study two developed the theory behind the classification in an effort to explain why some crime scenes involved both expressive and instrumental behaviors. Crime scene actions included within the model were refined to reflect lower-order goals in accordance with the theoretical advancement. The model refinement resulted in 84% of crime scenes being classified in study two. Underlying dimensions within lower-order goals were examined with multiple correspondence analysis and interpreted with respect to psychological processes important to information processing. Crime scenes were grouped together based on their similarity in lower-order goal actions with cluster analysis and interpreted with respect to situations and psychological processes. The results suggested important similarities and differences in the actions, which characterized expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. Implications for theory, research, and practice were further discussed.

4 3 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Greg Zimmerman, my dissertation chair, for his support, patience, and guidance. I admire your consistent dedication, motivation, and expectations. These qualities have contributed to the successful completion of my dissertation and my development as a researcher in immeasurable ways. I cannot imagine a better advisor or mentor through the dissertation process. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee: Dr. Chester Britt for his encouragement, expertise and attention to methods; Dr. Natasha Frost, for her support, mentorship, and guidance over the years; Dr. C. Gabrielle Salfati whose work inspired me to pursue my masters and doctorate, and whose knowledge of my dissertation topic was invaluable; and, Dr. John Jarvis whose perspective and feedback ensured that my dissertation address the intersection of theory, research, and practice. I would like to thank John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the FBI for granting me access to the data, which made my dissertation possible. I am incredibly grateful to the Investigative Psychology Research Unit at John Jay and all of the research assistants and PhD students who have coded cases and contributed data collection. I would especially like to thank Jeffery Osborne and Kimberley Schanz for their assistance with data collection. I would like to thank the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice for the funding, which contributed to my research. I am sincerely grateful to Laurie Mastone for her continued encouragement and assistance with all manner of things doctoral-related over the years. I would also like to thank Jeffery Osborne, Amber Scherer, and Tom Dover. Each of you spent endless hours listening to me talk through my ideas. I am extremely appreciative of your contributions to my research, your friendship, and support.

5 4 Finally, I would like to thank my family. I would like to thank my mother, Elaine Drawbridge, and my father, Stephen Drawbridge, both of whom taught me that by working hard I could overcome any obstacle. I would also like to thank my brothers and sisters- I could not have finished without your love, encouragement, and commitment to our family. Most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Shawn Neville, who taught me the art of balance. Your love, patience, and partnership made all of this possible.

6 5 Table of Contents ABSTRACT 2! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3! TABLE OF CONTENTS 5! CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 9! CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 13! INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND THE NEED FOR EMPIRICAL HOMICIDE CLASSIFICATIONS 13! THE EXPRESSIVE/INSTRUMENTAL CLASSIFICATION 17! Theoretical and empirical foundations 18! SSA and expressive/instrumental themes 20! Classification and hybrid crime scenes 24! THE NATURE OF HYBRID CRIME SCENES 25! Challenges to traditional classifications and an emerging classification approach 26! The utility of a systems perspective 29! EXPRESSIVENESS AND INSTRUMENTALITY AS PSYCHOLOGICALLY SALIENT ASPECTS OF HOMICIDE SITUATIONS 30! The CAPS model and behavioral salience 30! The CAPS model and psychologically salient interpersonal situations 32! Expressiveness and instrumentality as psychological situations in homicide 34! LINKING HOMICIDE SITUATIONS INTERPERSONAL NATURE WITH OFFENDERS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND CRIME SCENE ACTIONS 35! Primary control, lower-order goals, and actions 36!

7 6 Homicide s interpersonal nature, offenders psychological processes, and crime scene actions 40! IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EXPRESSIVE/INSTRUMENTAL CLASSIFICATION 42! Lower-order goals, interaction-level motivations, and salient crime scene actions 42! Investigating the nature of hybrid crime scenes: Understanding actions within scenes 47! CHAPTER III. STUDY AIMS 50! STUDY ONE AIMS 50! STUDY TWO AIMS 50! CHAPTER IV. METHODS 52! DATA COLLECTION 52! Inclusion/exclusion criteria 53! Sources of bias 54! SAMPLE 55! Offense characteristics 55! Offender characteristics 56! Victim characteristics 56! Victim-offender relationship 57! MEASUREMENT TOOL 57! BEHAVIORAL VARIABLES 58! Study one 58! Study two 58! STUDY ONE ANALYTIC STRATEGY 60! Establishing expressive and instrumental behavioral themes 60! Classifying crime scenes 61! Examining individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes 62!

8 7 STUDY TWO ANALYTIC STRATEGY 63! Establishing expressive and instrumental themes with lower-order goal actions 63! Classifying crime scenes 64! Underlying dimensions within lower-order goals 65! Action profiles within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes 66! CHAPTER V. RESULTS 67! STUDY ONE RESULTS 67! Aim 1: Establishing expressive and instrumental themes 67! Expressive behaviors 67! Instrumental behaviors 68! Reliability analysis 70! Aim 2: Classifying crime scenes 71! Aim 3: Individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes 72! Expressive behaviors within expressive and instrumental crime scenes 72! Instrumental behaviors within instrumental and expressive crime scenes 74! Expressive and instrumental behaviors within hybrid crime scenes 76! A summary of study one results 77! STUDY TWO RESULTS 78! Aim 1: Establishing expressive and instrumental themes with lower-order goal actions 78! Expressive lower-order goals and actions 80! Instrumental lower-order goals and actions 81! Aim 2: Classifying crime scenes with lower-order goal actions 83! Aim 3: Underlying dimension within lower-order goals and action profiles within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes 85! Social control 85! MCA 85!

9 8 CA: Expressive crime scenes 87! CA: Instrumental crime scenes 89! CA: Hybrid crime scenes 91! Resource control 94! MCA 94! CA: Expressive crime scenes 96! CA: Instrumental crime scenes 98! CA: Hybrid scenes 100! Proximity 101! MCA 102! CA: Expressive crime scenes 103! CA: Instrumental crime scenes 105! CA: Hybrid scenes 107! CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 109! SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 109! IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE 127! LIMITATIONS 135! CONCLUSIONS 136! REFERENCES 138! FIGURES AND TABLES 151! APPENDICES 178!

10 9 Chapter I. Introduction Studies have shown that the nature of the relationship between individuals involved in homicide is reflected in offenders crime scene behaviors and can serve as a basis of categorization (e.g.,, Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati, 2000). The expressive/instrumental classification of homicide (Salfati, 2000) reflects these ideas. Behaviors in expressive homicides suggest that victims themselves are important to offenders, signifying a prior relationship. Conversely, behaviors in instrumental homicides suggest that victims as people are secondary to offenders personal gain. Although the expressive/instrumental model has demonstrated the ability to classify crime scenes, some scenes cannot be allocated into a subtype because they contain roughly the same number of behaviors from each classification category (e.g., Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Park, 2007). These scenes are referred to as hybrids. Hybrids are problematic because their existence suggests that expressiveness or instrumentality cannot explain offenders behaviors within some homicides. Further research needs to examine the behavioral make-up of expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes and assess the individual behaviors included in the classification, as the model currently stands. Study one will attempt to replicate the expressive/instrumental classification within a U.S. single homicide dataset and address the aforementioned issues before turning attention towards the nature of hybrid scenes in study two. Hybrid scenes are not a new issue for classifications (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Cervone, 2005); and, a number of researchers have discussed the problem of hybrids with respect to the expressive/instrumental dichotomy in homicide (e.g., Meithe & Drass, 1999; Fontaine, 2007; Thijssen & De Ruiter, 2011; Goodwill, Allen, & Kolarevic, 2014). At this point in time,

11 10 research needs to look towards ways of explaining the mechanisms, which generate hybrid crime scenes, rather than attempting to eliminate them (e.g., Goodwill et al., 2014). This endeavor requires further theoretical advancement. Placing the expressive/instrumental classification within the context of the Cognitive- Affective Processing System (CAPS) model of personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) provides the theoretical framework necessary to explain hybrid crime scenes, and offers several important practical advantages. In the context of the CAPS framework, expressiveness and instrumentality are active psychological ingredients (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, p.255) of situations, which generate crime scene actions by eliciting offenders internal cognitive and affective systems (Fournier, et al., 2008; 2009; Shoda, et al., 1994). These activated systems include selfregulatory and motivational processes (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), which provide offenders with the means to understand and respond to situations (Schank & Abelson, 1977) and generate goaldirected behaviors (Hettema & Hol, 1998). Lower-order goals, which depend upon a situation s interpersonal nature (Schank & Abelson, 1977), are major components of these psychological processes (Hettema & Hol, 1998). Expressiveness and instrumentality can therefore be linked theoretically with distinct lower-order goal actions. Refining expressive and instrumental actions in terms of lower-order goals may improve the classification s ability to account for individual crime scenes. The CAPS framework further offers a theoretical basis for conceptualizing hybrids as the product of certain offenders capacity to change how they experience victims during the course of a homicide event (Fournier et al., 2008; 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). The CAPS model has long proposed that people possess this ability; that is, people are capable of acting on, altering, and changing the meaning of situations (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Mischel, 2009). Empirical

12 11 research has further established that some individuals can change the meaning of interpersonal situations specifically, and individuals have demonstrated stability in this tendency (Fournier et al., 2008; 2009). It is therefore possible that some offenders can at times experience victims as if victims are a means for personal gain, and at other times experience victims as if victims are personally meaningful. A hybrid crime scene may result from these processes. Looking beyond expressiveness and instrumentality, ascertaining the psychological processes that are linked with interpersonal situations and actions is critical if we hope to begin to understand hybrid scenes from a CAPS perspective. Aside from motivational and selfregulatory processes, the CAPS model proposes that other psychological processes are important to situations and actions (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Investigating underlying dimensions within lower-order goals may identify these psychological processes. Understanding how offenders behave in different types of interpersonal situations is also key to establishing links between situations, psychological processes, and actions. Action profiles may illustrate similarities and differences in lower-order goal actions across expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. Thereby, providing a means for determining whether certain profiles are specific to hybrid crime scenes and whether the profiles specific to hybrids are defined by actions that represent different interpersonal situations. Placing the expressive/instrumental classification within the CAPS framework also has practical applications in the area of offender profiling. Underlying the profiling process is an assumption of behavioral consistency (Alison, et al., 2002). The CAPS framework is a prominent theory of consistency supported by empirical research (e.g., Ayduk & Gyurak, 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; 1998; Shoda, et al., 1994; Smith, et al., 2009). It therefore makes sense to advance the theory behind the expressive/instrumental classification, so that it corresponds with current

13 12 approaches to consistency. The operational use of the expressive/instrumental classification is further a situation in which law enforcement professionals would seek to explain the behavior of an offender within a crime scene with a classification system designed to differentiate between scenes. For this reason, it is essential that the expressive/instrumental classification be equipped to bridge the gap between intra-individual and inter-individual explanations of behavior (Cervone, 2005). The CAPS framework can achieve this bridge. The following sections introduce the current status of the expressive/instrumental classification of homicide. The theoretical basis of the model, the methods used to conceptualize expressive and instrumental subtypes, and the classification procedures used to designate crime scenes into categories will be discussed. Subsequently, the theory behind the classification system will be placed within the context of the CAPS framework. Several fundamental ideas will be presented: expressiveness and instrumentality will be conceptualized as interpersonal features of situations surrounding homicide; homicide s interpersonal nature will be linked with psychological processes involved in generating actions; and, salient crime scene actions generated in response to interpersonal situations and psychological processes will be specified. Finally, the implications of this theoretical advancement for the model and hybrid crime scenes will be considered.

14 13 Chapter II. Literature Review Investigative Psychology and the Need for Empirical Homicide Classifications Investigative Psychology (IP) is a field of forensic psychology that seeks to support and increase the efficacy of police decision-making and actions with psychological theory and research (Canter & Youngs, 2003). The emergence of IP largely arose from academic concerns regarding the scientific basis and accuracy of claims made by profilers. Profilers are individuals who utilize their knowledge of behavior to make inferences about criminal behavior and criminals, which law enforcement use to inform their decisions and actions regarding possible suspects (Canter & Youngs, 2009; Douglas, Ressler, Burgess & Hartman, 1986; Gedoski & Gray, 2011). Early on, law enforcement sought the help of medical and mental health professionals in the construction of profiles (Canter, 2000a; Schlesinger, 2004; Woodworth & Porter, 1999); the realm of profiling then shifted towards the practical experience of law enforcement professionals with the involvement of the FBI and its Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) (Woodworth & Porter, 1999). The FBI s profiling process initially relied heavily on the investigative experience of law enforcement (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 2006). According to this perspective, investigators who had experiences with a number of different crimes would look at what offenders had done, determine the motivation or why of the crime, and make inferences about who had committed it (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990). To assist with the analysis of criminal behaviors and motivations, the FBI drew from their investigative experience and developed the organized/disorganized model of homicide (Ressler, Burgess, Douglas, Hartman, & D Agostino, 1986; Douglas, et al., 2006), which classifies crime scenes and offenders into organized and disorganized types. Accordingly, organized scenes (i.e., planned, methodological, and

15 14 controlled) were distinguished from disorganized scenes (i.e., unplanned, spontaneous, random, and sloppy) and it was proposed that organized offenders (i.e., intelligent, socially adept) perpetrated organized crime scenes and disorganized offenders (i.e., social/emotional/occupational difficulties, below average intelligence) perpetrated disorganized crime scenes. The organized/disorganized typology drew attention to the link between offenders behaviors and characteristics a link that serves as the basis of profiling techniques (Canter et al., 2004; Salfati, 2014). In addition, the FBI s basis of the model on crime scene behaviors and victim-offender interactions (Ressler, et al., 1986) may be regarded as an important step forward in homicide classification. However, the utility of the typology was ultimately undermined by the author s reliance on experience rather than a scientific method in the development of organized and disorganized categories (Canter et al., 2004). The organized/disorganized model was constructed from interviews and the case material of 36 murderers selected by opportunity and split into organized/disorganized categories by researchers based on crime scene and personality characteristics (Ressler, et al., 1986; Canter et al., 2004). The extent to which a scene is organized or disorganized conveys offenders level of criminal sophistication, the degree of control exerted over victims and scenes, as well as the amount of premeditation and planning involved (Douglas et al., 2006). In its original conception, the typology s authors acknowledged that the dichotomy could not account for all crime scenes stating that, there are no situations where the organized and disorganized offenders are mutually exclusive. That is, both types of murderers are capable of all types of behavior (Ressler et al., 1986, p. 293). A central assumption underlying classification is that the elements within a crime scene category are assumed to occur together at scenes and be distinct from the elements, which

16 15 comprise other crime scene categories (Canter et al., 2004; Canter & Wentik, 2004). Thus, organized behaviors should form a distinct crime scene subtype and disorganized behaviors should occur together separately from organized elements, forming a separate type of crime scene (Canter et al., 2004). The development of the organized/disorganized model did not rest on a scientific method that would ensure this discriminatory assumption held true. In fact, there lacked any theoretical framework that distinguished people or behaviors in terms of organized or disorganized categories (Canter et al., 2004). Additionally, the original study was intended to illustrate the dichotomy, but not validate its proposed types (Canter et al., 2004; Ressler et al., 1986) 1. As a result of these issues 2, Canter et al. (2004) questioned the model s ability to distinguish between crime scenes and tested the discriminatory assumption underlying the organized/disorganized typology. Canter et al. (2004) examined the co-occurrences of organized and disorganized crime scene behaviors to ascertain whether these elements formed distinct crime scene subtypes. 3 This assessment established that many of the behavioral elements indicative of organized scenes occurred in the majority of cases in their dataset; thus, these behaviors may be core features of 1 Ressler et al. (1986) clearly state their study was exploratory in nature. The purposes outlined by the authors were two-fold: (1) to test whether organized and disorganized offenders differed significantly in crime scene behaviors using independent samples t-tests, and (2) to identify variables that may be useful in profiling and on which the organized and disorganized offenders differ. 2 In their critique, Canter et al. (2004) also identify the following methodological weaknesses: the model s reliance on interviews, its sampling technique and sample size, and the lack of a criterion dictating how to distinguish between crime scene subtypes. 3 To test the model s discriminatory assumption, Canter et al. (2004) employed Smallest Space Analysis (SSA), which is a multidimensional scaling technique that can be used to illustrate whether organized and disorganized elements form two distinct sets of crime scene behaviors.

17 16 serial homicide, but were not representative of a distinct crime scene type. Instead, Canter et al. s evaluation suggested that serial homicide could be differentiated by varying manners of disorganization, but not according to the typology as it was proposed. Organization and disorganization therefore did not distinguish between crime scenes; that is, most scenes would contain elements from each homicide category. As a result of their evaluation, Canter et al. cautioned against using the typology in academic or investigative fields and suggested that the typology would not reliably support inferences about offenders, as it was intended to. 4 In its 1992 edition, the Crime Classification Manual (CCM) added a mixed category to the organized/disorganized typology (Douglas et al., 1992; 2006). Victim resistance strategies, the presence of multiple offenders, offenders age and whether offenders were under the influence of substances were cited as possible reasons for mixed scenes (Douglas et al., 2006). While the mixed type was intended to account for scenes that contained organized and disorganized elements, the inclusion of this category did not rectify the problems highlighted by Canter et al. s (2004) assessment. Most importantly, because the classification system was not based on a scientific method and the behavioral elements within the system did not represent distinct crime scene subtypes, it was unlikely that organized, disorganized, or mixed types could reliably support investigative inferences (Canter et al., 2004). 4 Canter et al. s conclusions were troublesome considering the popularity and influence of organized/disorganized typology in the U.S at the time of the study. Even though the model had not previously been evaluated (Ressler, et al., 1986; Douglas et al., 2006), the typology was introduced into investigations and legal proceedings (e.g., People v. Masters, 2001), and incorporated within subsequent homicide classifications (e.g., Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Keppel & Walter, 1999). The typology s introduction into legal proceedings has further led to the suggestion that expert testimony of this nature may contribute to wrongful convictions (George, 2008).

18 17 IP emphasizes the need for empirical research that supports investigative decisions and actions. During the last decade in the United Kingdom, the Metropolitan Police Commission put a framework into practice that organized profiling reports and ensured profiling advice was substantiated (Rainbow, 2008). These efforts exchanged the term profiler with behavioral investigative adviser or BIA and established a system of evaluation and management for the investigative advice offered (Rainbow, 2008). The protocol devised by the commission required that BIA s reports to follow the principles of Toulmin s philosophy of argument (Alison et al., 2003). Applied to profiling and behavioral investigative analysis, Toulmin s philosophy of argument requires that claims about an offender s characteristics be supported by specific scientific evidence that is cited within reports; that there is a legitimate reason for using evidence to support the claims made; that there is an indication within reports regarding how accurate claims may be; and that reports indicate when a particular claim may not hold true (Alison et al., 2003; Rainbow, 2008). By structuring BIA s reports in this manner, claims that are weak or lack empirical evidence can be identified, and the probabilities associated with claims provide police with a justification for their decision to either follow or disregard BIA s advice (Alison et al., 2003; Rainbow, 2008). To put Toulmin s framework into practice, however, there needs to be an empirical basis for the inferences contained within reports. This requires homicide classifications that are derived through scientific methodologies and can also explain the majority of homicides. The expressive/instrumental classification was developed to address these needs. The Expressive/Instrumental Classification The expressive/instrumental classification groups offenders crime scene behaviors together within categories that represent behavioral themes. These themes reflect differences in the nature of the relationship between offenders and victims in homicide (Salfati, 2000).

19 18 Accordingly, behaviors in expressive homicides suggest that victims themselves are important to offenders, signifying a prior relationship. Conversely, behaviors in instrumental homicides suggest that victims as people are secondary to offenders personal gain. The methodology used to develop expressive and instrumental themes ensures that behavioral elements within each category of homicide occur together, but separately from the elements that comprise other categories (e.g., Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Dupont, 2006; Salfati & Park, 2007). As a result of the model s empirical foundations, previous research has consistently classified the majority of homicide crime scenes into expressive or instrumental subtypes (Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Park, 2007; Salfati & Bateman, 2005). However, some crime scenes contain behaviors from each classification category and are referred to as hybrids. Research has established that methodological factors can impact the percentage of cases classified as hybrid, and have also emphasized that further evaluation of individual expressive and instrumental behaviors is needed at this time (Trojan & Salfati, 2008). The following sections discuss the current theoretical foundations of the expressive/instrumental classification, the conceptualization of expressive and instrumental themes with SSA, as well as the classification of crime scenes into expressive or instrumental subtypes and the identification of hybrid scenes during this process. Theoretical and empirical foundations Expressiveness and instrumentality represent different interpersonal offending styles, which reflect the nature of the relationship between victims and offenders (Salfati, 2000). The theoretical foundation of the classification is based on Feshbach s (1964) theory of instrumental/expressive (hostile) aggression. According to Feshbach, instrumental and hostile

20 19 aggressions are different forms of intentional aggression that serve different purposes. In instrumental aggression, aggressive behaviors are directed toward the achievement of nonaggressive goals (Feshbach, 1964, p. 258) in an attempt to obtain wanted items, such as money, food, or attention. Conversely, in expressive aggression, aggressive behaviors are directed toward achieving hostile goals, such as inflicting injury or harm. Salfati (Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Canter, 1999) applied this theoretical framework to the actions of homicide offenders and confirmed two distinct types of crime scene behaviors, expressive and instrumental. Expressive homicides were characterized by behaviors, which suggested that victims as people were important to offenders. Instrumental crime scene behaviors suggest victims were secondary to offenders personal gain (Salfati, 2000). Salfati s (2000) study generated a body of research in IP that spans several different but related areas of profiling and crime scene analysis, including the application of expressiveness and instrumentality to attempted homicides (Fritzon & Ridway, 2001), the expression of impulsivity and control in homicide crime scene behaviors (Salfati, 2003), behavioral consistency and inconsistency in serial homicide (Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Sorochinski & Salfati, 2010), and studies of homicide across different cultures (e.g., Salfati & Haratsis, 2001). Moreover, with some variation, the expressive/instrumental model has been replicated and supported in Greek (Salfati & Haratsis, 2001), Finnish (Santilla, Canter, Elfgren, & Hakkanen, 2001), Canadian, (Salfati & Dupont, 2006), South Korean (Salfati & Park, 2007), and serial (Salfati & Bateman, 2005) homicides. The model s applicability and demonstrated reliability are a result of the empirical methods used in the development of expressive and instrumental subtypes.

21 20 SSA and expressive/instrumental themes To conceptualize expressive and instrumental themes, Salfati employed a multidimensional scaling technique called smallest space analysis (SSA) (Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati, 2000; 2014). 5 SSA has been utilized by researchers in the social sciences as a way of examining the underlying structure of behaviors (Canter & Youngs, 2009). First introduced to IP by Canter and Heritage (1990), SSA allows researchers to examine the co-occurrences of crime scene behaviors by providing a visual representation of the system of behaviors (Borg & Groenen, 2010; Canter & Youngs, 2009). That is, the associations between behaviors is used to generate a spatial plot, in which behavioral elements that share an underlying structure also share the same region of space on the plot. This central principle is referred to as the regionality hypothesis (Canter & Youngs, 2009). By examining the regional structures of an SSA plot, researchers identify categories or themes of behaviors (Canter & Youngs, 2009). Thus, individual crime scene behaviors within each region of the spatial plot can be viewed collectively and interpreted within the context of the overarching pattern or style of offending (Borg & Groenen, 2010; Canter & Youngs, 2009; Salfati, 2014). Salfati utilized SSA to identify and interpret expressive and instrumental themes with the use of Feshbach s (1964) theory of aggression. Understood collectively, the behaviors within the expressive region of the plot signified a prior relationship between individuals involved in the transaction and indicated that the nature of this relationship was important. The behaviors within the instrumental region of the plot centered on personal gain, and indicated that the victim (as a 5 Employing SSA during the conceptualization of behavioral themes addressed the previously discussed issues, which undermined experience-based classifications like the organized/disorganized model (Canter et al., 2004; Canter & Wentink, 2004; Salfati, 2000; 2014).

22 21 person) was secondary to offenders gain. With these overarching offending patterns identified, the meaning of individual behaviors within each domain was better understood. For example, Salfati (2000; 2003) explained that the individual behavior of transporting the victim s body away from the crime scene (an expressive behavior) could suggest an offender s need for distance from the victim or the crime scene because one or the other may be linked to the offender. Conversely, it may be hypothesized that the individual behavior of covering a victim s body postmortem (an instrumental behavior) is suggestive of shame, possibly indicating that the use of lethal violence was not part of the offender s normal crime script (e.g.,, a rape or burglary gone wrong ) (Salfati, 2000; 2003). Salfati employed SSA to test the hypothesis that the associations between crime scene behaviors would reflect either expressive or instrumental themes, in accordance with Feshbach s (1964) theory. This hypothesis was supported if two distinct regions of behaviors formed within the SSA plot, one region representing the expressive theme and the other region representing the instrumental theme. Conversely, there would be no clear relationship between behaviors if distinct regions of behaviors did not form within the SSA plot. Boundary lines have often been drawn on the spatial plot to distinguish instrumental from expressive behaviors (e.g., Salfati, 2000). Behaviors located close to boundaries may be highly associated with behaviors on each side of the line (Canter & Youngs, 2009). Behaviors located further away from boundary lines however may be purer in terms of defining a region or theme (Canter & Youngs, 2009). For example, in Salfati s (2000) study, the expressive behaviors face wounds and head wounds were located close to the boundary line and were highly associated with instrumental behaviors. The designation of these behaviors to the expressive theme was based on theory.

23 22 Since Salfati s foundational study, researchers in many countries have confirmed expressive and instrumental behavioral themes in homicide using SSA (e.g.,, Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati, 2000; Santilla, et al., 2001; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Salfati & Dupont, 2006; Salfati & Park, 2007). While all of these studies support the overarching offending styles, several researchers have divided expressive and instrumental themes into subtypes (Salfati & Canter, 1999; Santilla, et al., 2001; Salfati & Park, 2007). Studies have also omitted several of the original expressive/instrumental behaviors in Salfati s (2000) study, usually because of limited information on behaviors (Salfati & Dupont, 2006). Furthermore researchers have included additional behaviors that better capture the nature of homicide in the particular country under study (Santilla, et al., 2001; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Park, 2007). Replication studies have largely supported the reliability and validity of expressive and instrumental themes in homicide (Salfati, 2014). Moreover, each study has confirmed only two overarching themes: expressive and instrumental. The majority of expressive and instrumental behaviors also demonstrate thematic stability across studies. In other words, most of the expressive and instrumental behaviors identified in Salfati s (2000) study occurred within corresponding regions of SSA plots in replication studies. However, several behaviors demonstrate thematic instability that is, they have occurred within both the expressive and instrumental region of SSA plots across studies (see Appendix A for thematic designation of behaviors across expressive/instrumental studies). The instability of individual behaviors across studies could be due to a number of factors, such as the low frequency of these variables in datasets, differences in variable inclusion and boundary lines between studies, and the number of regions or themes identified on SSA plots

24 23 (Canter & Youngs, 2009). 6 The association of a low frequency variable with another behavior can strongly influence its placement on the spatial field produced by SSA, which may explain its thematic instability (Canter & Youngs, 2009; Salfati & Dupont, 2006). That is, if in one dataset a low frequency behavior is highly associated with an expressive behavior, then it may be plotted in the expressive region of the SSA plot; however, if in another dataset this same low frequency behavior is highly associated with an instrumental behavior then it may be plotted in the instrumental region of the SSA plot. The instability of low frequency behaviors may be complicated by the addition or omission of variables across studies if added/omitted behaviors are highly associated with low frequency variables (Salfati & Park, 2007; Canter & Youngs, 2009). The location of boundary lines and number of regions or themes identified on the SSA plot are also important considerations. Boundary lines are placed on SSA plots by researchers to designate different regions of plots, which have different theoretical meanings (Canter & Youngs, 2009). Theory and the pattern of co-occurrences of behaviors in datasets guide the placement of boundary lines (Borg & Groenen, 2010; Canter & Youngs, 2009). But, behaviors that are located close to boundary lines may be associated with behaviors on each side of the line and draw on theoretical meanings from each side (Canter & Youngs, 2009). So, it is possible that slightly different interpretations of SSA plots across studies result in behaviors being designated to different regions. These intra-theme differences point to methodological factors, which may influence the placement of individual variables on the spatial plot produced by SSA during the 6 Aside from the factors mentioned, the instability of crime scene behaviors across replication studies may also be a result of differences in the definition and measurement of variables. Salfati (2000) was a foundational study, which had just begun to develop an empirical approach to homicide classification. As replication studies were conducted over time, these studies may have improved upon the measurement of crime scene behaviors and this is an important point to acknowledge.

25 24 conceptualization of expressive and instrumental themes. Despite these differences, replication studies have supported the model s reliability by consistently conceptualizing two over-arching themes in homicide: expressive and instrumental (Salfati, 2014). Classification and hybrid crime scenes Once expressive and instrumental thematic regions are confirmed, researchers examine individual cases and assign crime scenes to a dominant theme during classification. If the majority of crime scenes within a dataset can be assigned to a theme, then the classification successfully differentiates between crime scene types (Salfati, 2014; Canter & Youngs, 2009). Hybrid crime scenes are also identified during classification and refer to the remaining scenes, which contain roughly an equal number of and expressive and instrumental behaviors. Originally, Salfati (2000) employed a proportional method and a two-times cut-off criterion to determine whether the behaviors in each case were primarily expressive or instrumental. That is, Salfati (2000) examined each individual case and assigned it a percentage score for each theme (expressive and instrumental). These percentage scores reflected the proportion of expressive and instrumental behaviors present in the case. Cases with twice as many behaviors belonging to one theme than the other theme were then classified accordingly. The classification procedures employed by Salfati s (2000) were in correspondence with recommendations from Trojan and Salfati s (2008) subsequent review of classification methods. Trojan and Salfati recommended that the proportional method be used when themes have an unequal number of variables and that the two-times criterion be used with two thematic regions. This criterion appeared to be stringent enough while still effectively classifying the majority of cases in their review (Trojan & Salfati, 2008).

26 25 In some instances, cases did not meet the classification criterion used in studies. Cases, which contained roughly the same number of expressive and instrumental behaviors, were labeled as hybrid crime scenes. Cases that did not meet the two-times criterion, but also did not contain the same number of expressive/instrumental behaviors, were labeled as unclassifiable. Hybrid scenes accounted for 30% of crime scenes in Salfati s (2000) original study and an additional 8% of cases were labeled as unclassifiable. Across replication studies, the percentage of hybrid scenes has varied slightly, but typically hovers around 40% (Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Park, 2007; Salfati & Bateman, 2005). It is difficult to make exact comparisons across these studies, due to differences in the number of thematic regions and the method and criterion used to identify dominant themes. Trojan and Salfati (2008) have acknowledged that these factors impact the percentage of cases allocated to a dominant theme and the percentage of cases classified as hybrid. Trojan and Salfati s (2008) assessment thus drew attention to the impact of methodological factors on hybrids. While their discussion focused on factors related to classification, Trojan and Salfati also emphasized that further evaluation of the individual behaviors that comprise the model is needed at this time. The current study will attempt to establish the expressive/instrumental classification within a U.S. single homicide dataset and examine the individual expressive and instrumental behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. These steps are essential before further theoretical advancement is undertaken, so that the nature of hybrid crime scenes can be addressed. The Nature of Hybrid Crime Scenes Ascertaining the mechanisms involved in generating offenders crime scene actions is essential to explanations of why expressive and instrumental behaviors are present within a

27 26 scene. This endeavor requires further theoretical advancement. The following sections briefly review some limitations of traditional classifications and recent theoretical advancements, which approach behavior from a systems perspective. The utility of these advancements for ascertaining the mechanisms that generate offenders behaviors within scenes and for exploring the nature of hybrid crime scenes are subsequently explained. Challenges to traditional classifications and an emerging classification approach In the social sciences classifications group characteristics and/or behavioral elements together within categories that reflect psychological processes, such as personality traits (e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi s self-control (1990); McCrae and Costa s five-factor model (1991)), motivations (e.g., Maslow s hierarchy of needs (1948)), or emotions (e.g., Lazurus (1991)). Underlying this approach to classification is the assumption that characteristics and behaviors are manifestations of the trait, motivation, emotion, or other psychological process, which they are proposed to represent. Academics and practitioners utilize these categorization systems for prediction and treatment purposes; however, there are several challenges that confront traditional classifications. One challenge faced by traditional social scientific classifications is that a single psychological process (e.g., motivation, personality trait, emotion) may manifest in many different characteristics and behaviors. The different ways that individuals and events present characteristics and behaviors suggests different underlying mechanisms. Therefore, a second related challenge is that our characteristics and behaviors are likely a result of many different mechanisms and attributing them with just one psychological process may be oversimplification. These two related challenges have been discussed in relation to human disease classification (Vandamme, et al., 2013) and they highlight a significant problem with a traditional

28 27 classification approach. The traditional approach reduces the mechanisms that underlie elements of study to a single process, perhaps imprecisely (Vandamme, et al., 2013). In the medical sciences, the limitations of a traditional classification approach have led to a paradigm shift (FDA, 2013; Loscalzo, Kohane, & Barabasi, 2007; Liao & Tsai, 2013; Vandamme, et al., 2013). The emergence of personalized medicine recognizes the complexity of human disease i.e., that disease is more than a consequence of our genes, but rather a result of the complex interactions among environmental, genetic, social, and cultural factors (FDA, 2013; Vandamme, et al., 2013). Managing the complexity of human disease has necessitated a systems perspective (e.g., Vandamme, et al., 2013) and the complexity of human behavior may also require a systems approach (e.g., Cisek & Kalaska, 2010; Frank & Badre, 2015; Fontaine, 2005; Jarvilheto; 2009; Miller, 2007; Samuelson, Jenkins, and Spencer, 2015; von Bertalanffy, 1968). Systems perspectives emphasize wholeness or the idea that our objects of study cannot be reduced into parts and studied separately. As Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968) stated in General Systems Theory, it is necessary to study not only parts and processes in isolation, but also to solve the decisive problems found in the organization and order unifying them, resulting from dynamic interaction of parts, and making the behavior of parts different when studied in isolation or within the whole (p. 31). In this respect, understanding behavior requires considering the dynamic processes, which connect individuals to the external world (physical and social), as well as the dynamic processes, which connect our internal systems (biological and psychological). In the social sciences, systems perspectives have already been adopted and are being advanced within many fields. 7 Much of this theoretical and empirical advancement is 7 See Fontaine (2005) for an example of a systems approach to aggressive behavior. See Jarvilheto (2009) for a discussion of the organism-environment system in ecological psychology; see Cosmides and Tobies (2013) for a

29 28 based on work within the cognitive sciences, which focus on the interconnections among mental processes that underlie behavior and also on the interconnected brain systems (neurons and brain structures) that underlie mental processes (e.g., Frank & Badre, 2015; Cisek & Kalaska, 2010). Personality psychology is among these fields. Mischel and Shoda s (1995) Cognitive-Affective Processing System model of personality embraced a systems approach to personality structure. The CAPS model (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) is concerned with the dynamic inter-connections among mental processes, which underlie an individual s characteristic patterns of behavior across situations (referred to as behavioral signatures). Thus, inter-related psychological processes are considered in connection to activating situations and resulting behavior (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Recently, the CAPS framework has been extended to establish shared patterns of behavioral variation (referred to as contextualized individual differences in behavior), which are used to classify or discriminate between people (Van Mechelen, 2009). In contrast to a traditional approach, a CAPS classification approach uses the processes and mechanisms, which connect individuals to the environment and individuals to their behavior, as a basis of organization and categorization. A classification approach based on the CAPS framework bridges the gap between withinindividual and between-individual explanations of behavior (Mischel, 2009; Vansteelandt & Van Mechelen, 2004; Van Mechelen, 2009). The within-individual perspective focuses on the interconnected cognitive-affective processes that underlie that person s characteristic pattern of behavior variation (Cervone, 2005; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). But, a between-individual perspective establishes shared patterns of behavioral variation, which categorize people in a discussion of systems approaches in evolutionary psychology. See Samuelson, Jenkins, and Spencer (2015) for a discussion of systems in cognitive psychology.

30 29 population (Cervone, 2005; Van Mechelen, 2009). This bridge between intra- and interindividual explanations of behavior has significant implications for practice. There are instances in which we seek to use classification categories not only to distinguish between people in a population, but also to explain the behavior a specific person (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). To achieve this type of explanation, the categories that distinguish between people or events must be linked with the processes that generate an individual s behavior (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Cervone, 2005). The CAPS framework can achieve this link (Mischel, 2009; Van Mechelen, 2009). The utility of a systems perspective Currently, the expressive/instrumental model takes a traditional classification approach. Crime scene behaviors are grouped together within categories that reflect the underlying meaning of victims to offenders (Salfati, 2000). As a traditional approach, the model is limited by the same challenges discussed at the beginning of this section. That is, not every expressive crime scene will necessarily be characterized by the same expressive behaviors; not every instrumental crime scene will be characterized by the same instrumental behaviors; and hybrid scenes are characterized by both expressive and instrumental behaviors. The different behaviors expressed at crime scenes suggest that mechanisms beyond expressiveness and instrumentality are involved in generating offenders behaviors. Placing expressiveness and instrumentality within the context of the CAPS framework allows researchers to consider these processes. Aligning the expressive/instrumental classification with the CAPS framework is not a simple theoretical or empirical task. At this point in time, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Specifically, the situations surrounding homicide, which impact offenders crime scene actions, need to be specified (Funder, 2009). How and why these situational features

31 30 impact action must be explained and the interconnected psychological processes, which connect situations with action, should be conveyed (Funder, 2009). The actions generated in response to situational features and psychological processes must be identified (Funder, 2009). Finally, the CAPS framework must also be expanded to include multiple behaviors (Funder, 2009; Van Mechelen, 2009), if it is to be used in explanations of crime scene actions. The following sections address these key areas of research as they relate to the expressive/instrumental classification. The relevance of this theoretical advancement for the model is subsequently discussed and a CAPS perspective on hybrid crime scenes is presented. Expressiveness and Instrumentality as Psychologically Salient Aspects of Homicide Situations Understanding the mechanisms that generate crime scene action requires that we specify the situations surrounding homicide, which impact offenders actions. There is a growing body of research in social and personality psychology that focuses on situations interpersonal nature as a salient situational feature that impacts information-processing and therefore behavior (e.g., Fournier et al., 2008; 2009; Reis, 2008). While Salfati (2000) has already established expressiveness and instrumentality as important interpersonal features of homicide, which impact offenders behavior, incorporating these relationship contexts within the CAPS framework and interpersonal domain furthers our understanding of the mechanisms that translate interpersonal situations into crime scene action. The CAPS model and behavioral salience The CAPS model was developed in response to the person-situation debate, which for years dominated social and personality psychological fields (Mischel, 2009). There was a longstanding divide regarding the person-situation issue in psychology, with one camp emphasizing

32 31 the power of situations and the other camp arguing the importance of persons in determining behavior (for a review of these issues see Funder, 2001; 2006; 2009). Recent developments have moved away from this divergent approach and towards a more inclusionary one that considers the influence of both persons and situations on behavior. This approach has been referred to as the personality triad (e.g., Mechelen, 2009; Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010). Studies concerned with the personality triad focus on the situational and psychological processes that impact behavior and are also concerned with assessing the relative importance of these elements for determining behavioral consistency. The acknowledgement that all three elements of the personality triad are important has led to the conclusion that, the best way to understand a behavior is to in terms of who performs it, and the circumstances under which they do so (Funder, 2009, p. 123). People are different, situations vary, and not all behaviors are the same. While all behavior is situated (Van Heck, 1986), situations can only impact behavior if external information is processed and interpreted within individuals. Through these mechanisms behavior is generated that is appropriate to situations. The CAPS framework acknowledges all three elements of the personality triad. As a result, the CAPS model has important implications for the expressive/instrumental classification and IPs understanding of behavioral salience. Behavioral salience is concerned with the crime scene behaviors that reflect offenders psychological processes (Canter & Youngs, 2009). As previously discussed, identifying crime scene behaviors, which are most salient to expressiveness and instrumentality is an area of need (Salfati, 2000; Trojan & Salfati, 2008). Separating situations from psychological processes and behaviors however has not been productive for other fields (e.g., Funder, 2001). Instead, a productive approach to behavioral salience would consider the links among these elements; what features of situations, people, and

33 32 behaviors are important to these links; and, what mechanisms underlie the interplay among all of these elements (Funder, 2001; 2009). With respect to the expressive/instrumental classification, this approach to behavioral salience is possible if victims meaning to offenders is considered an interpersonal feature of homicide situations, which impact offenders cognitions, emotions, and actions. With this slight re-conceptualization, expressiveness and instrumentality continue to represent important features of homicide, which vary between crime scenes. But, expressiveness and instrumentality can also now be connected with the internal processes that underlie offenders actions within scenes. The CAPS model and psychologically salient interpersonal situations Concerned with explanations of individuals characteristic patterns of experience and behavior, Mischel and Shoda (1995) suggest that situations can best be understood in terms of the acquired meaning of situational features for that person (p. 252). Therefore, the CAPS model draws a distinction between subjective interpretations of environments or psychological situations (e.g., one s perceptions, interpretations, and experiences in their environment) and nominal situational features (e.g., the physical environment, setting, location) (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Accordingly, people differ in the situational features that they focus on; how they experience these features or how situational features elicit their cognitions and emotions; and, people also differ in how elicited cognitions and emotions interact with other psychological systems involved in their personality structure (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Shoda, et al., 1994). Fournier et al. (2008; 2009) recently integrated the CAPS model and the interpersonal domain by specifying the interpersonal nature of situations as a psychologically relevant feature. Reis (2008) points out considering the interpersonal nature of situations as a core feature makes theoretical, but also logical sense. Much of our activity involves interaction with others, many of

34 33 whom we have some sort of relationship with (Reis, 2008). Homicide is of course not an exception to this observation. In fact, the importance of relationship dynamics in homicide dates back to the early works of Wolfgang (1957). The importance of interpersonal situations to our cognitions, emotions, and behaviors is also supported by social psychology s concept of outcome inter-dependence or the idea that we influence each other s behaviors and outcomes (Reis, 2008). Our social inter-dependency requires that we are able to recognize people who are important to our activities and outcomes, and that we possess psychological mechanisms, which underlie how we behave in relation to these people (Reis, 2008). It is theorized that social inter-dependency developed through evolutionary processes (Reis, 2008). That is, evolutionary forces likely impacted the way we process and interpret situational information that pertains to our interpersonal relationships, so that our behaviors reflect our social inter-dependency. In the context of the CAPS model situations interpersonal nature is the active psychological ingredient (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, p.255), which elicits individuals mental systems referred to as cognitive-affective units (CA units) (Shoda et al., 1994; Fournier et al., 2008; 2009). CA units are mental processes involved in information processing and they pertain to one s cognitions and emotions (e.g.,, encodings, goals and values, expectancies and beliefs, emotions and physiological reactions, competencies and self-regulatory plans, scripts, and strategies). CA units are inter-related and the relationships among units develop as a result of an individual s learning and experiences, environments, as well as their biology and genetics. Some of the relationships between units will be common to most people and some may easily be accessed and activated within individuals. But, other relationships will be less accessible and some relationships will be unique to individuals.

35 34 Elicited CA units interact with each other dynamically through their inter-relationships. The organization of these inter-relationships represents one s personality structure, which is displayed through predictable variability in behavior. When an individual attends to salient situational features this activates a subset of cognitive-affective units. These processes produce cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in response to the activating situation. When an individual consistently responds to the same salient situation with the same behaviors, then these overt behaviors are thought to reflect the stable inter-relationships among CA units. This stable pattern is considered an expression of the individual s personality structure. The same individual would be expected to vary their behaviors across different psychological situations, as these different situations activate a different subset of CA units (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; 1998; Mischel, 2009). Expressiveness and instrumentality as psychological situations in homicide Salfati (e.g., Salfati & Canter, 1999, Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Park, 2007) has established the meaning of victims to offenders as important relationship contexts in homicide, which impact offenders behaviors. This view corresponds well with the basic propositions of the CAPS model and its integration with the interpersonal domain (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; 1998; Mischel, 2009; Fournier et al., 2008; 2009; Reis, 2008). When victims are themselves personally significant to offenders (i.e.,, expressiveness) this is a psychologically salient aspect of the situation. Offenders attend to this relationship context and it activates their cognitions and emotions, which in turn interacts with their personality system and generates behaviors. The particular set of mental systems activated within offenders depends upon offenders prior experiences, learning, and their biology and genetics. Likewise, when victims are personally not relevant and rather a means for personal gain (i.e.,, instrumentality), offenders are aware of this relationship context. As a result,

36 35 it initiates a different subset of cognitions and emotions, inter-related components of offenders personality system, and a different set of behaviors. Among the CA units activated within individuals are psychological processes involved in behavior generation, such as one s goals, scripts, plans, and strategies (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Fournier et al., 2008; 2009; Heckhausen, et al., 2010). These behavior generation processes are involved with our self-regulatory and motivational capabilities or our capacity to understand situational information and respond to situations through goal-directed behaviors (Schank & Abelson, 1977; Heckhausen et al., 2010). During homicide these psychological processes ultimately result in crime scene actions that effect change in situational features, so that offenders can pursue immediate tasks (Heckhausen et al., 2010; Hettema & Hol, 1998; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Linking Homicide Situations Interpersonal Nature with Offenders Psychological Processes and Crime Scene Actions Linking expressiveness and instrumentality with actions requires further specification of the processes involved in translating situational information into action. Additionally, the actions generated in response to situational information and psychological processes need to be identified. The CAPS model discusses motivational and self-regulatory processes as important CA units involved with behavior generation (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Recently, a motivational process called primary control has been advanced to explain behaviors, which are intended to facilitate goal attainment by purposefully altering the environment (Heckhausen, et al., 2010). A lower-order goal system, called Delta goals (Schank & Abelson, 1977), has been used to categorize the goal-directed behaviors associated with primary control (Hettema & Hol, 1998). Together, primary control and lower-order goals advance explanations of why and how

37 36 interpersonal situations impact behavior. Lower-order goal actions are further salient actions; that is, actions expressed as a result of interpersonal situations, primary control, and lower-order goals. Primary control, lower-order goals, and actions Primary control has been advanced within the motivational theory of lifespan development (Heckhausen, et al., 2010). This theory views humans as universally motivated by achieving effects in their environment (Heckhausen, et al., p. 36, 2010). To influence the environment, the theory suggests that control strategies are used during the pursuit of goals and these strategies activate internal (cognitive and affective) and external (behavioral) resources (Heckhausen, et al., 2010). Therefore, Heckhausen, et al. (2010) incorporated Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder s (1982) view of control as a two-process construct comprised of primary and secondary controls. Primary and secondary controls reflect an individual s attempt to obtain control, maintain current levels of control, or restore losses of control over the environment (e.g., Rothbaum, et al., 1982; Heckhausen, et al., 2010; Skinner, 1996). Control over the environment is achieved through selective primary control processes or behavioral strategies, which facilitate goal attainment by purposefully altering the environment (Heckhausen, et al., 2010). For example, attending class, studying for exams, and obtaining missed lecture notes are behavioral strategies associated with primary control and these strategies facilitate one s goal of doing well on an upcoming exam (Hamm et al., 2013). Secondary control works to maximize and support existing levels of primary control (Heckhausen, et al., 2010), but secondary control is aimed at the self and not at the environment (Rothbaum, et al., 1982, Skinner, 1996). When primary control processes fail or when they weaken, selective secondary control strategies activate internal

38 37 cognitive and affective processes, which foster goal pursuit in spite of challenges and/or enable individuals to disengage from unattainable goals (Heckhausen, et al., 2010). For example, thinking about the pride one will experience upon achieving a high exam grade or focusing on past exam successes to enhance perceived control over performance are secondary control strategies (Hamm et al., 2013). Together, primary and secondary controls represent a motivational system that is intended to increase control over the external world (Heckhausen, et al., 2010). While secondary control is most associated with internal processes, primary control is associated with directing behaviors that have an effect on the environment (Rothbaum, et al., 1982; Heckhausen, et al., 2010). Ultimately, primary control is translated into these behaviors through self-regulatory processes (e.g., scripts, plans, and behavioral strategies), which involve lower-order goals called Delta goals (Hettema & Hol, 1998; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Schank and Abelson (1977) first discussed Delta goals in relation to how individuals organize, access, and apply knowledge about the world to situations. Delta goals are lower-order goals related to cognitive processes, called plans, which link together unfamiliar events in meaningful ways and enable us to understand and respond to situations in which we have little or no previous experience (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Delta goals represent change in situations. Social control represents a change in control between people. Resource control represents a change in control over valuable resources. Proximity represents a change in the distance between people and/or objects. Knowledge represents a change in one s own knowledge or the intention to increase one s knowledge. In their list of Delta goals Schank and Abelson also included an additional lower-order goal, Preparation, to account for all of the actions necessary to prepare for Delta goal attainment. Each of the aforementioned lower-order goals is defined by a set of actions that can achieve it.

39 38 Delta goals and Preparation can be sequenced together in ways that organize information on how to accomplish immediate tasks. Therefore, these lower-order goals exist within a goal hierarchy at an immediate, concrete, and low-level (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Schank & Abelson, 1977). At the highest-level, goals are abstract likely pertaining to one s future aspirations and life projects. Future goals are met by intermediary goals that are less abstract and more concrete. At an even lower level are specific task-oriented goals, which specify what is to be immediately accomplished, so that intermediary goals can be achieved. Delta goals and Preparation exist at a lower level and organize information, so that immediate tasks can be accomplished. Figure 1 provides an illustration of lower-order goals within this goal hierarchy. When lower-order goals are sequenced together, each goal is achieved through specific actions, which define how situations are changed during task pursuit. The selection of a particular action depends upon the situation and the relationships between those individuals involved. Once expressed, lower-order goal actions may be successful in achieving a situation change or they may fail to do so. If an action fails to achieve a lower-order goal, then a new action may be selected and utilized (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Sequences of lower-order goals may be enacted frequently in the same order and within the same situation, at which point lower-order goal sequences become scripts or predetermined, stereotyped sequences of actions that define a well-known situation (Schank & Abelson, 1977; p. 41). Similar to plans, scripts are cognitive processes that provide individuals with the ability to understand and respond to situations they have encountered many times 8. Thus, scripts and plans 8 Plans are proposed as mechanisms that underlie scripts. They are made up of general information regarding how people achieve goals and explain how one state or event is a pre-requisite for another state or event (Schank & Abelson, 1977).

40 39 each provide information on how to achieve goals and they outline how to behave in a given situation. When a script is available for a situation, it is used. In unfamiliar situations when a script is unavailable, a plan will be enacted. Behavior is sometimes all script-based, but sometimes people are only able to access plans and in many instances both scripts and plans are required. For these reasons, Schank and Abelson propose that it is usually unnecessary to make a distinction between these cognitive processes (Schank & Abelson, 1977). The relation of Delta goals and Preparation to both scripts and plans is significant for considerations of interpersonal transactions. It is likely that individuals who routinely encounter and engage with one another possess scripts that guide their behaviors in respect to one another and help define their roles within these well-known situations. Well-known and familiar situations however can easily and quickly become unfamiliar if one individual deviates from their script or typical role during an interaction. Fortunately, people have the cognitive capabilities to adapt and respond to these changes through planning mechanisms (Schank & Abelson, 1977). In summary, incorporating primary control and lower-order goals (Delta goals and Preparation) within the CAPS model and interpersonal domain identifies the situational features that impact behaviors, explains how and why these features impact behaviors, and specifies behaviors generated in response to these situations and psychological processes (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Fournier et al., 2008; Heckhausen, et al., 2010; Hettema & Hol, 1998; Schank & Abelson, 1977). That is, the interpersonal nature of situations impacts behaviors by eliciting inter-related psychological processes. For action to occur motivational and self-regulatory processes must be activated and lower-order goals are components of these processes. As components of scripts and plans, lower-order goals are involved in generating actions during the

41 40 pursuit of immediate tasks, which may solve familiar and recurrent and/or unfamiliar and novel problems (Schank & Abelson, 1977; Hettema & Hol, 1998). The actions selected to achieve lower-order goals depend upon the situation and most importantly, on the nature of the relationship between those involved (Schank & Abelson, 1977). When enacted lower-order goal actions alter specific situational features, such as one s level of control over another, one s control over resources, the distance between people or people and objects, and one s knowledge of a person or object (Schank & Abelson, 1977). The effect of lower-order goal actions on situational features will be fed back into the system impacting CA units within individuals. If a lower-order goal action achieved the intended change in a situation, then this information is processed and interpreted within individuals through inter-related CA units. But, if a lower-order goal action is unsuccessful in achieving change, then a new lower-order goal action may be selected and enacted or the individual may disengage from the task. Again these decisions and actions result from the inter-related CA units that are activated within individuals (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Homicide s interpersonal nature, offenders psychological processes, and crime scene actions Like people in general, offenders are equipped with mental systems that play an active role in how they subjectively experience and interact with victims, but also in how these interactions play out at crime scenes. Ultimately, the expression of crime scene actions occur when the inter-relationships among psychological processes activate offenders scripts, plans, and potential actions, so that immediate tasks can be pursued. These tasks may solve recurrent problems that offenders have encountered many times within well-known situations. But, these tasks may also arise during unfamiliar situations, of which offenders have no previous

42 41 experience. As the building blocks of both scripts and plans, lower-order goals likely provide a way of understanding the actions expressed during homicides, as a result of either cognitive process (Heckhausen, et al., 2010; Hettema & Hol, 1998; Mischel & Shoda, 1994; Shoda, et al., 1994; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Offenders psychological processes are impacted by the underlying meanings of victims to offenders. How offenders understand situations, the inter-related cognitions and emotions offenders experience, the tasks offenders pursue during their transactions with victims, and the actions offenders select to accomplish tasks will be impacted by the nature of victim-offender relationships. This is because we are keenly aware of our interpersonal relationships and this impacts the way we process and interpret situational information, so that our behaviors reflect the meanings of these relationships. Victims meaning as personally relevant (i.e., expressiveness) will therefore be linked with subsets of inter-related cognitions and emotions within offenders, which differ from the subsets of cognitions and emotions that are activated when victims are not personally relevant (i.e., instrumentality). The different paths through offenders psychological processes may generate different lower-order goal actions (Fournier, et al., 2008; 2009; Heckhausen, et al., 2010; Hettema & Hol, 1998; Mischel & Shoda, 1994; Shoda, et al., 1994; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Reis, 2008). The key ideas important to the theoretical advancement proposed here have now been addressed. Expressiveness and instrumentality have been conceptualized as salient interpersonal situations surrounding homicide and the impact of these situational features on offenders interconnected psychological processes and actions has been explained (Fournier, et al., 2008; 2009; Heckhausen, et al., 2010; Hettema & Hol, 1998; Mischel & Shoda, 1994; Shoda, et al., 1994; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Reis, 2008). Lower-order goal actions have also been identified

43 42 as salient crime scene actions generated in response to interpersonal situations and motivational and self-regulatory processes (Hettema & Hol, 1998; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Since lowerorder goals are sequenced together during task pursuit (Schank & Abelson, 1977), it is likely that crime scenes will involve multiple lower-order goals. This theoretical framework may therefore be useful for examining multiple types of action within the context of the CAPS model. Addressing these key elements has important implications for the modeling of homicide and our understanding of hybrid crime scenes. Implications for the Expressive/Instrumental Classification As actions generated in response to situations and psychological processes, lower-order goal actions are salient crime scene actions, which reflect interaction-level motivations intended to effect change in situations. Specifying salient actions provides a basis for refining the actions used to conceptualize expressiveness and instrumentality, which may impact conceptualization and classification. The mechanisms that generate crime scene actions can also now be explored in terms of more than just expressiveness or instrumentality. Research of this nature allows us to consider how expressive and instrumental actions within hybrids are similar or different from the actions that characterize expressive or instrumental scenes. Lower-order goals, interaction-level motivations, and salient crime scene actions As actions generated in response to primary control and lower-order goals, expressive and instrumental lower-order goal actions are motivated actions that effect change in situational features (Heckhausen, et al., 2010; Hettema & Hol, 1998; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Establishing the links between interpersonal situations, psychological processes, and lower-order goal actions has provided a basis for model refinement, which may impact classification.

44 43 The motivational element established by lower-order goals is different from the primary motivations that are typically discussed in the homicide literature, and which originally distinguished between expressive and instrumental forms of aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Feshbach, 1969). Lower-order goals establish motivation at a much lower level of analysis- the interaction-level. Motivation at the event-level is often the focus of clinical observation (e.g., Schlesinger, 2004), empirical research (e.g., Goodwill et al., 2014), and investigations (e.g., Gerberth, 2006). At the event-level, motivations refer to offenders reasons for homicide events or their primary motivations. Including event-level motivations within behavioral classifications has been problematic (e.g., Canter et al., 2004; Canter & Wentik, 2004). It is difficult to tease out the relationship between motivations for an offense and specific crime scene behaviors, since behaviors may be linked with many possible event-level motivations. Additionally, identifying event-level motivations involves de-emphasizing lowerlevel motivational elements. In doing so, subjectivity is introduced as offenders, researchers, clinicians, or law enforcement officers are required to prioritize a primary motivation for homicide. 9 Interaction-level motivation, on the other hand, is denoted by the change in a situation that results from a lower-order goal action (Hettema, 1989; Hettema & Hol, 1998) and it is possible to understand the change associated with actions without knowing why change is being pursued (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Key to our understanding of interaction-level motivation is therefore the identification and organization of behaviors, which denote the same situation 9 The present study uses the term interaction-level motivation because it best captures the motivational element attached to lower-order goal actions. Each Delta goal action denotes a change in a situational feature that results from an interaction between the offender and a feature of the situation (Schank & Abelson, 1977).

45 44 change. This requires putting aside questions of why behaviors were enacted and instead focusing on what aspect of situations are altered through actions. Focusing on interaction-level motivation also means that prioritizing primary motivations is not necessary. Crime scenes will likely be characterized by multiple lower-order goal actions and the interaction-level motivation attached to each action is equally important to our understanding of homicide (Schank & Abelson, 1977; Hettema, 1989; Hettema & Hol, 1998). Crime scene actions that alter situations therefore represent a Delta goal and actions that prepare for a Delta goal represent Preparation. These lower-order goals are used to alter situations, so that task-oriented motivations can be achieved, and tasks are used to pursue intermediary motivations, which may exist at the event-level. This hierarchy is illustrated in Figures 2a and 2b, which provide an example of possible motivations at the interaction-level, task-level, and event-level with an example of rape-murder (2a) and within an example of murder (2b). Figures 2a and 2b illustrate that crime scene actions, which represent the same lowerorder goal denote the same interaction-level motivation and the same type of situation change. Consequently, a lower-order goal s interaction-level motivation remains the same within a homicide event but also across different homicides. The individual actions that achieve lowerorder goals however vary within and across homicides, as do the higher-level motivations that lower-order goals are components of. Thus, in Figure 2a the offender achieved social control through a manual assault, by threatening victims, and by manual strangulation. Each of these actions represents the same interaction-level motivation; that is, by enacting these strategies offenders control over victims is increased while victims personal control is simultaneously decreased. But, a manual assault was used to incapacitate the victim (task-level motivation in

46 45 Figure 2a), threats were used to facilitate rape (task-level motivation in Figure 2a), and manual strangulation was used to kill the victim (task-level motivation in Figure 2a). The motivations behind each of these tasks were components of the rape-murder (the event-level motivation in Figure 2a). In Figure 2b the offender achieved social control through a manual assault, which was used to incapacitate the victim (task-level motivation in Figure 2b), and ligature strangulation, which was used to kill the victim (task-level motivation in Figure 2b). These tasks were necessary components of the murder (the event-level motivation in Figure 2b). The aforementioned examples highlight important features of lower-order goals and motivation at the interaction-level. That is, (1) the individual actions offenders select and use to achieve lower-order goals may vary; (2) the task-level motivations that direct the use of lowerorder goals may vary; (3) the event-level motivations that necessitate tasks and lower-order goals may vary; (4) but, actions that achieve the same lower-order goal denote the same interactionlevel motivation. By focusing on interaction-level motivation, researchers may therefore begin to understand patterns that exist within scenes and across scenes, while still allowing for important variation in individual actions and higher-level motivations. As a result of the aforementioned features, interaction-level motivations may provide a more reliable physical measure of motivation in homicide. While interaction-level motivations do not require inferences about the reasons behind a situation change, this type of motivation does require knowledge of direction (Hettema, 1989). According to Hettema (1989), the directional component acknowledges that lower-order goals and actions influence situations in a particular direction. The direction imposed may correspond with the direction of the situation as it already exists or it may be in contrast to the situation s pre-existing direction (Hettema, 1989). Fortunately, many expressive and instrumental behaviors

47 46 already have specified direction because they represent offenders crime scene actions within singe-offender single-victim homicides (Salfati, 2000). The methodology used to define and measure expressive and instrumental actions thus specifies that offenders engaged in these actions and that these actions were directed at victims and the immediate physical environment. Refining actions included within the expressive/instrumental classification in terms of salient lower-order goal actions may impact the conceptualization of expressive and instrumental themes with SSA as well as the classification ability of the model. Table 1 identifies the expressive and instrumental behaviors from Salfati s (2000) original study, which represent lower-order goal actions in homicide. These lower-order goal actions effect a change in situations and reflect interaction-level motivation. Actions that denote a change in offenders control over victims and a simultaneous decrease in victims personal control (e.g., manual assault, binding victims, and stabbing victims) represent social control. Actions that denote a change in offenders control over victims resources and a simultaneous decrease in victims control over these resources (e.g., theft of valuable objects, vaginal penetration, and oral sex) represent resource control. Actions that denote a change in the distance between crime scenes and body disposal sites (e.g., victims bodies being transported) represent proximity. Actions that are preparatory for the aforementioned Delta goals (e.g., bringing a weapon to the scene and covering victims face) represent preparation. In the context of the theoretical framework laid out here, these actions are salient crime scene actions generated in response to interpersonal situations and offenders psychological processes. Some original expressive and instrumental behaviors do not represent lower-order goal actions. Many of these are wounding location variables (e.g., face wounds, head wounds), which described locations on victims bodies where wounds were sustained. Aside from not falling

48 47 within study two s theoretical framework, the inclusion of wounding location variables in classifications may be problematic for two reasons. First, wounding locations could be a result of many different wounding behaviors. For example, face wounds could be a result of being shot, manually assaulted, or assaulted with a blunt instrument. Consequently, cases that involve any (or all) of these actions may also be coded as present for face wounds and wounding variables may occur at higher frequencies within datasets. A second related difficulty is that both expressive and instrumental actions may result in victims sustaining wounds to a particular bodily location. For example, manual assault has been identified as instrumental and shot has been identified as expressive, but each of these behaviors may result in wounds to the face, which is an expressive wounding location (e.g., Salfati, 2000). This is problematic because it may increase the likelihood that wounding location variables are common to expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. The current theoretical advancement provides an argument for excluding these variables and other variables that do not represent a situation change from the categorization system, which may impact conceptualization and classification. Investigating the nature of hybrid crime scenes: Understanding actions within scenes Currently, hybrid crime scenes are conceptualized and defined by the proportion expressive and instrumental behaviors within a scene (e.g., Salfati, 2000). When scenes contain roughly the same number of expressive and instrumental behaviors, then scenes are labeled hybrid. Hybrid crime scenes have been attributed to situational factors and to the presence of both expressive and instrumental primary motivations (e.g., Meithe & Drass, 1999; Fontaine, 2007; Thijssen & De Ruiter, 2011). The current study however proposes that hybrid crime scenes may be generated through mechanisms more complicated than this.

49 48 Hybrid crime scenes may be a product of certain offenders capacity to change how they experience victims during the course of a homicide event (Fournier et al., 2008; 2008). The CAPS model has long proposed that people possess this ability; that is, people are capable of acting on, altering, and changing the meaning of situations (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Mischel, 2009). Empirical research has demonstrated that some individuals can change the meaning of interpersonal situations in particular (Fournier et al., 2008; 2009). It is therefore possible that some offenders can at times experience victims as if victims are a means for personal gain, and at other times experience victims as if victims are personally meaningful. The psychological processes activated when offenders experience victims as meaningful would generate expressive actions and the psychological processes activated when offender experience victims as a means for gain would generate instrumental actions. A hybrid crime scene may result from these links. However, the CAPS model has also established that some individuals demonstrate stability in the tendency to change an interpersonal situation s meaning (Fournier et al., 2008; 2009). This suggests that a particular personality structure underlies this characteristic pattern of behavior. Exploring the nature of hybrid crime scenes from a CAPS perspective has significant implications for the expressive/instrumental model, and an initial step in this investigation involves critically examining the links among interpersonal situations, psychological processes, and actions within hybrid crime scenes. Research of this nature must clarify the psychological processes, which generate expressive and instrumental actions within hybrids, and determine how the processes and actions that characterize hybrids are similar/different from those that characterize expressive or instrumental crime scenes. Aside from motivational and self-regulatory processes, the CAPS model suggests that other CA units may be linked with victims meaning to offenders and offenders crime scene

50 49 actions. These processes include (1) encodings, concepts, and categories for the self, people, and events; (2) expectancies and beliefs; (3) feelings, emotions, affective states, and physiological arousal; (4) life projects, goals, values, and desirable/undesirable outcomes; (5) and competencies, as well as the aforementioned scripts, plans, and potential actions (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Mischel, 2009). Different lower-order goals affect situations in different ways (Shank & Abelson, 1977). Therefore, the inter-related CA units that elicit social control for example may be different from the CA units that activate resource control. Investigating underlying dimensions within each lower-order goal can further our understanding of the psychological mechanisms that generate different types of action. Aligning the expressive/instrumental classification with the CAPS model also provides the means for investigating how offenders act in different interpersonal situations. Creating lower-order goal action profiles provides a method for exploring two key areas: (1) profiles could illustrate how expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes are similar and/or different in terms of lower-order goal pursuit and actions; and, (2) profiles could illustrate how expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes are similar and/or different in terms of the psychological processes that generate lower-order actions. Ascertaining these similarities and differences allows researchers to consider whether certain types of profiles are common to more than one classification category and whether other profiles are specific to one classification category. The profiles specific to hybrid crime scenes could therefore be identified and whether these profiles contain lower-order goal actions that represent different interpersonal situations could be ascertained. Interpreting profiles with respect to interpersonal situations and underlying dimensions would advance our understanding of the mechanisms involved in generating the expressive and instrumental actions that characterize hybrid crime scenes.

51 50 Chapter III. Study Aims Study One Aims The ability of the expressive/instrumental model to classify the majority of crime scenes in datasets suggests that the categorization system successfully distinguishes between crime scene subtypes. However, the inability of the classification to account for hybrid scenes warrants further investigation of the behavioral make-up of expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. Study one will attempt to establish the expressive/instrumental classification within a U.S. dataset and examine the individual behaviors, which comprise the model, through three related aims. 1. The first aim of study one is to establish expressive and instrumental themes in a U.S. dataset. 2. The second aim of study one is to classify crime scenes into expressive, instrumental, and hybrid subtypes. 3. The third aim of study one is to examine the individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. Study Two Aims The theoretical advancement in study two linked expressiveness and instrumentality with offenders psychological processes and salient crime scene actions. Refining behaviors included within the expressive/instrumental classification in terms of salient actions may impact conceptualization and classification. Investigating underlying dimensions within lower-order goals and establishing lower-order goal action profiles can inform our understanding of the mechanisms that generate expressive and instrumental actions within crime scenes.

52 51 1. The first aim of study two is to refine behaviors included within the expressive/instrumental classification in terms of salient actions and examine how this impacts conceptualization. 2. The second aim of study two is to classify crime scenes intro expressive, instrumental, and hybrid subtypes. 3. The third aim of study two is to investigates underlying dimensions within lower-order goals and create lower-order goal action profiles for expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes.

53 52 Chapter IV. Methods Data Collection The case files used for data collection were closed, fully adjudicated cases contributed by local and state law enforcement agencies from across the United States. All identifiers, including names of victims, suspects, offenders, officers, departments, and correctional agencies were removed, and only aggregate data were reported. Police case files contain information regarding offenders crime scene behaviors, and behavioral information was collected from the entire contents of case files (e.g., police reports, witness and offender statements, crime scene photos, medical examiner reports, and forensic reports). The data were obtained through an on-going collaborative project between John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the FBI. 10 The current researcher was approved access to the data. Approval was contingent upon the completion of all required data access paperwork, training, and protocols (see Appendix B for copy of approval letter) in addition to approval from Northeastern University s institutional review board (IRB). Access was also contingent upon the successful completion of training on the Homicide and Rape Profiling Index (HPI-R, Salfati 2010) coding dictionary, the successful completion of an inter-rater reliability assessment, and by 10 The author(s) would like to express their gratitude to the FBI s Behavioral Science Unit for coordinating access to the data used in this paper. Authors opinions, statements and conclusions should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any policy, program or service. The data for this research were taken from closed, fully adjudicated state and local cases that were contributed from law enforcement agencies from around the country for the purpose of research. All identifiers, including names of victims, suspects, offenders, officers, departments, correctional agencies, are removed. Only aggregate data are reported on.

54 53 contributing to the overall data collection process. 11 With these requirements met, the current researcher was granted access to a dataset, which included a total of 392 single homicide cases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria Of the 392 cases included in the dataset, 210 cases met the current study s inclusion criteria and comprised the final sample. In accordance with previous replications of the expressive/instrumental model (e.g., Salfati & Park, 2007) only single-offender single-victim homicides were included in this dissertation. It is possible that group dynamics influence offenders crime scene behaviors (Juodis, Woodworth, Porter, & Brinke, 2009). Therefore cases that involve multiple active offenders and/or multiple homicide victims were excluded. For the same reasons, cases that involve secondary inactive offenders who were present during the homicide and were charged in conjunction with the present offense were also excluded. One hundred and fifty-nine of the 392 original cases involved multiple offenders and/or multiple victims and were excluded from the current study. In accordance with Salfati s (2000) original study only cases where victims died at the scene without intervention by emergency aid workers or medical personnel were included. It is possible that medical interventions result in marks on victims bodies, which researchers cannot distinguish from wounds sustained by victims during homicides. Fifteen of the 392 original cases involved medical intervention and were excluded. 11 The current researcher received the full training on an earlier version of the HPI, the HPIv4, passed an inter-rater reliability assessment, and contributed to the collective IRPU database as a master s student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. As a doctoral student at Northeastern University, the current researcher received a refreshertraining on the revised version, which reviewed the coding dictionary and addressed any change to the dictionary since the initial full training.

55 54 Additionally, cases that were part of a homicide series were excluded due to differences between serial and single homicides in motivations, victimology (Kraemer, Lord, & Heilbrun, 2004), and crime scene behaviors (Salfati & Bateman, 2005). Four of the original 392 cases were part of a series and were excluded as a result. Finally, cases that involved findings of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI) were excluded from the current study. Study two is concerned with behaviors linked with perception and cognitive processes, and in NGRI cases offenders mental status may have impacted their perception, cognitions, and behaviors. Four of the original 392 cases involved NGRI findings and were therefore excluded from the current study. 12 Sources of bias It is important to discuss how the nature of investigative information could impact the results of the present study, since information contained within case files was not collected for research purposes. There is no standard protocol for collecting investigative information and similarly there are no standard guidelines for documenting investigative information within police case files; therefore, case files likely differ in the extent and quality of investigative information contained within (Alison, Snook, & Stein, 2001). This variation may be due to individual differences between investigators (e.g., conscientiousness), outside factors that impact investigators and/or investigations (e.g., time constraints, workload, pressures from superiors within departments and/or the media), and differences between the offenses themselves (e.g., 12 In these 4 cases, police reports indicated offenders had prior mental health hospitalizations and clinical diagnoses. Offender statements indicated that they were responding to distorted thoughts and/or perceptions, which played a role in the current homicide. Some of these cases also contained court documents and clinical reports, which summarized the results of mental health evaluations.

56 55 presence of witnesses, characteristics of offenders and victims). Additionally, investigative information is not collected for research purposes, but case files are composed to assist investigations and legal proceedings (Alison et al., 2001). As a result of the aforementioned objectives, certain aspects of an offense may be emphasized or detailed within case files over other aspects. For example, law enforcement may spend considerable time detailing the primary motivation and opportunity for an offense within their reports because these elements are important to the prosecution of cases. Law enforcement may not however detail other offense features (e.g., contextual information) or what offenders do not do during an offense (i.e., what behaviors offenders do not engage in) because this information is not important to investigations or legal proceedings. It is important to acknowledge that crime scene behavior may differ between scenes as a result of differences in how law enforcement collected and recorded behavioral information, rather than due to the different ways offenders actually behaved at scenes (Alison et al., 2001). The variability in law enforcement information collection and documentation necessitates that researchers who utilize these sources employ reliable and valid measurement procedures. Sample Offense characteristics Almost all offenses (96%) occurred at some point during a thirty-year time span from 1980 through 2009, with the majority of offenses occurring between 1990 and 1999 (58%). Thirty-two percent of offenses occurred within the Southern region of the U.S. (including the South Atlantic states, East South Central states, and West South Central states). Twenty-four percent of the offenses occurred within the Northeastern region (Middle Atlantic states and New England states). Twenty-two percent of offenses occurred in the Midwestern region (East North

57 56 Central states and West North Central states), and 20% occurred within the western region of the U.S. (Mountain and Pacific states). When information regarding the timing and location of offenses could be obtained, crimes most often began (63%) and ended (65%) at night, occurred within victims residence (45%), and victims bodies were most often discovered within their residence as well (39%) (see Appendix C for tables of offense characteristics). Offender characteristics Offenders were primarily male (94%-male, 9%-female, 1%-transgender) with a mean age of 31 years (M=30.57, SD=10.50), a mean height of 175 centimeters or 5 feet 8 inches (M=174.99, SD=12.58), and a mean weight of 81 kilograms or 178lbs (M=80.69, SD=17.28). Contents of case files indicated that most offenders were Caucasian (67%), employed in blue-collar professions (45%) or unemployed (28%) at the time of the offense. Thirty-eight percent of offenders were married or in a significant relationship at the time of the offense, 28% were single, and 12% were divorced or separated. When information regarding offenders involvement in criminal activities could be obtained, 87% had a criminal history or were known to engage in criminal behavior as indicated by police reports. When information regarding offenders prior convictions and/or arrests could be obtained, offenders most often had prior convictions and/or arrests for assault or domestic violence (66%), followed by burglary (44%), theft (39%), and drug related offenses (34%) (see Appendix D for tables of offender characteristics). Victim characteristics Victims were primarily female (64%-female, 36%-male) with a mean age of 35 years (M=35.48, SD=19.34), a mean height of 162 centimeters or 5 feet 4 inches (M=161.58, SD=22.13), and a mean weight of 64 kilograms or 141lbs (M=64.80, SD=21.11).

58 57 Contents of case files indicated that most victims were Caucasian (81%), employed in blue-collar professions (25%) or white-collar professions (20%) at the time of the offense. Thirty-eight percent of victims were married or in a significant relationship at the time of the offense, 20% were single, and 15% were divorced or separated. Victims involvement in criminal activities was largely unknown from the contents of case files (76%-unknown) (see Appendix E for table of victim characteristics). Victim-offender relationship Of note, is that victim and offender relationships were most often characterized as acquaintances, friends, or co-workers (35%). Nineteen percent of victims and offenders were related as family, 11% were current significant others or former significant others, and 13% were strangers or had just met the day/night of the offense. Appendix F provides complete details of victim-offender relationships. Measurement Tool Crime scene behaviors were coded with the Homicide and Rape Profiling Index (HPI- R, Salfati 2010). This coding dictionary was designed specifically for use with assault, homicide, serial homicide, and rape case files. It consists of 312 variables, which pertain to six general sections: case file contents, pre-crime behaviors, crime scene behaviors, post-crime behaviors, victim characteristics, and offender characteristics. Variables within each of these major divisions are further organized within 27 different subgroups. Variables are fully defined and most variables are coded dichotomously (present/absent) or categorically (e.g., type of victim-offender relationship), although there are some measurement variables (e.g., weight of offender; height of offender). The HPI-R also contains descriptor variables, where coders write detailed descriptions of variables and/or detail the

59 58 coding of variables. Inter-rater reliability assessments have been conducted and the HPI-R was established as a reliable measure of crime scene behaviors (Salfati & Osborne, 2011). Previous researchers have used this coding dictionary to study crime scene actions in single and serial homicide within the United States and internationally (e.g., Salfati, 2000; 2003; Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Salfati & Dupont, 2006). Behavioral Variables Study one Table 2 reports the 36 behavioral variables included in study one and their hypothesized thematic regions (expressive or instrumental). All of the variables included in study one were selected from prior studies of the expressive/instrumental model (see Table 2 for citations). Study two Table 1 reports the 37 lower-order goal actions included in study two. Schank and Abelson s (1977) theory was initially used to identify behavioral variables from study one, which represented lower-order goal actions. This resulted in the identification of 27 study one variables to be included in study two. Additionally, the study one variable forensic awareness was further refined into the actions forensic awareness-resource control and forensic awareness-avoidance. Forensic awareness-resource control represents actions taken by offenders to increase their control over resources (resource control), which could be used to identify them as perpetrators of the crime (e.g., taking possession of beer bottles, drinking glasses, and/or cigarettes from crime scenes). Forensic awareness-avoidance represents preparation or actions taken by offenders precrime to avoid leaving forensic evidence during the pursuit of another lower-order goal (e.g., bringing a condom, wearing gloves). With this variable refinement, study two included 28 of the 36 behavioral variables from study one. These 28 variables could be understood as either Delta-

60 59 goal actions taken by offenders to alter situations or as preparatory actions taken by offenders in preparation for a Delta-goal. Nine behavioral variables from study one did not represent lower-order goal actions taken by offenders and were therefore not included in study two (multiple wounds-distributed, multiple wounds, face wounds, head wounds, neck wounds, limb wounds, crime sexual, nude, and partially dressed). Six of these excluded variables were wounding location variables (e.g., face wounds, head wounds), which described locations on victims bodies where they sustained wounds as a result of offenders actions. The variables crime sexual, victims bodies being discovered nude, and victims bodies being discovered partially dressed were also excluded from study two. Crime sexual is descriptive in nature and used to indicate whether or not there was any indication of a sexual component to the crime. Nude and partially dressed were excluded from study two because victims state of dress prior to the crime could not be determined, and as a result these variables could not be attributed to offenders actions during the crime. Study two included nine additional variables, which reflected lower-goal actions that were not included in study one and many of which have not been examined in prior studies of the expressive/instrumental model. These nine actions included: threatening victims (social control), offender travels to the scene (proximity); victim travels to the scene (proximity); victim and offender travel together to the scene (proximity); lays in wait (proximity); stalked victim (knowledge); deception to gain confidence (preparation for proximity); dismemberment (preparation for proximity); and, deliberate positioning of victims body (preparation for proximity). Some of these additional variables were coded from offender statements, which were documented in reports contained within case files (e.g., offender statements to investigators, witness statements to investigators, courtroom transcripts, psychological evaluations). While the

61 60 reliability of offender statements can be questioned (e.g., Canter & Wentik, 2004; Schlesinger, 2004), in single-offender single-victim homicides there are circumstances in which information regarding offenders actions may only be ascertained from offenders because there are no other persons available to provide this information. As the first attempt to refine and add to the expressive/instrumental model in terms of the current theoretical framework, behaviors that were coded from offender statements were included due to study two s exploratory nature. Study One Analytic Strategy Establishing expressive and instrumental behavioral themes Study one behavioral variables were analyzed with SSA in correspondence with prior research (e.g., Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001). SSA is a nonmetric multidimensional scaling procedure (Borg & Groenen, 2010) that allows researchers to investigate the underlying meaning of variables by examining the associations between every variable with all other variables in a dataset. A Jaccard coefficient matrix was computed and used to measure the extent to which variables in study one co-occurred within the dataset. This matrix was submitted to a 3-dimensional SSA. SSA presented the rank order of coefficients visually as distances among points, which represent variables. Variables that co-occurred together (i.e., higher coefficient) were plotted closer together on the spatial field, while variables that did not occur together (i.e., lower coefficient) were plotted further away. The spatial plot allows researchers to observe patterns in the data and identify behavioral themes (Borg & Groenen, 2010; Canter & Youngs, 2009; Salfati, 2000). As a replication of the expressive/instrumental classification, the present study hypothesized that the regional groupings of behaviors on the spatial plot produced by SSA would resemble the plots in previous studies of the classification (e.g., Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati,

62 ). That is, previously established expressive behaviors were hypothesized to occur together on the SSA spatial plot, and previously established instrumental behaviors were hypothesized to occur together in a distinct region of the SSA spatial plot. Table 2 reports the hypothesized thematic region for each behavior included in study one. Consideration was also given to the coefficient of alienation, which provides an indication of how well the spatial representation fits the co-occurrences in the data matrix (Borg & Groenen, 2010; Canter & Youngs, 2009). Smaller coefficients of alienation indicate a better fit (i.e., a better correspondence between the rank order of Jaccard coefficients and the rank order of distances among variable points in SSA). Previous studies have suggested that coefficients of less than 0.2 represent a good fit for the type of data used in this study (Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Dupont, 2006). In accordance with previous studies (e.g., Salfati & Park, 2007), a measure of internal consistency was also conducted to assess the strength of the relationship between behaviors in each theme. KR-20 was used to provide an indication of how well behaviors within the expressive region of the SSA plot measured the same construct and how well behaviors within the instrumental region measured the same construct. KR-20 is a special case of Cronbach s alpha and it is appropriate for dichotomous data. Alpha values closer to 1.0 are considered good measures of reliability and measures greater than 0.7 are considered acceptable. Prior research using data similar to the current study have reported alpha values of approximately 0.5 (e.g., Salfati & Park, 2007). Classifying crime scenes Crime scenes in the dataset were classified into a dominant theme with the 1.5x criterion (Salfati & Bateman, 2005). Salfati and Bateman (2005) used this criterion when they established

63 62 expressive and instrumental themes in a U.S. serial homicide database and classified scenes into dominant offending styles. 13 During classification, the percent of expressive behaviors and the percent of instrumental behaviors were calculated for each crime scene. Scenes were classified as expressive if the percent of expressive behaviors was 1.5x greater than the percent of instrumental behaviors. Scenes were classified as instrumental if the percent of instrumental behaviors was 1.5x greater than the percent of expressive behaviors. Scenes were classified as hybrids if they did not meet the 1.5x criterion (i.e., the percent of expressive behaviors was not 1.5x greater than the percent of instrumental behaviors or vice versa). Examining individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes A frequency analysis was conducted to assess the frequency with which behavioral variables were present in expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. The percent of crime scenes, which contained only expressive behaviors, and the percent of crime scenes, which contained only instrumental behaviors, was determined. Cross tabulations was used to identify behaviors (present or absent) that were associated with classification categories (expressive, instrumental, or hybrid classification). Pearson chi-square was used when expected frequencies were greater than five. An extension of Fisher s exact, the Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, was used when at least one expected frequency was less than five (Freeman & Halton, 1951). When crosstabs produced significant associations between classification and behaviors, the adjusted 13 The 1.5x criterion differs from the 2x criterion used by prior single homicide studies of the expressive/instrumental model. The current study initially used the 2x criterion, but was not able to classify more than 50% of crime scenes. The 1.5x criterion was therefore considered appropriate because it enabled the majority of scenes to be classified in the dataset.

64 63 residuals for behaviors were further interpreted (Agresti, 2012). That is, when the adjusted residual for the presence of a behavior exceeded critical values (1.96 and 2.58) for a classification category (expressive, instrumental, or hybrid), then this was interpreted as indicative that the behavior was over-represented within that category and likely contributed to the significant finding. Study Two Analytic Strategy Establishing expressive and instrumental themes with lower-order goal actions In accordance with study one a 3-dimensional SSA was performed with study two lowerorder goal actions. Theory and prior research was used to hypothesize the regional groupings of actions (see Table 1) and to interpret the visual plot generated by SSA. Since study two advanced the theory behind the classification and included several actions, which have not been examined in relation to expressiveness or instrumentality, further elaboration regarding the regional groupings and interpretation is warranted. Dismemberment is the only additional action in study two that has been examined in a prior study of the expressive/instrumental model (Thijssen & De Ruiter, 2011). Prior research identified dismemberment as an instrumental action; therefore, the present study hypothesized that it would also be instrumental. Offender and victim travel to the scene, victim travels to the scene, and deliberate positioning of victims bodies were hypothesized to co-occur with expressive actions, as these actions may indicate a prior relationship between offenders and victims. Threatening victims, offender travels to the scene, lays in wait, stalked victims, and deception to gain confidence were hypothesized to co-occur with instrumental actions, as these actions may be associated with rape and offenders experiencing victims as a means for personal gain.

65 64 All of the actions included in study two were organized within Schank & Abelson s (1977) lower-order goal scheme. Twelve of the 37 actions denoted the Delta goal social control. These social control actions represented an attempted change in situations, so that offenders power/control over victims was to be increased while victims personal control was simultaneously decreased. Nine actions represented the Delta goal resource control. These actions denoted an attempted change in offenders control over valuable resources and a simultaneous decrease in victims control over resources. Six actions represented the Delta goal proximity and denoted a change in the distance between offenders /victims locations and crime scene locations or a change in crime scene locations and victims body discovery sites. One action represented the Delta goal knowledge or an increase in offenders knowledge regarding victims whereabouts or daily activities. Nine actions included in study two represented the lower-order goal preparation and were taken by offenders, so as to prepare for the attainment of a Delta goal. Understanding expressiveness and instrumentality in terms of lower-order goal actions further provides a basis for interpreting these interpersonal situations in terms of patterns of lower-order goals that effect change in situational features. These patterns were illustrated within the regional groupings of actions on the SSA plot. As Table 1 illustrates actions within the expressive region may represent social control, resource control, proximity, and preparation and actions within the instrumental region may represent social control, resource control, proximity, knowledge, and preparation. Classifying crime scenes Each crime scene in the dataset was subsequently be re-examined and re-classified in terms of lower-order goal actions using the same criterion as study one (i.e., the 1.5x criterion).

66 65 The distribution of expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes in the dataset was compared with the results of study one to determine whether there was an improvement in the model s classification ability. The percent of crime scenes, which contained only expressive behaviors, and the percent of crime scenes, which contained only instrumental behaviors, was determined. Underlying dimensions within lower-order goals Investigating underlying dimensions within lower-order goals can further our understanding of crime scene actions beyond expressiveness or instrumentality by identifying important psychological processes involved with generating actions. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) (Clausen, 1998) was used to identify underlying dimensions and theoretically meaningful groups of actions within lower-order goals. MCA is a descriptive technique that reveals patterns in datasets. MCA is similar to principal component analysis, but it is appropriate for use with nominal variables. MCA is also similar to SSA (Goodwill, et al., 2014), in that it provides a visual representation of the relationships among variables, so that variable conditions located close to one another on the plot produced by MCA are likely share an underlying meaning. However, unlike SSA, the geometric co-ordinates of variable conditions signify the strength of their importance along different dimensions, which are represented by x- and y-axes. MCA can therefore be used to identify theoretically meaningful groups of Delta goal actions and the geometric coordinates of Delta goal actions can be used to understand each actions importance to different underlying dimensions. A prior study of the expressive/instrumental model (Goodwill, et al., 2014) recommended two-dimensional MCA solutions for their ease of interpretation with behavioral variables. Other studies have similarly recommended two-dimensional solutions (e.g., Costa, Santos, Cunha,

67 66 Cotter, & Sousa, 2013). Therefore, the current study obtained two-dimensional solutions as well. MCA was conducted for each Delta goal (social control, resource control, and proximity) separately. An MCA for knowledge was not conducted, since knowledge was only characterized by one variable. Each MCA also included the preparatory actions for the Delta goal of interest. Alpha scores, eigenvalues, and total inertia (analogous to variance explained) were reported (Clausen, 1998; Goodwill, et al., 2014). Discrimination measures, which provide an indication of variables importance for each MCA dimension, were obtained and used to aid interpretations of MCA maps. Action profiles within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes Two-step cluster analysis was used to group expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes based on their similarity in lower-order goal actions (Norusis, 2010). Two-step CA has been used in conjunction with MCA to examine behavioral patterns in homicide and it is appropriate for use with categorical variables (Goodwill et al., 2014). To ensure that the order with which cases were organized within the dataset did not influence cluster formation, cases were assigned a random number and sorted accordingly prior to running CA. Subsequently, a cluster analysis was performed for each lower-order goal (social control, resource control, and proximity) within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes. Consideration was given to each cluster s silhouette measure of cohesion and separation, which identifies the overall cluster quality, and to predictor importance scores, which indicate the ability of variables to discriminate between cases on the basis of clusters (Norusis, 2010; Goodwill et al., 2014). These predictor importance scores were considered during the interpretation of results. For these analyses, the actions that characterized each cluster were

68 67 interpreted with respect to subtype (expressive or instrumental) and with respect to underlying dimension identified with MCA. Chapter V. Results Study One Results Aim 1: Establishing expressive and instrumental themes Expressive and instrumental themes were confirmed in a U.S. single homicide dataset with SSA. Figure 3 presents a 3 dimensional SSA representing the co-occurrences of crime scene behaviors within the dataset. For this analysis, the coefficient of alienation was 0.13, which is similar to those reported in other studies (e.g., Salfati, 2000). The figure indicates that behaviors that co-occurred in the left region of the SSA plot can be understood as expressive in nature and behaviors that co-occurred in the right region of the plot can be understood as instrumental. Note that two behaviors (multiple wounds distributed and multiple wounds) occurred in over 60% of crime scenes and in accordance with prior research these behaviors were not designated to either expressive or instrumental regions (e.g., Salfati, 2000). To ease interpretation of the figure, Table 3 lists the behaviors within each region of the SSA plot. Expressive behaviors Twelve behaviors co-occurred within the expressive region of the SSA plot. Together, behaviors within the expressive region suggested offenders interacted with victims in a manner that centered on the victim as a person. Victims sustained wounds to the face, an area of the body that is considered personal and associated with identity, as well as to the head and limbs. Injuries sustained by victims occurred through wounding methods that have been considered more violent in nature (stab, blunt instrument). Salfati (2000) has suggested that the presence of these

69 68 behaviors within expressive regions might indicate that these scenes involve an extreme and emotional physical attack. The expressive region also contained wounding methods that may be considered less violent in nature (shot, drown, suffocation, drug/poison). Shooting victims may be a direct method of killing, while suffocation and drowning may be associated with homicides that involve vulnerable victims (elderly and children) (Salfati, 2000), and drug/poisoning has been discussed an indirect method of wounding often in relation to female offenders (Hickey, 2006). The locations of the expressive violent and less violent methods of wounding on the SSA plot warrant further consideration. The less violent expressive methods (drown, suffocation, drug/poison) co-occurred together, but separately from the more violent expressive wounding methods (stab, blunt instrument). Additionally, shot appeared to be distinctly positioned within the expressive region. The expressive region also involved offenders brining a weapon to the scene, which Salfati (2000) has indicated may suggest offenders come prepared for a violent altercation with victims. Arson to the scene further supports the notion that perpetrators may be linked to either victims or scenes, as this behavior may be taken so as to destroy evidence that can be used to link perpetrators with the crime. Taken together, behaviors within the expressive region supported the idea that offenders interactions with victims during homicide reflected the importance of victims as a person. Instrumental behaviors Twenty-three behaviors co-occurred within the instrumental region of the SSA plot. In accordance with prior studies, behaviors within the instrumental region centered on offenders personal gain (i.e., money and/or sex), rather than victims as people. Within the instrumental

70 69 region were theft-related behaviors, such as property of value (e.g., money, electronics), property identifiable as belonging to victims (e.g., photographs, clothing, IDs), and property non-valuable non-identifiable (e.g., cigarettes) being taken from the scene. Additionally, the instrumental region contained sex-related behaviors, such as vaginal penetration, anal penetration, oral sex by offender, and foreign object insertion. The instrumental region also contained methods of wounding that have been discussed as more impulsive and violent (manual and strangulation). Considering these methods alongside weapon from the scene suggests a lethal assault may have arisen impulsively during the course of the offense. Within the instrumental region were a number of control behaviors (bind, blindfold, gag) that are most often discussed in relation to sexual violence. These behaviors may be used to control victims ante-mortem, so as to facilitate a sexual assault. There were also postmortem behaviors within the instrumental region that have been discussed in relation to avoiding detection and psychological distancing, such as body transported, body hidden, body covered, and face covered (Salfati, 2000; 2003). Hiding the victim s body out of view (e.g., within a basement or closet or behind brush) and transporting the victims body away from the scene (e.g., to a wooded area) may be behaviors offenders engage in to delay detection or distance themselves from the crime or scene. Forensic awareness (avoidance and removal) involves behaviors taken to avoid leaving forensic evidence (e.g., wearing gloves) or behaviors taken to remove forensic evidence that may be linked to the offender (e.g., removing a condom from the scene). Covering victims bodies and covering victims face (e.g., with clothing, objects, or debris) have been discussed in relation to shame, as ways offenders attempt to psychologically distance themselves from behaviors that are contrary to their personal narratives, as perhaps burglars (but not rapists) or as rapists (but not murderers) (Salfati, 2000; 2003). Together,

71 70 behaviors within the instrumental region support the idea that offenders interactions with victims during homicide reflect the importance of offenders ulterior motives, which may center on money sex. Reliability analysis A reliability analysis was conducted as a measure of internal consistency. The alpha value for expressive behaviors was 0.28 and the alpha value for instrumental behaviors was Although the alpha value for instrumental behaviors reached an acceptable level, the alpha value for expressive behaviors was low and this could indicate poor inter-relatedness or heterogeneous constructs. Examining the inter-item correlation matrix (see Appendix G) provided a way to identify expressive behaviors, which have a high correlation with other expressive behaviors as well as those expressive behaviors with a weak or negative correlation. The inter-item correlation matrix indicated that the expressive behaviors limb wounds, face wounds, head wounds, stab, and blunt instrument were positively correlated with one another and the alpha value for these behaviors alone was 0.56, which is comparable to the alpha values reported in other studies of the expressive/instrumental model. The inter-item correlation matrix indicated that the expressive behaviors shot, weapon to the scene, suffocation, drug/poisoned, arson, and drowning were negatively correlated with the aforementioned expressive behaviors. The item-total statistics further suggested that removing the behaviors shot, weapon to the scene, suffocation, drug/poisoned, arson, and drowning from the analysis would increase the alpha value.

72 71 Aim 2: Classifying crime scenes Crime scenes were classified as expressive, instrumental, and hybrid (see Table 4). With the 1.5x criterion, 48% of scenes were classified as expressive and 21% of scenes were classified as instrumental. Thus, the model accounted for 69% of crime scenes in the dataset. Prior studies have made a distinction between hybrid crime scenes and unclassifiable crime scenes (Salfati, 2000). Hybrids contained the same proportions of expressive and instrumental behaviors. Unclassifiable scenes do not meet the classification criterion, but also do not contain equal proportions of expressive and instrumental behaviors. In the current study the proportion of expressive behaviors was equal to the proportion of instrumental behaviors in only 11% of crime scenes. These crime scenes support the idea that expressiveness and instrumentality is equally represented within some scenes. However, 20% of crime scenes in the study one did not display equal proportions of expressive and instrumental behaviors. It is possible that these unclassifiable scenes contain important behavioral characteristics that make them similar or different from crime scenes in other classification categories. The present study therefore classified these scenes as hybrid, which increased the total percent of hybrid scenes to 31% and this is comparable to prior studies (e.g., Salfati, 2000). However, even within classified crime scenes most offenders engaged in both expressive and instrumental behaviors. In 88% of expressive crime scenes (n=101) offenders engaged in primarily expressive behaviors, but engaged in instrumental behaviors as well. Similarly, in 73% of instrumental crime scenes (n=44) offenders engaged in primarily instrumental behaviors, but also engaged in some expressive behaviors. Only 12% (12 scenes) of the 101 expressive scenes involved offenders who engaged in only expressive behaviors and 27% (12 scenes) of the 44 instrumental scenes involved only instrumental behaviors.

73 72 With individual crime scenes classified, further attention was directed towards identifying the individual expressive and instrumental behaviors that occur within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes. Aim 3: Individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes The individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crimes scenes were further investigated through frequency analyses and cross tabulations (see Table 5). Supplemental information is provided through cross tabulations in Appendix H. Expressive behaviors within expressive and instrumental crime scenes Only expressive behaviors (limb wounds, face wounds, head wounds, bringing a weapon to the scene, and shooting victims) were over-represented within the expressive classification category. The expressive behaviors limb, face, and head wounds disproportionately occurred within expressive crime scenes (> 60% of expressive scenes): wounds to the limbs (X 2 = 25.53, p <.001), face (X 2 = 16.12, p <.001), and head (X 2 = 44.12, p <.001). Furthermore, these behaviors were not over-represented within any other classification category (instrumental or hybrid). Limb and face wounds did however commonly occur within instrumental crime scenes (~30% of instrumental scenes). Thus, it was not uncommon for offenders to inflict wounds to victims limbs and/or face when they interacted with victims who were a means for personal gain. Head wounds, on the other hand, occurred within few instrumental scenes (7% of scenes). The expressive behaviors of weapon to the scene, shot, blunt instrument, and stab occurred in 30-50% of expressive crime scenes. Weapon to the scene (X 2 = 25.53, p <.001) and shot (X 2 = 30.28, p <.001) were only over-represented within expressive crime scenes and these

74 73 behaviors also occurred within few instrumental scenes (weapon to scene-11% of instrumental scenes and shot-2% of instrumental scenes). Blunt instrument (X 2 = 7.87, p <.05) and stab (X 2 = 5.55, p =.062) however were not over-represented within expressive scenes. It was also fairly common for blunt instrument and stab to be present within instrumental scenes (~20% of instrumental scenes). Arson, suffocation, drowning, and drug/poison did not commonly occur within expressive crime scenes (< 10% of expressive scenes) and these behaviors were not overrepresented within the expressive classification category: arson (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.472), suffocation (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.058), drowning (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.447), and drug/poison (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.152). Furthermore, while arson and drowning were not present in any instrumental crime scenes, suffocation and drug/poison were more likely to be present within instrumental scenes (suffocation-9% of instrumental scenes and drug/poison-2% of instrumental scenes) than expressive scenes (suffocation-2% of expressive scenes and drug/poison-0% of expressive scenes). In summary, wounds to the limbs, wounds to the face, wounds to the head, bringing a weapon to the scene, and shooting victims were over-represented within expressive crime scenes. These behaviors were furthermore not over-represented within any other classification category (instrumental or hybrid). However, wounds to the limbs and wounds to the face did commonly occur within instrumental scenes. Only bringing a weapon the scene, shooting victims, and head wounds were over-represented within expressive scenes and unlikely to occur within instrumental crime scenes.

75 74 Instrumental behaviors within instrumental and expressive crime scenes Only instrumental behaviors (neck wounds, crime sexual, strangulation, vaginal penetration, body covered, nude, anal penetration, bound, body hidden, gag, foreign object insertion, and property non-identifiable/non-valuable stolen) were over-represented within the instrumental classification category. The instrumental behaviors strangulation, neck wounds, and the crime being sexual occurred in the majority of instrumental crime scenes (over 60% of instrumental scenes) suggesting that offenders were very likely to engage in these behaviors when they interacted with victims who were a means for personal gain. Strangulation (X 2 = 70.67, p <.001), neck wounds (X 2 = 16.11, p <.001), and crime sexual (X 2 = 63.77, p <.001) disproportionately occurred within instrumental scenes and strangulation and neck wounds were not over-represented within any other classification category. Neck wounds however were present in almost half (44%) of expressive scenes and the crime containing a sexual component occurred in 15% of expressive crime scenes. Only strangulation was over-represented within instrumental scenes and unlikely to occur within expressive scenes (9% of expressive scenes). Vaginal penetration, weapon from scene, partially dressed, manual assault, forensic awareness, property of value stolen, body covered, nude, bound, and anal penetration were commonly (~30-50%) present within instrumental scenes. Vaginal penetration (X 2 = 43.29, p <.001), body covered (X 2 = 19.54, p <.001), nude (X 2 = 13.68, p =.001), bound (X 2 = 17.18, p <.001), and anal penetration (X 2 = 25.13, p <.001) were over-represented within instrumental scenes. Nude and bound were furthermore only over-represented within the instrumental classification category and these behaviors were uncommon within expressive scenes (less than 10% of expressive scenes). Weapon from the scene (X 2 = 4.25, p =.120), manual assault (X 2 =

76 , p <.001), partially dressed (X 2 = 17.60, p <.001), forensic awareness (X 2 = 15.57, p <.001), and property of value stolen (X 2 = 12.71, p <.05) were not over-represented within instrumental scenes and these behaviors were commonly present within expressive crime scenes (weapon from the scene and forensic awareness were present in about 35% of expressive scenes and manual assault, property of value stolen, and partially dressed were present in about 20% of expressive scenes). Less common within instrumental scenes were the instrumental behaviors body hidden, rips/cuts clothing, transport body, gag, foreign object insertion, face covered, property identifiable stolen, blindfold, property non-identifiable/non-valuable stolen, and oral sex by the offender (< 20% of instrumental crime scenes). These behaviors were also less common within expressive crime scenes. That is, body hidden, rips/cuts clothing, transport body, face covered, property identifiable stolen occurred within few (~ 5%) expressive scenes and gag, foreign object insertion, blindfold, property non-identifiable/non-valuable stolen, and oral sex did not occur within any expressive crime scenes. Body hidden (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p <.01), gag (X 2 = 12.78, p <.01), foreign object insertion (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p <.01), and property nonidentifiable/non-valuable stolen (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p <.05) disproportionately occurred within the instrumental classification category only. However, transport body (Fisher-Freeman- Halton, p =.073), face covered (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.723), property identifiable stolen (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.124), blindfold (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.077), and oral sex (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, p =.266) were not over-represented within instrumental scenes. In summary, neck wounds, crime sexual, strangulation, vaginal penetration, body covered, nude, anal penetration, bound, body hidden, gag, foreign object insertion, and property non-identifiable/non-valuable stolen were over-represented within instrumental crime scenes.

77 76 Several of these behaviors (neck wounds, strangulation, nude, bound, body hidden, gag, foreign object insertion, and property non-identifiable/non-valuable stolen) were also not overrepresented within any other classification category. However, only strangulation, vaginal penetration, body covered, nude, anal penetration, bound, and body hidden were relatively uncommon within expressive crime scenes. Expressive and instrumental behaviors within hybrid crime scenes Only instrumental behaviors (crime sexual, forensic awareness, manual assault, vaginal penetration, partially dressed, property of value stolen, body covered, and anal penetration) were over-represented within the hybrid category. The majority of hybrid scenes (>50%) involved the expressive behaviors limb wounds, face wounds, and head wounds and the instrumental behaviors of crime sexual, neck wounds, forensic awareness, and weapon from the scene. The crime being sexual (X 2 = 63.77, p <.001) and forensic awareness (X 2 = 15.57, p <.001) disproportionately occurred within hybrid crime scenes. Forensic awareness was furthermore not over-represented within any other classification category. Thirty to fifty percent of hybrid scenes involved the expressive wounding methods of stab and blunt instrument. The instrumental wounding methods of manual assault and strangulation as well as vaginal penetration, partially dressed, property of value stolen, and body covered also occurred in 30-50% of hybrid scenes. Manual assault (X 2 = 14.31, p <.001), vaginal penetration (X 2 = 43.29, p <.001), partially dressed (X 2 = 17.60, p <.001), property of value (X 2 = 12.71, p <.05), and body covered (X 2 = 19.54, p <.001) disproportionately occurred within the hybrid classification category. Manual, partially dressed, and property of value stolen were furthermore only over-represented within hybrid scenes.

78 77 Ten to thirty percent of hybrid scenes involved the expressive behaviors of weapon to the scene and victim shot as well as the instrumental behaviors nude, bound, anal penetration, body hidden, body transported, rips/cuts clothing, and property identifiable stolen. However, only anal penetration (X 2 = 25.13, p <.001) was over-represented within the hybrid category. Less than ten percent of hybrid scenes involved the expressive behaviors suffocation, drown, and arson to the scene as well as the instrumental behaviors gag, foreign object insertion, face covered, blindfold, and oral sex. However, none of the aforementioned behaviors were over-represented within the hybrid category. In summary, although hybrid crime scenes commonly (>50%) involved the expressive wounding locations of limb wounds, face wounds, and head wounds as well as the expressive wounding methods of stab and blunt instrument (30-50%), only instrumental behaviors (crime sexual, forensic awareness, manual assault, vaginal penetration, partially dressed, property of value stolen, body covered, and anal penetration) were over-represented within hybrid scenes. Forensic awareness, partially dressed, manual assault, and property of value stolen were furthermore not over-represented within any other classification category (expressive or instrumental). A summary of study one results Study one replicated expressiveness and instrumentality within a U.S. single homicide dataset, thereby adding to existing support for the model. The low internal consistency for expressive behaviors found in study one is a concern and warrants further consideration. Although the majority of crime scenes could be classified as expressive or instrumental, most scenes involved both expressive and instrumental behaviors. An evaluation of the individual behaviors within scenes indicated that wounding location variables were commonly present

79 78 across all classification categories. Additionally, only instrumental behaviors were overrepresented within the hybrid category. Study Two Results Aim 1: Establishing expressive and instrumental themes with lower-order goal actions Lower-order goal actions were used to re-establish expressive and instrumental themes with SSA. The findings in this section support the conclusions of prior studies, which have emphasized that the nature of the relationship between individuals involved in lethal transactions is important, and are reflected within offenders crime scene actions. SSA further indicated that these interpersonal situations are comprised of patterns of lower order goals that alter situational features in homicide. Figure 4 presents a 3 dimensional SSA representing the co-occurrences of lower-order goal actions within the data set. For this analysis, the coefficient of alienation was 0.14, which is similar to those reported in other studies (e.g., Salfati, 2000) and that of study one. All of the actions included in study two occurred within fewer than fifty percent of crime scenes in the dataset; as a result, all of the actions were considered during conceptualization. As can be seen in Figure 4, behaviors that co-occurred in the right region of the SSA plot can be understood as expressive in nature and behaviors that co-occurred in the left region of the plot can be understood as instrumental. In accordance with prior research and the results of study one, actions within the expressive region suggest that victims as people were important to offenders. Actions within the instrumental region centered on offenders personal gain. For ease of interpretation, Table 6 lists the actions within each region.

80 79 Study two omitted a number of the original expressive/instrumental behaviors and added additional lower-order goal actions to SSA. In Figure 4, markers with white centers denote variables added to SSA. The configuration of the SSA plot in study two differed slightly from the plot in study one, as a result of re-conceptualizing expressiveness and instrumentality in terms of lower-order goal actions. That is, several expressive lower-order goal actions in study two were instrumental behaviors in study one (body covered, transport body, body hidden). Several actions (stab, blunt instrument, and weapon to the scene) were also instrumental actions in study two, but were expressive behaviors in study one. The regional placement of these variables across studies was impacted by differences in variable inclusion (i.e., the addition of lower-order goal actions) and exclusion (i.e., the exclusion of wounding location variables) across studies. For example, in study one blunt instrument and stab were associated with many of the expressive wounding location variables and these associations impacted their placement within the expressive region. When wounding location variables were excluded in study two, blunt instrument and stab were more associated with instrumental actions and these associations impacted their regional placement in study two. Despite some differences, an important finding in the current study is that expressive and instrumental themes were confirmed even when the original UK behaviors were refined and additional actions were added into the SSA. This finding supports the conclusions of prior studies, which have emphasized that the nature of the relationship between individuals involved in lethal transactions is important, and are reflected within offenders crime scene actions. However, the theoretical advancement in study two allows us to conceptualize expressiveness and instrumentality as psychologically salient interpersonal situations, which are comprised of interacting patterns of lower-order goals that may be used to alter situational features during

81 80 homicide. That is, the expressive regions contained actions that represented: social control, proximity, and preparation. The instrumental region contained actions that represented: social control, resource control, proximity, knowledge, and preparation. Expressive lower-order goals and actions Ten actions co-occurred within the expressive region of the SSA plot. Together, actions within the expressive region suggested offenders interacted with victims in a manner that centered on the victim as a person. But, these actions can also be understood as representing the lower-order goals social control, proximity, and preparation. Within the expressive region were social control actions, which may increase offenders control over victims, while simultaneously decreasing victims personal control (shot, suffocation, drown, and drug/poison). The co-occurrence of these behaviors within the expressive region of study two coincides with prior research and the results of study one. The expressive region also contained several proximity actions, which denoted a change in the distance between offenders and victims and/or crime scenes (i.e., offenders travel with victims to the scene) and a change in the distance between victims bodies and crime scenes (body transported and body hidden). The co-occurrence of body transported and body hidden within the expressive region of study two differs from findings in study one, but does coincide with the original UK study (Salfati, 2000) and prior replications (e.g., body hidden was expressive in Salfati and Haratsis (2001) and Salfati and Park (2007), and body transported was expressive in Salfati and Haratsis (2001)). The preparatory actions arson, body covered, and dismemberment also co-occurred within the expressive region. These behaviors were conceptualized as preparatory actions necessary for the proximity. The co-occurrence of arson to the scene within the expressive region

82 81 coincides with the results of study one. The co-occurrence of body covered within the expressive region differed from study one, but this finding is in accordance with a prior replication of the expressive/instrumental model in Greek homicides (Salfati & Haratsis, 2001). Dismemberment was identified as instrumental in a prior study (Thijssen & De Ruiter, 2011), but it co-occurred with expressive behaviors here. Within the context of the expressive theme dismemberment may be understood as aiding offenders in covering up crimes that can be tied to them, so that victims bodies can be hidden or transported. Instrumental lower-order goals and actions Twenty-seven actions co-occurred within the instrumental region of the SSA plot. Together, actions within the instrumental region suggested offenders interacted with victims in a manner that centered on offenders personal gain. But, these actions can also be understood as representing the lower-order goals social control, resource control, proximity, knowledge, and preparation. The instrumental region involved social control actions, which may increase offenders control over victims, while simultaneously decreasing victims personal control (stab, strangulation, manual assault, blunt instrument, bind, gag, blindfold, and threaten). The cooccurrence of strangulation, manual assault, bind, gag, and blindfold within the instrumental region is in accordance with study one and the original U.K. study. However, the co-occurrence of stab and bunt instrument within the instrumental region differs from study one and prior research. Only one other study in Korean homicides (Salfati & Park, 2007) has found blunt instrument to co-occur within the instrumental region of an SSA plot. The instrumental region also contained a number of resource control actions, which may increase offenders control over valuable resources, while simultaneously decreasing victims

83 82 control over these resources (property value stolen, property identifiable stolen, property nonidentifiable/non-valuable stolen, weapon from the scene, forensic awareness resource control, vaginal penetration, anal penetration, foreign object insertion, and oral sex by offenders). Similar to study one and prior research, many of these actions are theft-related and sex-related. The cooccurrence of these actions within the instrumental region is in accordance with study one and supports the idea that some offenders understand and use victims as means for personal gain. Proximity actions, which altered the distance between offenders and the crime scene (offender travels to scene); altered the distance between victims and the crime scene (victim travels to scene); or altered the distance between offenders and victims (offender lays in wait), also co-occurred within the instrumental region. The instrumental region also contained an action that represented the Delta goal knowledge, which may increase offenders knowledge of victims location or daily activities (stalk). Finally, the instrumental region included a number of preparatory actions, which were conceptualized as preparatory for social control (weapon to), resource control (rips/cuts clothing, forensic awareness avoidance), and proximity (deception/confidence, face covered, deliberate positioning). The establishment of expressive and instrumental themes with lower-order goal actions supports the conclusions of prior studies, which have emphasized that the nature of the relationship between offenders and victims is important, and are reflected within offenders crime scene actions. Conceptualizing expressiveness and instrumentality as psychologically salient interpersonal situations further indicated that these themes are comprised of patterns of lower-order goals that may be used to alter situational features during homicide. When victims are themselves personally meaningful, then offenders may employ: social control to increase their control over victims; proximity to alter the distance between themselves and victims and the

84 83 crime scene and/or to alter the distance between the crime scene and victims body discovery site; and, preparatory actions for proximity. When victims are a means for personal gain, then offenders may employ: social control to increase their control over victims; resource control to increase their control over valuable resources; proximity to alter the distance between themselves and crime scenes, victims and crime scenes, and to alter the distance between offenders and victims; knowledge to increase their knowledge of victims; and, preparatory actions for social control, resource control, and proximity. Aim 2: Classifying crime scenes with lower-order goal actions Crime scenes were classified with the 1.5x criterion, which is the same criterion utilized in study one. With this classification strategy (see Table 7), 84% of crime scenes in the dataset were classified as expressive or instrumental. Twenty-seven percent of scenes were expressive in nature and 57% of scenes were instrumental. Sixteen percent of crime scenes in study two were classified as hybrid. In study one it was more common for crime scenes to be classified as expressive, but in study two scenes were predominantly instrumental. Twenty-nine of the study one expressive scenes (n=101) remained expressive in study two. Fifty-four of the study one expressive scenes however were classified as instrumental in study two and 18 of the expressive scenes in study one were hybrid in study two. It therefore seems that refining actions included in SSA impacted the expressive classification, so that about half (~53%) of the expressive scenes in study one became instrumental in study two. Twenty-seven of the study one instrumental scenes (n=44) remained instrumental in study two. Nine of the study one instrumental scenes however were classified as expressive in study two and 8 of the study one instrumental scenes were hybrid in study two. Thus, it appears

85 84 that even with the refinement of actions included in SSA, the majority (~61%) of instrumental scenes in study one remained instrumental in study two. Seventeen of the study one hybrid scenes (n=64) were classified as expressive in study two, 40 of the study one hybrid scenes were classified as instrumental in study two, and 7 of the hybrid scenes in study one remained hybrid in study two. Therefore, about 63% of study one hybrid scenes were re-classified as instrumental in study two. The percent of classified crime scenes characterized by only expressive or only instrumental actions was obtained. Four percent of study two expressive crime scenes (n=56) involved only expressive crime scene actions. This is in comparison with study one, whereby 12% of the 101 study one expressive crime scenes were comprised of only expressive behaviors. Fifty-eight percent of instrumental crime scenes (n=121) in study two involved only instrumental crime scene actions. This is in comparison with study one, whereas 27% of the 44 instrumental scenes involved only instrumental behaviors. It seems therefore that not only are more crime scenes classified as instrumental in study two, but study two also involves more instrumental crime scenes that involve only instrumental actions. Conceptualizing expressive and instrumental crime scene actions in terms of lower-order goals in study two therefore increased the percent of classifiable cases by 15% in comparison with study one. Additionally, in study two the majority of scenes were classified as instrumental and almost 60% of instrumental scenes displayed only instrumental actions.

86 85 Aim 3: Underlying dimension within lower-order goals and action profiles within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes Underlying dimensions and theoretically meaningful groups of actions within lowerorder goals were investigated with MCA. Lower-order goal action profiles for expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes were subsequently established with two-step cluster analysis. Social control Underlying dimensions within social control were established with MCA and the intersecting dimensions of the MCA correspondence map divided expressive and instrumental social control and preparatory actions into theoretically meaningful groups of actions. Following MCA, the expression of social control and preparatory actions within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying meaning of actions, which characterized scenes within profiles. Further details regarding the results of MCA and CA for social control actions are presented in the sections below. MCA Figure 5 shows a joint plot of category points from a two dimensional MCA solution for social control actions. On the joint plot, red markers denote variable conditions for expressive social control actions and blue markers indicate variable conditions for instrumental social control actions. Dimensions one and two produced alpha values of 0.78 and 0.68, with eigenvalues of 3.54 and 2.71 and inertia 0.27 and For the overall model, the total inertia (analogous to variance explained) was 48%. Note that Appendix I reports the discrimination measures for MCA.

87 86 Dimension one of the MCA map corresponded to an impulsive-control dimension of social control actions with more impulsive and also more violent actions (e.g., blunt instrument, strangulation) located in the upper region of the plot and more controlled and less violent actions (e.g., suffocation, gag) in the lower region of the plot. A variable s co-ordinate along the y-axis indicates its position along the continuum. So, although bind and suffocation were more controlled (i.e., both have negative coordinates along y-axis), bind (y= ) was closer to the origin and could be understood as more impulsive than suffocation (y= ). For dimension one, the most discriminant variables were gag (0.448), suffocation (0.388), and bind (0.334) (see table 19). Following these variables in hierarchical order was: blunt instrument (0.287), threat (0.231), manual (0.218), shot (0.159), drug/poison (0.153), strangulation (0.070), stab (0.069), weapon to the scene (0.025), and drown (0.010). Conceptually, dimension two of the MCA map corresponded to a contact-no contact dimension of social control actions. Actions that did not involve physical contact (e.g., shot and threaten) between offenders and victims were plotted on left hand side of the map and actions that involved close physical contact (e.g., bind, suffocation) were located on the right hand side. A variable s geometric coordinate along the x-axis indicates how far along the dimensional continuum it exists. Thus, although suffocation and drowning both involved physical contact between offenders and victims (i.e., both have positive coordinates along the x-axis), suffocation (x= 2.58) involved more physical contact than drug/poison (x= 1.312). For dimension two, the most discriminant variables were strangulation (0.753), manual (0.579), and shot (0.528) (see tables 19). Following these variables in hierarchical order was: suffocation (0.399), gag (0.383), bind (0.301), blunt instrument (0.170), blindfold (0.135), weapon to scene (0.120), stab (0.094), threat (0.056), drown (0.010), and drug/poison (0.009).

88 87 The intersecting dimensions divided the MCA correspondence map for expressive and instrumental social control actions into four regions: an impulsive and contact region (upper right region), an impulsive and no contact region (upper left region), a controlled and no contact region (lower left region), and a controlled and contact region (lower right region). Furthermore, expressive and instrumental actions were plotted together within each region of the MCA map suggesting that certain expressive and instrumental social control and preparatory actions may be similar in terms of the CA units involved in their generation. The expression of social control and preparatory actions within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes was further investigated by creating action profiles for each type of scene. CA: Expressive crime scenes The expression of social control and preparatory actions within expressive crime scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimensions (no-contact-contact or impulsivecontrol), which characterized scenes within profiles. Cluster analysis produced a five-cluster solution for expressive crime scenes (n=56) with a good overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.6). The results of the cluster analysis are shown in Table 8. The instrumental social control action blunt instrument perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The expressive social control action shot also had a high predictor importance score (0.91). Following these social control actions were: the instrumental action strangulation (0.88), the instrumental action stab (0.85), the instrumental action weapon to (0.75), and the instrumental action manual (0.20). The instrumental action threat (0.09), the expressive action suffocation

89 88 (0.08), the expressive action drown (0.08), and the instrumental action bind (0.02) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Cluster one accounted for 29% of expressive crime scenes. Almost all of the crime scenes within cluster one involved the expressive social control action shot with few scenes involving any other social control actions (expressive or instrumental). Conceptually, crime scene actions within cluster one corresponded with the no-contact and controlled region of the MCA correspondence map (the left region). That is, expressive crime scenes within cluster one were characterized by an expressive action that increased offenders control over victims in a way that was controlled and non-physical. Cluster two accounted for 23% of expressive crime scenes. All of the scenes within cluster two involved the expressive social control action shot and the instrumental preparatory action weapon to. Conceptually, crime scene actions within cluster two also corresponded with the no-contact and controlled region of the MCA correspondence map (the left region). That is similar to cluster one, the expressive crime scenes within cluster two were characterized by an expressive action that increased offenders control over victims in a way that was controlled and did not involve physical contact with victims. But, these scenes were also characterized by an instrumental preparatory action for social control, weapon to the scene. The third, fourth, and fifth clusters accounted for 20%, 14%, and 14% of expressive crime scenes, respectably. Crime scenes within these clusters were characterized by instrumental social control actions that were physical, impulsive and violent in nature. All of the scenes within cluster three involved the instrumental action blunt instrument and about half of the scenes also involved the instrumental action manual. Few scenes involved any other social control actions. All of the scenes within cluster four involved the instrumental action stab. Cluster five

90 89 involved scenes that were all characterized by the instrumental action strangulation and few scenes involved any other social control actions. Conceptually, crime scene actions within clusters three, four, and five differed from those, which characterized scenes in clusters one and two. That is, crime scene actions within these clusters corresponded with the contact and impulsive region of the MCA correspondence map (the right upper region). These are expressive crime scenes that were characterized by instrumental actions, which increased offenders control over victims in ways that were impulsive, violent, and required close physical contact with victims. Table 9 presents an interpretation of the social control action profiles for expressive crime scenes. In other words, Table 9 is a substantive interpretation of the information in Table 8, and provides a straightforward summary of the results of the CA. In summary, the CA indicated that when offenders attempt to increase their control over victims at expressive crime scenes, they employed actions that represent three different patterns: (1) through expressive social control actions that are controlled and non-physical in nature, (2) through an expressive social control action that is controlled and non-physical in nature and through an instrumental preparatory action that is controlled and non-physical in nature, and (3) through instrumental social control actions that are physical, violent, and impulsive in nature. CA: Instrumental crime scenes The expression of social control and preparatory actions within instrumental crime scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimensions (no-contact-contact or impulsivecontrol), which characterized scenes within profiles.

91 90 Cluster analysis produced a six-cluster solution for instrumental crime scenes (n=121) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.4). The results of the cluster analysis for instrumental scenes are presented in Table 10. The instrumental social control action manual perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The instrumental social control action gag also had a high predictor importance score (0.78). Following these social control actions were: the instrumental action stab (0.68), the instrumental action bind (0.60), the instrumental action strangulation (0.52), the instrumental action blunt instrument (0.49), and the instrumental action blindfold (0.43). The expressive action drug/poison (0.11), the expressive action suffocation (0.09), instrumental action weapon to (0.08), the expressive action shot (0.07), and the instrumental action threat (0.03), and the expressive action drown (0.01) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Clusters one, two, three, and four accounted for 81% of instrumental crime scenes. Crime scenes within these clusters were predominantly characterized by instrumental social control actions that were physical, impulsive and violent in nature. Almost all of the scenes within cluster one involved the instrumental action blunt instrument and about half of the scenes also involved the instrumental action stab. Few scenes involved any other social control actions. Scenes within cluster two were all characterized by the instrumental action manual and just over half of these scenes also involved the instrumental action blunt instrument. Few scenes involved any other social control actions. All of the scenes within cluster three involved the instrumental action stab. Scenes within cluster four were all characterized by the instrumental action manual and the instrumental action stab. Many of these scenes also involved the instrumental action blunt instrument. Conceptually, instrumental social control actions within

92 91 crime scenes in clusters one through four corresponded to the contact and impulsive region of the MCA correspondence map (right upper region). Clusters five and six accounted for 15% and 6% of instrumental scenes. Two types of social control actions primarily characterized scenes within these clusters: contact-impulsive and contact-controlled actions. Scenes within cluster five were characterized by the instrumental action strangulation and about half of cluster five scenes involved the instrumental action bind. Scenes within cluster six were primarily characterized by instrumental actions gag and bind and about half of these scenes also involved the instrumental actions blindfold and manual. Conceptually, instrumental social control actions within crime scenes in these clusters corresponded to the contact and impulsive (the upper right region) and the contact and controlled (the lower right region) regions of the MCA correspondence map. Table 11 provides a straightforward interpretation of social control action profiles for instrumental crime scenes. In summary, CA indicated that when offenders attempt to increase their control over victims at instrumental crime scenes, they employed actions that represent two different patterns: (1) through instrumental social control actions that are physical and impulsive in nature, and (2) through instrumental social control actions that are physical and impulsive in nature and physical and controlled in nature. CA: Hybrid crime scenes The expression of social control and preparatory actions within hybrid crime scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimension (no-contact-contact or impulsive-control), which characterized scenes within profiles.

93 92 Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution for hybrid crime scenes (n=33) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.4). The results of the cluster analysis for hybrid scenes are presented in Table 12. The expressive social control action shot perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The instrumental social control action blunt instrument also had a high predictor importance score (0.77). Following these social control actions were: the instrumental action strangulation (0.66), the expressive action suffocation (0.37), the instrumental action stab (0.31), the instrumental action manual (0.31), the instrumental action bind (0.30), the instrumental action drug/poison (0.11), the expressive action suffocation (0.09), and the instrumental action weapon to (0.30). The instrumental action gag (0.15) and the instrumental action threat (0.09) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Cluster one accounted for 35% of hybrid scenes. Crime scenes within this cluster were predominantly characterized by expressive and instrumental actions that did not involve physical contact with victims and were controlled in nature. All of the scenes within cluster one involved the expressive action shot and the majority of scenes also involved the instrumental action weapon to. Conceptually, expressive and instrumental actions within crime scenes in this cluster corresponded to the no contact and controlled region of the MCA correspondence map (the left lower region) Cluster two accounted for 24% of hybrid crime scenes. Scenes within cluster two were primarily characterized by instrumental social control actions that were physical and impulsive in nature. Almost all of the scenes involved the instrumental action blunt instrument and about half involved the instrumental action stab. Conceptually, instrumental social control actions

94 93 within crime scenes in this cluster primarily corresponded to the contact and impulsive region of the MCA correspondence map (right upper region). Cluster three accounted for 27% of hybrid crime scenes. Scenes within cluster three were predominantly characterized by physical and impulsive instrumental social control actions as well as expressive social control actions that were physical and controlled. Almost all of the scenes within this cluster were characterized by the instrumental action strangulation and many scenes also involved the instrumental action manual. About half of the scenes within this cluster also involved the expressive action suffocation, which is a physical, controlled, and less violent social control actions. Conceptually, the instrumental social control actions within crime scenes in this cluster primarily corresponded to the contact and impulsive (right upper region) region of the MCA map, while the expressive social control actions corresponded with the contact and controlled (right lower region) region of the MCA correspondence map. Cluster four accounted for 12% of hybrid scenes. Many scenes within this cluster were characterized by the expressive action shot, which is a social control action that is nonphysical and controlled in nature. But, many scenes also involved the physical and impulsive instrumental action manual and some scenes involved the physical and impulsive instrumental action blunt instrument. The instrumental action bind was present within about half of these scenes. Blind is a social control action that is physical and controlled in nature. Conceptually, expressive social control actions within crime scenes in this cluster primarily corresponded to the no contact and controlled (left lower region) region, while instrumental actions corresponded with the contact and impulsive (right upper region) and the contact and controlled (lower right region) regions of the MCA correspondence map.

95 94 Table 13 provides a straightforward interpretation of social control action profiles for hybrid crime scenes. In summary, CA indicated that when offenders attempt to increase their control over victims at hybrid crime scenes, they employed actions that represent four different patterns: (1) through an expressive social control action that is non-physical and controlled in nature and a preparatory instrumental action (2) through instrumental social control actions that are physical and impulsive in nature, (3) through instrumental social control actions that are physical and impulsive in nature and through expressive social control actions that are physical and controlled in nature, and finally (4) through an expressive social control action that is nonphysical and controlled and instrumental social control actions, which are physical and impulsive as well physical and controlled in nature. Resource control Underlying dimensions within resource control were established with MCA and the intersecting dimensions of the MCA correspondence map divided instrumental resource control and preparatory actions into theoretically meaningful groups of actions. Following MCA, the expression of resource control and preparatory actions within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimension, which characterized scenes within profiles. Further details regarding the results of MCA and CA for resource control actions are presented in the sections below. MCA Figure 6 presents a joint plot of category points from a two dimensional MCA solution for resource control actions. One the joint plot, blue markers denoted variable conditions for instrumental resource control actions. Dimensions one and two produced alpha values of 0.85

96 95 and 0.77, with eigenvalues of 4.44 and 3.39 and inertia 0.40 and For the overall model, the total inertia was 71%. Note that Appendix J reports the discrimination measures from the MCA. Dimension one corresponded to a personal-impersonal dimension of resource control actions. Actions aimed at obtaining resources that may hold personal value, such as stealing victims IDs, photographs, or clothing (i.e., property stolen-identifiable) were plotted in the upper region of the map. Actions aimed at obtaining resources that are impersonal in nature, such as property of value stolen and foreign object insertion, or have utility (weapon from scene) were plotted in the lower region. For dimension one, the most discriminate variables were: weapon from (1.481), property-identifiable (0.573), property-value (0.292), foreign object insertion (0.266), and vaginal penetration (0.248). Following these variables in hierarchical order was: anal penetration (0.186), rips/cuts clothing (0.094), forensic awareness-resource control (0.079), forensic awareness-avoidance (0.072), oral sex (0.059), and property-not identifiable/valuable (0.036). Conceptually, dimension two of the map corresponds with a material-sexual dimension of resource control actions. Actions aimed at material resources were plotted on the left hand side of the map (e.g., property of value stolen, weapon from scene) and actions aimed at sexual resources (e.g., vaginal and anal penetration) were plotted on the right. For dimension two, the most discriminate variables were: vaginal penetration (1.223), anal penetration (0.935), rips/cuts clothing (0.863), and foreign object insertion (0.699) (see table 24). Following these variables in hierarchical order was: oral sex (0.203), forensic awareness-resource control (0.147), forensic awareness-avoidance (0.137), property stolen-identifiable (0.097), property stolen-not identifiable/valuable (0.083), weapon from the scene (0.065), and property stolen-value (0.015).

97 96 The intersecting dimensions divided the MCA correspondence map for resource control into four regions: a personal and sexual region (upper right region), a material and sexual region (upper left region), a material and impersonal region (lower left region), and a sexual and impersonal region (lower right region). MCA therefore suggested meaningful differences among resource control and preparatory actions. The expression of resource control and preparatory actions within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes was further investigated by creating action profiles for each type of scene. CA: Expressive crime scenes The expression of resource control and preparatory actions within expressive crime scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimension (personal-impersonal or sexualmaterial), which characterized scenes within profiles. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution for expressive crime scenes (n=56) with a good overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.6). The instrumental resource control action weapon from perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The instrumental resource control action property-value also had a high predictor importance score (0.88). Following these actions were: the instrumental action forensic awareness-resource control (0.44), the instrumental action property-identifiable (0.40), and the instrumental action vaginal (0.31). The instrumental action rips/cuts (0.08) and the instrumental action forensic awareness-avoidance (0.02) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Note that the cluster analysis for resource control actions within expressive scenes is presented in Appendix K.

98 97 Cluster one accounted for 41% of expressive crime scenes. Scenes within cluster one were characterized by a lack of resource control actions. Clusters two and three accounted for 23% and 18% of expressive crime scenes. Scenes within cluster two were characterize by material and impersonal instrumental resource control actions. Almost all of the scenes within cluster two involved the instrumental action propertyvalue and about 80% of scenes involved the instrumental action weapon from. Many scenes also (62%) involved the instrumental action forensic awareness-resource control. Scenes within cluster three were also primarily characterized by an instrumental resource control action that was material and impersonal in nature. That is, all of the scenes within cluster three involved the instrumental action weapon from. Conceptually, instrumental resource control actions within crime scenes in clusters two and three corresponded with the material and impersonal region of the MCA correspondence map (lower left region). Cluster four accounted for 18% of expressive crime scenes. Most scenes within cluster four (60%) involved the instrumental resource control action forensic awareness-resource control, which is a material and impersonal resource control action. However, some scenes within cluster four involved the instrumental resource control actions property-identifiable and vaginal penetration, which are sexual and personal in nature. Conceptually, instrumental resource control actions within crime scenes in this cluster corresponded with the material and impersonal (lower left region) and the sexual and personal (upper right) regions of the MCA correspondence map. Table 14 presents a straightforward interpretation of resource control action profiles in expressive crime scenes. In summary, CA indicated that some offenders who commit expressive scenes do not engage in actions intended to increase their control over valuable resources. But,

99 98 when offenders did attempt to increase their control over valuable resources, they primarily used actions that represented two different patterns: (1) through instrumental resource control actions that were material and impersonal, and (2) through instrumental resource control actions that were material and impersonal as well as sexual and personal. CA: Instrumental crime scenes The expression of resource control and preparatory actions within instrumental crime scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimension (personal-impersonal or sexualmaterial), which characterized scenes within profiles. A straightforward interpretation of resource control action profiles for instrumental crime scenes is provided in Table 16 and further details regarding this analysis are provided in the paragraphs below. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution for instrumental crime scenes (n=121) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.4). The instrumental resource control action anal perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The instrumental actions weapon from (0.98), vaginal (0.79), and forensic aw-res (0.72) also had a high predictor importance scores. Following these resource control actions was: the instrumental action property-value (0.42) and the instrumental action rips/cuts (0.21). The instrumental actions property-identifiable (0.14), the instrumental action foreign object insertion (0.05), the instrumental action property-not identifiable/not value (0.04), the instrumental action forensic awareness-avoidance (0.04), and the instrumental action oral sex (0.01) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Note that the cluster analysis for resource control actions in instrumental crime scenes is presented in Appendix L.

100 99 Cluster one accounted for 21% of instrumental crime scenes. Scenes within this cluster were characterized by an absence of instrumental resource control actions. Clusters two, three, and four accounted for 25%, 24%, and 12% of instrumental crime scenes. These clusters were primarily characterized by material and impersonal instrumental actions. In cluster two, most scenes involved the instrumental actions forensic awareness-resource control (80%) and weapon from (77%). Scenes within cluster three all involved the instrumental action weapon from with few scenes involving any other resource control actions. All of the scenes within cluster four involved the instrumental action property-value. Conceptually, instrumental actions that characterized scenes within these clusters corresponded to the material and impersonal region (the lower left region) of the resource control MCA correspondence map. Cluster five accounted for 18% of instrumental scenes. Scenes within this cluster were primarily characterized by sexual and personal as well as sexual and impersonal actions. Almost all of the scenes within this cluster involved the instrumental actions anal penetration and vaginal penetration, which are personal and sexual resource control actions. Almost half of these scenes also involved the instrumental preparatory action rips/cuts, which is an instrumental preparatory action that is impersonal and sexual in nature. Conceptually, instrumental actions within crime scenes in this cluster corresponded with the sexual and personal (the upper right region) as well as the sexual and impersonal (lower right region) regions of the resource control MCA correspondence map. Table 15 presents a straightforward interpretation of resource control action profiles in instrumental crime scenes. In summary, CA indicated that some offenders who commit instrumental scenes did not engage in actions intended to increase their control over valuable resources. But, when offenders did attempt to increase their control over valuable resources, they

101 100 pursued resource control primarily through actions that represented two different patterns: (1) through instrumental resource control actions that were material and impersonal, and (2) through instrumental resource control actions that were sexual and personal as well as a preparatory action that was sexual and impersonal. CA: Hybrid scenes The expression of resource control and preparatory actions within hybrid crime scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimension (personal-impersonal or sexual-material), which characterized scenes within profiles. Cluster analysis produced a three-cluster solution for hybrid crime scenes (n=33) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.4). The instrumental resource control action property-value perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). Following this action were the instrumental actions forensic awareness-resource control (0.43), weapon from (0.43), vaginal penetration (0.42), anal penetration (0.31), and rips/cuts (0.29). The instrumental actions foreign object insertion (0.13), the instrumental action forensic awareness-avoidance (0.10), and the instrumental action oral sex (0.01) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Note that Appendix M presents the cluster analysis for resource control actions in hybrid scenes. Cluster one accounted for approximately 40% of hybrid scenes. Scenes within this cluster primarily did not involve resource control actions. Cluster two accounted for 30% of hybrid scenes. 80% of scenes within this cluster involved the instrumental action weapon from and almost half of the scenes involved the instrumental action forensic awareness-resource control.

102 101 Few scenes involved any other resource control actions. Conceptually, actions within scenes in cluster two corresponded to the material and impersonal region of the resource control MCA correspondence map (lower left region). Cluster three accounted for 30% of hybrid scenes. Almost all of the scenes within this cluster involved the instrumental action property-value and 50% of scenes involved the action vaginal penetration. Conceptually, instrumental actions within these scenes corresponded with the material and impersonal region (lower left) and the sexual and personal (upper right) regions of the resource control MCA correspondence map. A straightforward interpretation of resource control action profiles for hybrids is provided in Table 16. In summary, CA indicated that some offenders who commit hybrid scenes did not engage in actions intended to increase their control over valuable resources. But, when offenders did attempt to increase their control over valuable resources, they primarily did so through actions that represented two different patterns: (1) through instrumental resource control actions that were material and impersonal, and (2) through instrumental resource control actions that were sexual and personal as well as sexual and impersonal. Proximity Underlying dimensions within proximity were established with MCA and the intersecting dimensions of the MCA correspondence map divided expressive and instrumental proximity and preparatory actions into theoretically meaningful groups of actions. Following MCA, the expression of proximity and preparatory actions within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimensions, which characterized scenes within

103 102 profiles. Further details regarding the results of MCA and CA for proximity actions are presented in the sections below. MCA Figure 7 presents a joint plot of category points from a two dimensional MCA solution for proximity actions. One the joint plot, red markers denote variables conditions for expressive proximity actions and blue markers denote variable conditions for instrumental proximity actions. Dimensions one and two produced alpha values of 0.68 and 0.60, with eigenvalues of 2.64 and 2.22, and inertia 0.22 and For the overall model, the total inertia was 41%. Note that Appendix N reports the discrimination measures from the MCA. Dimension one corresponded to a planned-opportunity dimension of proximity actions. Actions that involved offenders planning for victims movements, such lays in wait or deception/confidence, were potted in the upper region of the map. Actions that were more dependent upon circumstances, such as victims travel to the scene or body transported, were plotted in the lower region. For dimension one, the most discriminate variables were: lays in wait from (1.064) and face covered (0.337). Following these variables in hierarchical order were: deception/confidence (0.182), victim travels to scene (0.155), deliberate positioning (0.137), transport body (0.105), dismemberment (0.078), body covered (0.043), offender and victim travel to scene (0.042), body hidden (0.024), and arson (0.006). Conceptually, dimension two of the map corresponds with an offender facilitation victim facilitation dimension. Offenders proximity actions that were independent of victims were plotted on the left hand side of the map (e.g., offender travels to the scene) and proximity actions that also involved victims (e.g., victim and offenders travel to scene together) were plotted on the right. For dimension two, the most discriminate variables were: offender travels to

104 103 scene (0.646), offender and victim travel to scene (0.584), body hidden (0.397), body covered (0.297), and victim travels to scene (0.225) (see table 29). Following these variables in hierarchical order was: arson (0.143), deception/confidence (0.113), face covered (0.077), deliberate positioning (0.056), lays in wait (0.003), and dismemberment (0.003). The intersecting dimensions divided the MCA correspondence map for proximity into four regions: a planned and victim facilitated region (upper right region), a planned and offender facilitated region (upper left region), an opportunity and offender facilitated region (lower left region), and an opportunity and victim facilitated region (lower right region). Thus, the MCA suggested that meaningful differences exist among expressive and instrumental proximity and preparatory actions. Furthermore, expressive and instrumental actions were plotted together within the planned and victim facilitated, opportunity and offender facilitated, and opportunity and victim facilitated regions of the MCA map suggesting that certain expressive and instrumental proximity and preparatory actions may be similar in terms of the CA units involved in their generation. Only instrumental actions were plotted within the planned and offender facilitated region. CA: Expressive crime scenes The expression of proximity and preparatory actions within expressive scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimensions (offender facilitated-victim facilitated or planned-opportunity), which characterized scenes within profiles. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution for expressive crime scenes (n=56) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.5). The expressive proximity action body covered perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance

105 104 score = 1.00). The expressive proximity actions offender and victim travel to scene (0.75) and body transported (0.62) also had high predictor importance scores. Following these actions was the expressive action body hidden (0.39). The instrumental action offender travels to scene (0.16), the expressive action dismemberment (0.12), the instrumental action victim travels to scene (0.12), the expressive action arson (0.03), the instrumental action face covered (0.03), the instrumental action deliberate positioning (0.03), and the instrumental action deception/confidence (0.02) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Note that Appendix O presents the cluster analysis for proximity actions in expressive crime scenes. Cluster one accounted for 34% of expressive crime scenes. Scenes within cluster one were primarily characterized by the absence of any proximity actions. Cluster two accounted for 27% of expressive crime scenes. All of the scenes within cluster two involved the expressive proximity action offender and victim travel to scene, and few other proximity actions were present. Conceptually, this cluster corresponded with the victim facilitated and planned region (the upper left region) of the proximity MCA correspondence map. Clusters three and four accounted for 23% and 16% of expressive crime scenes. Almost all of the scenes within cluster three involved the expressive action body covered and about half of scenes involved the expressive actions offender and victim travel to scene and body hidden. Within cluster four all of the scenes involved the expressive action body covered. About half of the scenes within cluster four involved the expressive action transport body ; about half of the scenes within this cluster involved the expressive action offender and victim travel to the scene ; and about half of the scenes within this cluster involved the expressive action body hidden. Conceptually, actions within clusters three and four corresponded with the

106 105 victim facilitated and opportunity region (lower right region) as well as the victim facilitated and planned region (upper right region) of the proximity MCA correspondence map. A straightforward interpretation of proximity action profiles for expressive scenes is provided in Table 17. In summary, CA indicated that some offenders who commit expressive scenes did not engage in proximity actions. But, when offenders engaged in proximity and preparatory actions, they did so through actions that represented two different patterns: (1) through an expressive proximity action that was victim facilitated and planned, and (2) through expressive proximity and preparatory actions that were victim facilitated and planned as well as victim facilitated and opportunity. CA: Instrumental crime scenes The expression of proximity and preparatory actions within instrumental scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimensions (offender facilitated-victim facilitated or planned-opportunity), which characterized scenes within profiles. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution for instrumental crime scenes (n=121) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.5). The instrumental proximity action offender travels to scene perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The expressive actions offender and victim travel to scene (0.76) and body covered (0.55) also had high predictor importance scores. Following these actions was the instrumental action victim travels to scene (0.44). The instrumental action deception/confidence (0.16), the instrumental action lays in wait (0.16), the expressive action transport body (0.07), the expressive action body hidden (0.06), the expressive action dismemberment (0.06), the instrumental action face covered (0.03), the

107 106 expressive action arson (0.01), and the instrumental action deliberate position (0.00) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Note the Appendix P presents the cluster analysis for proximity actions in instrumental scenes. Cluster one accounted for 27% of instrumental crime scenes. Scenes within this cluster predominantly did not involve any proximity or preparatory actions. Cluster two accounted for 36% of instrumental scenes. All of the scenes within this cluster were characterized by the instrumental proximity action offender travels to the scene. Conceptually, the action that characterized scenes within cluster two corresponded with the planned and offender facilitated region (upper left region) of the proximity MCA correspondence map. Cluster three accounted for 23% instrumental scenes. Approximately half of the scenes within this cluster involved the expressive preparatory action body covered and about half of the scenes within this cluster were characterized by the instrumental proximity action victim travels to the scene. Conceptually, actions that characterized scenes within cluster three corresponded with the victim facilitated and opportunity region of the proximity MCA correspondence map (the lower left region). Cluster four accounted for 18% of instrumental scenes. Many of the scenes within this cluster involved the expressive proximity action offender and victim travel to the scene (68%). Of note however is that some scenes within this cluster involved the instrumental preparatory action deception/confidence and the instrumental proximity action lays in wait. Conceptually, scenes within this cluster correspond with the planned and victim facilitated region of the proximity MCA correspondence map (upper right region). A straightforward interpretation of proximity action profiles for instrumental scenes is provided in Table 18. In summary, CA indicated that some offenders who commit instrumental

108 107 scenes did not engage in proximity actions. But, when offenders engage in proximity and preparatory actions, they did so through actions that represented three different patterns: (1) through an instrumental proximity action that was offender facilitated and planned, (2) through an expressive preparatory action and an instrumental proximity action that were victim facilitated and dependent upon opportunity or circumstances, and (3) through an expressive proximity action that was victim facilitated and planned. CA: Hybrid scenes The expression of proximity and preparatory actions within hybrid scenes was investigated with two-step CA. Action profiles were interpreted with respect to the type (expressive or instrumental) and underlying dimensions (offender facilitated-victim facilitated or planned-opportunity), which characterized scenes within profiles. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution for hybrid crime scenes (n=33) with a fair overall cluster structure (measure of silhouette and cohesion = 0.4). The expressive action body covered perfectly discriminated between clusters (predictor importance score = 1.00). The expressive actions body hidden (0.92) and offender and victim-scene (0.58) also had high predictor importance scores. Following these actions were the instrumental action offender-scene (0.45), deception/confidence (0.45), and victim-scene (0.25). The expressive action dismemberment (0.14), the instrumental action lays in wait (0.14), the expressive action transport body (0.11), the instrumental action deliberate position (0.11), and the instrumental action face covered (0.08) had low predictor importance scores and contributed little to the formation of clusters. Note that Appendix Q presents the cluster analysis for proximity actions in hybrid crime scenes.

109 108 Cluster one accounted for 30% of hybrid scenes. Scenes within this cluster were primarily characterized by a lack of proximity actions. Cluster two accounted for 30% of hybrid scenes. The majority of the scenes within cluster two were characterized by the instrumental proximity action offender travels to the scene (70%). Conceptually, scenes within this cluster corresponded with the planned and offender facilitated region of the proximity MCA correspondence map (upper left region). Cluster three accounted for 24% of hybrids and all of the scenes within this cluster involved the expressive preparatory action body covered. Conceptually, scenes within this cluster corresponded with the opportunity and victim facilitated region (lower right region) of the proximity MCA correspondence map. Finally, cluster four accounted for 15% of hybrid scenes. Scenes within cluster four involved expressive and instrumental actions that represented different dimensions of proximity. The majority of scenes within this cluster involved the expressive proximity and preparatory actions offender and victim travel to the scene (80%), body hidden (80%), and body covered (60%). About 60% of scenes within this cluster also involved the instrumental preparatory action deception/confidence. Conceptually, actions that characterized scenes within this cluster corresponded with the planned and victim facilitated region (upper right region) as well as the opportunity and victim facilitated regions (lower right region) of the proximity MCA correspondence map. A straightforward interpretation of proximity actions profiles for hybrid scenes is provided in Table 19. In summary, CA indicated that some offenders who commit hybrid scenes did not engage in proximity actions. But, when offenders engage in proximity and preparatory actions, they did so through actions that represented three different patterns: (1) through an instrumental proximity action that was offender facilitated and planned, (2) through an

110 109 expressive preparatory action that was victim facilitated and dependent upon opportunity or circumstances, and (3) through expressive proximity and preparatory actions that were victim facilitated and dependent upon opportunity or circumstances as well as instrumental preparatory actions that were planned and victim facilitated. Chapter VI. Discussion and Conclusions Summary of Key Findings Expressive and instrumental themes were replicated within U.S. single homicides in aim one of study one. However, the individual behaviors within expressive and instrumental regions differed slightly from Salfati s (2000) original UK study. Forensic awareness, bound, propertyidentifiable, body transported, and body hidden were expressive in Salfati s (2000) original UK study, but were instrumental in this U.S. dataset. Other studies have reported similar findings (e.g., Salafti & Park, 2007; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Dupont, 2006). For example, forensic awareness and body transported were also instrumental in Korean homicides (Salafti & Park, 2007); victim bound was also instrumental in Greek homicides (Salfati & Haratsis, 2001); and, property identifiable being taken from victims was instrumental in Canadian homicides (Salfati & Dupont, 2006). In the current dataset, forensic awareness, bound, propertyidentifiable, body transported, and body hidden was most associated with instrumental actions and cultural differences in homicide could explain the differences in thematic placement of the aforementioned behaviors. Additionally, arson to the scene was instrumental in the UK study, but co-occurred within the expressive region of study one. The instability of arson to the scene may be a result of its low frequency in datasets. In the current dataset arson to the scene was an extremely low frequency behavior, which was most associated with the expressive behavior

111 110 drowning. Due to its low frequency, this single association may have greatly impacted its placement within the expressive region. Study one reported low internal consistency particularly for expressive behaviors and this was concerning because it suggests poor inter-relatedness. The majority of expressive behaviors in study one pertained to wounding locations (e.g., face wounds, head wounds) and wounding methods (e.g., victim shot, blunt instrument, drown). The heavy reliance on wounding location and wounding method variables may be contributing to the low internal consistency for the expressive subtype. For example, offenders who shot victims may have been unlikely to also drown victims and offenders who stabbed victims may not have also drugged/poisoned them. Consequently, there were negative correlations among expressive behaviors. The internal consistency of behaviors within this subtype may therefore be improved by the inclusion of additional variables that represent other important aspects of expressiveness and as discussed below, the results of MCA in study two could assist with this. In aim two of study one, crime scenes were predominantly classified as expressive and this finding coincides with prior research (e.g., Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Thijssen & Ruiter, 2011). But, only 11% of scenes contained roughly the same proportion of expressive and instrumental behaviors thereby meeting the original U.K. definition of a hybrid scene (Salfati, 2000). A similar outcome for hybrids was reported in Belgian homicides (Thijssen & Ruiter, 2011). As a result of the low percentage of scenes that contained equal proportions of expressive and instrumental behaviors, the current study chose to define hybrids as those scenes that did not display a dominant behavioral theme. Other studies have defined hybrids in this manner (Salfati & Haratsis, 2001). The different definition of hybrids across studies underscores

112 111 the importance of furthering our understanding of the nature of this particular type of crime scene. Aim three of study one examined the individual behaviors within expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes. There appears to be behavioral similarities between instrumental and hybrid crime scenes in this dataset. In fact, only instrumental behaviors were associated with the hybrid category, although some expressive behaviors commonly occurred within hybrid scenes as well. Many of instrumental behaviors associated with hybrids have consistently co-occurred within instrumental regions of prior studies (the exception being forensic awareness, which was expressive in the U.K. (Salfati, 2000) and in Canada (Salfati & Dupont, 2006)) and the instrumental behaviors that comprised hybrids represented a range of frequencies. That is, the individual behaviors that characterized hybrids ranged from those that were more common in the dataset as a whole (e.g., crime sexual- 44%) to somewhat lower frequency behaviors (e.g., body covered- 22%). Some of these instrumental behaviors (i.e., forensic awareness, partially dressed, manual assault, and property of value stolen) were furthermore only associated with the hybrid classification category. An important finding in study one was that most crime scenes in this dataset, even those classified as expressive or instrumental, involved both expressive and instrumental behaviors. This finding may be a result of the inclusion of wounding location variables in the conceptualization of expressiveness and instrumentality. Wounding location variables occurred at relatively high frequencies in the dataset as a whole, and they were commonly present across all classification categories. Additionally, wounding location variables may be a result of both expressive and instrumental wounding behaviors. Wounding location variables therefore appear to be problematic for the expressive/instrumental classification. Since most of the wounding

113 112 location variables were expressive, excluding these variables may lower the proportion of expressive behaviors within some scenes; thereby, increasing the percentage of scenes that are predominantly instrumental and can be classified as such. A theoretical reason however is needed to support the exclusion of these variables, and this again reinforces the theoretical advancement proposed in study two. Overall, the results of study one justified the theoretical advancement undertaken in study two. Results suggested theoretically meaningful differences among groups of expressive and instrumental behaviors and that a refinement of the behaviors used to conceptualize expressiveness and instrumentality is needed. Study one further brought to light important questions regarding the nature of hybrid crime scenes. Currently, hybrids are conceptualized and defined by the proportion of expressive and instrumental behaviors at a scene. But, if most scenes contain both expressive and instrumental behaviors, then what makes a hybrid fundamentally different from an expressive scene that contains expressive and instrumental behaviors or an instrumental scene that contains expressive and instrumental behaviors? If we continue to conceptualize hybrids in terms of the number of behaviors belonging to each theme, then we have no way to answer questions regarding the nature of hybrid crime scenes or to explain why these scenes contain both types of behaviors. The theoretical advancement and results of study two addressed each of these points. Aim one of study two confirmed expressive and instrumental themes with lower-order goal actions, which further supported Salfati s (2000) idea that the nature of the relationship between offenders and victims impacts offenders actions. As psychologically salient interpersonal situations, SSA suggested that expressiveness and instrumentality were comprised of patterns of lower-order goals, which altered situational features during homicide. That is,

114 113 actions that co-occurred within the expressive region represented social control, proximity, and preparation. Actions plotted within the instrumental region represented social control, resource control, proximity, knowledge, and preparation. Instrumentality therefore involved more interaction with and manipulation of situational features. The conceptualization of expressiveness and instrumentality reported here corresponds with the integration of the CAPS model and interpersonal domain (Fournier et al., 2008; 2009) as well as Schank and Abelson s (1977) original idea of themes. In Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding (Schank & Abelson, 1977) themes were defined as sets of related goals, which were connected to one another and also to activating circumstances. Themes provided a context for understanding behavior, and could be used to make predictions regarding future behavior (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Schank and Abelson considered social relationships to represent interpersonal themes and suggested that interpersonal themes governed how one person behaved in relation to another. Similar to Salfati (2000) who discussed the role of aggressive scripts in expressiveness and instrumentality, Schank and Abelson (1977) proposed that interpersonal themes activated inter-related sets of goals, which ultimately generated physical actions through scripts, plans, and the lower-order goals examined here (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Aim two of study two classified crime scenes, which resulted in a greater percentage of scenes being classified when compared with the results of study one. Thus, the percentage of hybrids was decreased in study two. Additionally, the number of crime scenes that displayed actions, which corresponded to one interpersonal situation (all expressive or all instrumental), increased as well. The ability of the classification system to capture more scenes as exclusively expressive or instrumental may translate into easier classification processes and it may also increase investigators perceptions of the utility of the model. In study two most classified scenes

115 114 were instrumental, which differed from the results of study one. It seems that by excluding wounding location variables in study two the proportion of expressive behaviors within some scenes was lowered and the percentage of scenes that were predominantly instrumental increased. The classification results in study one and study two highlights an important point for consideration. While the greater percentage of expressive scenes in study one might lead researchers to conclude that single homicide offenders most often view victims as personally meaningful, the greater percentage of instrumental scenes in study two suggests the opposite (i.e., that offenders most often view victims as a means for personal gain). Thus, our understanding of the nature of crime scenes and homicide in general may be heavily influenced by the individual actions that are selected, entered into SSA and used to conceptualize subtypes. Consequently, a theoretical framework that guides the selection of actions, such as the one presented in study two, is critically important the modeling of homicide. Aim three of study two initially identified the psychological mechanisms linked interpersonal situations and actions. In social control, an impulsivity-control dimension and a non-contact-contact dimension were identified. Impulsivity and control have been discussed in relation to expressiveness and instrumentality (e.g., Feshbach, 1969; Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Salfati, 2003). In its original conception, expressive and instrumental forms of aggression were distinguished by the presence or lack of these elements (Feshbach, 1969; Bushman & Anderson, 2001). That is, expressive aggression was considered impulsive and spontaneous, while instrumental aggression was controlled, premeditated, and planned. Researchers however have acknowledged problems with these distinctions (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Most significantly, it is unlikely that real life aggressive events can be differentiated upon these criteria (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). The current study found that impulsivity and control

116 115 characterized both expressive and instrumental social control actions. This finding corresponds with criticisms of the aggression dichotomy (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) and also Salfati (2003) who reported similar results in homicide. The current study s conclusions and Salfati s (2003) earlier findings correspond with current understandings of automatic and controlled information processing (Shiffirin & Schneider, 1977; Schneider & Shiffirin, 1977). Automatic and controlled information processing are components of the CA units discussed within the CAPS model (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), specifically related with one s encodings and self-regulation. The distinction between automatic and controlled processing is based on the idea that the cognitive requirements of tasks change with repetition or practice (Birnboim, 2003). Initially, unfamiliar tasks require conscious controlled processing, such as attention, memory search, and decision-making (Birnboim, 2003; Shiffirin & Schneider, 1977; Schneider & Shiffirin, 1977). This type of controlled processing takes time and effort, is within an individual s conscious awareness and control, and tasks that require controlled processing can therefore be interrupted (Birnboim, 2003; Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Shiffirin & Schneider, 1977; Schneider & Shiffirin, 1977). As tasks are practiced, the cognitive requirements necessary to complete them become easier to access and can be rapidly activated (Birnboim, 2003). When tasks are performed at length and within the exact same situation automatic processing becomes unconscious, may be outside of an individual s control, and once initiated tasks that require this type of processing cannot be interrupted (Shiffirin & Schneider, 1977; Schneider & Shiffirin, 1977). It is likely that most tasks and the behaviors used to achieve tasks exist somewhere along a continuum from those that require a great deal of intention, cognition, and control to those that are entirely unintentional,

117 116 unconscious, automatic, and impulsive (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). This was evident in the impulsivity-control continuum of the MCA correspondence map. Along the non-contact-contact dimension actions ranged from those could achieve social control without physical contact to those actions that required close physical contact between offenders and victims. This dimension of social control may be related to offenders competencies, which are CA units discussed by the CAPS model (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Our beliefs about our capabilities impact the tasks we pursue and how we achieve tasks (e.g., Barrone, Maddox, & Snyder, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989). People enter situations that they feel proficient in and they engage in behaviors intended to affirm the beliefs they hold about their abilities (Barrone, Maddox, & Snyder, 1997; Swann, 1983). The use of non-contact social control actions may reflect offenders abilities with non-physical forms of social control, and perhaps a level of discomfort with physical forms of violence. Physically inflicting harm on another (e.g., manual assault, suffocation) requires close physical proximity to the other person in this interaction. The readiness to use this form of social control may reflect a level of competency with contact forms of violence and a willingness to place oneself in a situation that can lead to personal harm. When offenders attempted to increase their control over victims in homicide, offenders may therefore have chosen actions that emphasized their capabilities and hid their deficiencies. In resource control a material-sexual dimension and personal-impersonal dimension were identified. Along the material-sexual dimension actions ranged from those that increased offenders control over material resources to those actions aimed at sexual resources. This dimension of resource control may be connected to offenders status-related goals. Goals and life projects are CA units discussed by the CAPS model (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). According to

118 117 evolutionary psychology, obtaining valued resources and navigating status hierarchies promotes survival and reproductive success (Buss & Duntley, 2003; Buss & Duntley, 2004; Duntley & Buss, 2004). These adaptive benefits offset the fitness costs associated with violence (Carre, Gilchrist, Morrissey, & McCormick, 2010). Consequently, actions related to status advancement and preventing the loss of status may take place in the context of violent interactions (Buss & Duntley, 2003; Buss & Duntley, 2004; Duntley & Buss, 2004). Material resources, such as money, jewelry, and weapons, are considered valuable resources. That is, obtaining material resources promotes one s status and suffering a loss in these resources negatively impacts one s status. Sexual resources are similarly valuable i.e., obtaining access to mates promotes status and loosing access to mates negatively impacts status. Theory and research indicate that some offenders may process and interpret contextual information in terms of opportunities to advance their status or as a way of protecting themselves against exploitation (Polaschek, et al., 2008; Ward & Keenan, 1999; Ward, 2000; Polaschek & Ward, 2002). Therefore, some offenders may particularly aware of status-related opportunities and threats, which pertain to material and sexual resources, in their environments. Along the personal-impersonal dimension of resource control actions ranged from those that increased offenders control over valuable resources, which were more personal in nature, to those actions aimed at resources, which were more impersonal in nature. This dimension of resource control may be related to offenders implicit theories (IT) or their inter-connected beliefs about the world, which influence how they process and respond to external information (Polaschek, et al., 2008; Ward & Keenan, 1999; Ward, 2000; Polaschek & Ward, 2002). In the context of the CAPS model, implicit theories are related to offenders beliefs, goals, and selfregulation (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Research suggests that some offenders possess implicit

119 118 theories, which involve dehumanizing other people, so that offenders can prioritize their own needs and desires above the rights and wellbeing of others (Ward & Keenan, 1999; Ward, 2000; Polaschek & Ward, 2002). When offenders with this type of belief system pursue resource control, their actions may reflect a dehumanizing style. Other implicit theories lead offenders to process and interpret victims desires, needs, and behaviors in a manner that corresponds with offenders own (Ward & Keenan, 1999; Ward, 2000; Polaschek & Ward, 2002). When offenders with this type of belief system pursue resource control, their actions may reflect a more personal style. In proximity, a planned-opportunity dimension and an offender facilitation-victim facilitation dimension were identified. These dimensions were interpreted with respect to offenders cognitive maps. Downs and Stea (2011) defined cognitive mapping as a process composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in his everyday spatial environment (p.312). A cognitive map is the product of this mapping process (Downs & Stea, 2011). Individuals must be able to understand and adapt to environmental information, so that they can engage in spatial behavior (Downs & Stea, 2011). Cognitive maps assist with spatial behavior because they enable one to ascertain where valued things are and to also figure out how to get from one point to another (Downs & Stea, 2011). The planned-opportunity dimension of proximity may be related to offenders understanding of where victims and crime locations are located. At one end of this dimension were planned actions, which suggested that offenders had already acquired information regarding victims movements and/or relevant crime locations. For example, the action lays in wait involves offenders strategically placing themselves within a location that brings victims to them.

120 119 Offenders spatial behavior therefore may reflect familiarity with victims spatial behavior and/or the geographic areas where offenders and victims intersect. At the opposite end of this dimension were opportunity proximity actions, which suggested that offenders adapted to changes in the spatial environment and responded to information regarding victims movements and/or crime locations in context. For example, offenders may have transported or hid victims bodies because a body was not part of the spatial environment where the crime occurred. Offenders therefore responded to these circumstances and their response involved spatial behavior. The offender facilitated-victim facilitated dimension may be related to how spatial behavior was achieved during homicide events. At one end of the offender facilitated-victim facilitated dimension of proximity were therefore actions that suggested spatial behavior was achieved during homicide through actions that did not directly involve victims. At the other end of this continuum were actions that suggested spatial behavior was achieved during homicide through actions that directly involved either victims or victims bodies. In summary, the extent of intention, cognition, and control that tasks in homicide require and offenders proficiency with physical and non-physical forms of violence emerged as important psychological mechanisms linked with interpersonal situations and crime scene actions intended to increase offenders control over victims. Offenders awareness of status-related opportunities and threats, which pertained to material and sexual resources, and offenders beliefs about their victims appeared as important psychological processes linked with interpersonal situations and crime scene actions intended to increase offenders control over valuable resources. Offenders cognitive maps may have impacted their understanding of where victims and crime locations were located and how spatial behavior was achieved in homicide.

121 120 In aim three action profiles were further used to illustrate how expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crimes scenes were similar and different in terms of lower-order goal actions and the psychological processes, which actions represented. For social control, expressiveness appeared to be linked with unfamiliar tasks that required more cognition and control as well as competencies with non-physical forms of social control. Instrumentality was linked with proficiency with physical forms of social control used to achieve unfamiliar tasks that required cognition and control as well as familiar tasks that were more automatically processed. Hybrid crime scenes were described by profiles, which involved social control actions that reflected different interpersonal situations. Common to expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes were contact-impulsive social control actions, which suggested proficiency with physical forms of social control used in the pursuit of familiar tasks that were more automatically processed. Social control action profiles pointed to further refinement of actions included in the model. The non-contact and controlled action profiles, which characterized some expressive and some hybrid crime scenes, may have been impacted by a variable definition that is imprecise. Scenes described by this pattern involved an expressive social control (shooting victims) and an instrumental preparatory (bringing a weapon to the scene) action. Bringing a weapon to the scene could be used to facilitate both expressive (e.g., shot) and instrumental (e.g., blunt instrument and stab) social control actions. Shooting victims has however consistently been conceptualized as expressive (e.g., Goodwill et al., 2014; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Salfati & Dupont, 2006). Bringing a gun to the scene specifically may be a preparatory action that is important to how social control is achieved in some expressive homicides. Refining weapon to the scene so as to reflect weapon type may have important implications for the classification, if it changes the proportion of expressive and instrumental actions within some scenes.

122 121 Finding that only hybrid crime scenes were described by profiles, which involved social control actions that reflected different interpersonal situations, supports the idea that some offenders may be capable of changing how they experienced victims during homicide and indicates that social control actions may reflect these changes. In some hybrid scenes offenders employed contact-controlled expressive social control actions and contact-impulsive instrumental social control actions. Common to both the expressive and instrumental actions in this profile was a competency with physical forms of social control. But, social control appears to have been used in the pursuit of familiar tasks that required little cognition or mental effort when victims were a means for personal gain and social control appears to have been used in the pursuit of unfamiliar tasks that required more cognition, time, and mental effort when victims were personally meaningful. In other hybrid crime scenes, offenders employed contact-impulsive instrumental actions, contact-control instrumental actions, and non-contact-control expressive actions. All of the instrumental actions within these scenes reflected competence with physical forms of social control, but some actions suggested more impulsivity than others. The expressive actions suggested competence with non-physical forms of social control used in the pursuit of unfamiliar tasks that required more cognition, time, and mental effort. Thus, the social control action profiles, which were specific to hybrids, suggested that offenders may have changed how they experienced victims and the mechanisms that generated expressive actions appeared to be different from the mechanisms that generated instrumental actions. The contact and impulsive action profile that was common to expressive, instrumental and hybrid crime scenes described a large percentage of crime scenes in the dataset as a whole. Many homicide offenders therefore appear to share experience with tasks that involve physical and violent social control actions and many offenders appear competent with this form of action.

123 122 These factors may underlie the quickness, ease, and regularity in which contact-impulsive social control actions are selected and used across interpersonal situations. Despite these similarities, there were some important differences between the expressive and instrumental scenes, which followed this pattern. That is, the instrumental scenes characterized by this type of profile contained multiple impulsive and physical social control actions, while the expressive scenes tended to contain only one action. This study proposes two possible explanations for the finding reported here. One possibility is that social control actions were enacted during the pursuit of multiple, but different familiar tasks in instrumental scenes (Schank & Abelson, 1977). For example, social control was part of the sequence of lower-order goals necessary to incapacitate victims and also rape victims. Findings from SSA support this proposition- meaning that SSA suggested the instrumental theme involved more interaction with situational features, which could be due to more task-related goal pursuit during this type of interpersonal situation. A second possibility is goal failure (Schank & Abelson, 1977). In other words, a physical and impulsive social control action failed to sufficiently increase offenders control over victims therefore a second action was selected and used during instrumental scenes. The motivational theory of lifespan development suggests that our secondary control processes (i.e., our cognitive and affective strategies- including our selfcompetencies) play an important role in how we respond to challenges to primary control striving (Heckhausen et al., 2010). Research further indicates that people who have a strong sense of self-competence will continue with task pursuit in spite of obstacles (Bandura & Wood, 1989). If offenders who committed these instrumental homicides had extensive prior experience with contact forms of social control, then this experience may bolster beliefs regarding their capabilities of achieving social control through physical action. One would then expect offenders

124 123 to continue with task pursuit, rather than disengaging, which could explain the finding reported here. Resource control was exclusively instrumental in the current study therefore investigating resource control actions within hybrid scenes in terms of different interpersonal situations was not possible. The hybrid scenes that involved instrumental resource control actions must have also involved other lower-order goals that were achieved through expressive actions. Therefore, resource control may not reflect a change in victims meaning in the same way that social control demonstrated this change. Importantly, the current study still furthers our understanding of resource control within homicide and how this lower-order goal is pursued at different types of crime scenes. Cluster analysis indicated that some expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes involved resource control and some expressive, instrumental, and hybrid scenes did not involve resource control. This was an important finding that underscored the importance of digging deeper into the individual actions, which characterize different types of crime scenes. Since resource control actions were only plotted within the instrumental region of SSA; it was not possible to determine whether the profiles specific to hybrids involved actions that represented expressiveness and instrumentality. However, cluster analysis did point to some important differences regarding the mechanisms that generated resource control actions within different types of crime scenes- particularly with respect to the profiles that included sex-related actions. Expressiveness appeared to be linked with sexual-related resource control actions that were more personal in nature than the sexual resource control actions that characterized instrumental or hybrid crime scenes. That is, some expressive scenes were described by a material-impersonal and sexual-personal resource control action profile. The material-impersonal action within this profile suggested an awareness of threats to status and that offenders

125 124 prioritized status preservation above the rights and wellbeing of others. In these scenes offenders took possession of material resources that could be used to identify them as the perpetrator of crimes. The sexual and personal actions however reflected status-related goals, which were sexual rather than material in nature, and these goals may have been supported by beliefs, which involved interpreting victims desires, needs, and behaviors in a manner that corresponded with offenders own. This action profile might suggest the possibility of a sexual track within expressive scenes, which needs to be further explored. Instrumentality appeared to be linked with sexual resource control actions that were less personal and more impersonal than the actions that described either expressive or hybrid scenes. That is, a sexual-personal and sexual-impersonal resource control action profile characterized some instrumental scenes. The actions within this profile indicated status-related goals that are sexual in nature; however, the resource control actions were personal, but the preparatory action was impersonal. This finding may be problematic, but considering the dimensional nature of actions can assist with an explanation. The personal resource control actions, vaginal and anal penetration, were plotted relatively close to the origin line of the MCA map suggesting they were less personal and more impersonal than some of the other resource control actions within the same region. Together, the presence of these personal actions along with the impersonal action of rips/cuts clothing may indicate that these instrumental scenes are less personal in nature than the aforementioned expressive scenes, which involved vaginal penetration and property-identifiable being taken from victims. The sexual resource control actions within hybrid scenes appeared fall somewhere in the middle. These scenes were less personal than the sexual actions within expressive scenes, but more personal than those within instrumental scenes. The material-impersonal and sexual-

126 125 personal actions, which characterized some hybrid crime scenes, suggested two types of statusrelated goals: material and sexual. Offenders pursuit of material resources appears to have been supported by beliefs that centered on prioritizing their own needs over the wellbeing of others. Offenders pursuit of sex-related goals however appears to have been supported by beliefs, which involved interpreting victims desires, needs, and behaviors in a manner that corresponded with offenders own. Despite the some differences, there were also important similarities in resource control actions across different types of scenes. Across expressive, instrumental, and hybrid crime scenes offenders appeared to be aware of threats to their status or opportunities for status advancement through the acquisition of material resources. The impersonal nature of these actions suggested that the pursuit of material goals was further supported by offenders beliefs, which involved prioritizing their own needs above the wellbeing of others. When offenders engaged in proximity actions, action profiles illustrated how offenders interacted with and manipulated their spatial environments pre-crime and post-crime. Expressiveness was linked with pre-crime proximity actions that indicated an awareness of victims and/or crime scenes and with post-crime actions that suggested victim s bodies were not a part of the spatial environment where crimes occurred. These expressive crime scenes thus involved a great deal of interaction with the spatial environment through expressive actions. Consequently, this profile may be particularly important to expressiveness and it likely suggests that homicide has occurred between two people whose environments and spatial behavior were heavily inter-dependent upon one another. Instrumentality appeared to be linked with a pre-crime proximity action profile that suggested an awareness of crime locations. This awareness may have translated into an

127 126 instrumental pre-crime proximity action that altered the distance between offenders and crime scenes through actions independent of victims. Consequently, this profile may be particularly important to instrumentality. Instrumentality was also linked with an action profile comprised of an instrumental pre-crime proximity action (victims traveling to the scene) and the expressive post-crime preparatory action of covering victims bodies. The opportunity and victim facilitated nature of the pre-crime action suggested that offenders might have adapted to victims presence in their spatial environment in context. The opportunity and victim facilitated nature of the postcrime action suggested a similar interpretation; that is, offenders may also have adapted to the presence of victims body. This adaptation may have involved covering victims body, which has been discussed by others in relation to shame (e.g., Salfati, 2000). The current research is consistent with this interpretation, but also provides an elaboration on the mechanisms that generate this action. Body covered may be reflective of secondary control processes (Rothbaum, et al., 1982; Heckhausen, et al., 2010) or the cognitive and affective processes, which we fall back on when we are met with obstacles to primary control striving or goal pursuit. Negative affect associated with the use of lethal violence (i.e., feelings of guilt and shame) could potentially thwart goal attainment. Covering victims body post-mortem may reflect the psychological processes, which enabled offenders to overcome negative affect and fostered offenders post-crime proximity actions in spite of shame. Hybrid scenes shared some of the same processes and proximity actions as those that characterized expressive and instrumental scenes. Some hybrids were described by the single post-crime preparatory action body covered, which was discussed above. Other hybrid scenes were described by an action profile analogous to an instrumental action profile. These hybrids involved an instrumental pre-crime proximity action that suggested an awareness of crime

128 127 locations. There is at least an indication within these hybrid scenes that they may have begun with instrumental actions. A final group was described by a profile specific to hybrid crime scenes. These scenes involved an expressive pre-crime proximity action that indicated an awareness of victims and/or crime scenes and an expressive post-crime action that suggested victim s bodies were not a part of the spatial environment where crimes occurred. But, these hybrid scenes also involved the instrumental pre-crime preparatory action deception/confidence, which may have been used to facilitate offenders and victims traveling to the scene together. Although the presence of expressive proximity actions and instrumental preparatory actions may suggest that offenders have changed how they experienced victims, it is also possible that deception/confidence reflected secondary control processes. This further underscores the importance of investigating the role that secondary control processes play in homicide and the impact that these processes have on classification. Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice The current study aligned the expressive/instrumental classification with a systems approach to behavior and a prominent theory of behavioral consistency, which has significant implications for theory, research, and practice. Within the field of investigative psychology researchers have long acknowledged the importance of behavioral salience and have sought to identify crime scene actions, which are most important to expressiveness and instrumentality (Canter & Youngs, 2009; Salfati, 2000; Trojan & Salfati, 2008). Until now, behavioral salience has largely been discussed in terms of the psychological meaning of crime scene actions. However, our behavior is a response to more than just our cognitive and affective processes. Behavior also reflects the nature of the situations that social interaction occurs within. Aligning the expressive/instrumental classification with the CAPS model provided a theoretical

129 128 framework from which the links among situations, psychological processes, and actions could be addressed. In doing so, the theoretical advancement specified salient crime scene actions that reflected both interpersonal situations and psychological processes. As a result, the current study has made a substantial contribution to our understanding of behavioral salience and additionally, provided a cohesive avenue for future research to address these issues. Building on the foundation here, future research needs to continue to develop our understanding of expressiveness and instrumentality; the psychological processes linked with these interpersonal situations; and, the crime scene actions generated in response to these links. Semi-structured interviews with homicide offenders could add significantly to the conclusions reported here. With respect to expressiveness and instrumentality, interviews should focus on: factors that may be important to expressiveness and instrumentality, such as the history of interaction between offenders and victims, the likelihood of future interaction, and the extent to which offender s goals, outcomes, and daily activities are dependent upon victims. Additionally, understanding who is viewed as personally meaningful to offenders and who is viewed as a means for personal gain can further our understanding of these interpersonal situations and what they represent. With respect to psychological processes, the current study could be used to guide the focus of interviews. Questions regarding social control may center on offenders competencies with physical and non-physical forms of violence as well as offenders familiarity with the tasks social control was used to achieve in homicide. In regards to resource control, attention should be devoted towards offenders status-related goals, their awareness of threats to status and opportunities for status advancement, as well as their beliefs systems, which may influence how they pursue material and sexual goals. For proximity, interviews should investigate offenders awareness of victims and crime locations and how this awareness impacts

130 129 their spatial behavior. Additionally, interviews must focus on preparatory actions to confirm the organization of these actions with the Delta-goals examined here. The classification could also be expanded to include additional salient actions. While theory should be used to guide variable selection, the results of MCA could also assist with this process. For example, while there was a large number of contact social control actions included in the model there were few non-physical (e.g., shot, threat) social control actions and future research could consider the addition of these types of variables. Investigating the links between interpersonal situations, psychological processes, and actions through alternative methods would also help clarify some of the results discussed in the present study. The current study suggested the possibility of a sexual track linked with expressiveness. Sex was conceptualized as a valuable resource in this study and the results of study two did not contradict this. It is possible that offenders who experience victims as personally meaningful seek to increase their control over victims sexual resources. The particular set of inter-related psychological processes linked with expressiveness and sexual actions would theoretically be different than the psychological processes linked with instrumentality and sexual actions. In theory, this could explain the more personal action profile discussed within aim three of study two. The current study also emphasized the importance of investigating the role that secondary control processes play in homicide and the impact that these processes have on classification needs to be assessed. In the context of the CAPS framework, secondary control processes play a role in feedback. When offenders attempt to manipulate situational features through lower-order goal actions, the impact of these actions is processed and interpreted through cognitive processes. Understanding lower-order goal success and failure as

131 130 well as task-related goal success and failure is important to our understanding of the actions expressed at crime scenes. The CAPS model is also a prominent theory of behavioral consistency, which acknowledges the importance of situations, psychological processes, and actions to both our understanding and establishment of consistency. Advancing the expressive/instrumental classification with an established theory of consistency has important theoretical and empirical implications for studies, which seek to support offender profiling. Offender profiling is a practical application of the expressive/instrumental model (Salfati, 2000). As previously discussed, profiling involves making inferences about the characteristics of an unknown offender from their actions at a crime scene. Inherent in the profiling process is therefore an assumption of consistency i.e., an assumption that offenders actions at a crime scene are consistent with their background characteristics (Alison et al., 2002; Salfati, 2008). Alison et al., (2002) has discussed the consistency issue as it relates to profiling and has pointed out that a traditional profiling process, which links personality traits with criminal behavior, is unlikely to be reliable or valid. Chief among Alison et al. s criticisms was the lack of strong empirical support for the notion that personality traits generate consistent behavior over time and across situations. Over the last few decades, the CAPS theory, its focus on personality structure (rather than traits), and its method for establishing consistency has emerged as a productive approach (e.g., Ayduk & Gyurak, 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; 1998; Shoda, et al., 1994; Smith, et al., 2009). Developing a profiling process that corresponds with a CAPS perspective involves three key areas of research, which may ultimately address weaknesses associated with the traditional profiling process. First, within-individual behavioral signatures (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) need to be established for homicide offenders. Behavioral signatures involve determining whether an

132 131 offender varies their lower-order goal actions across interpersonal situations in predictable ways. An offender would be expected to engage in the same actions across situations that are psychologically similar. The lower-order goal actions that demonstrate stability across similar psychological situations and variability across different situations would be considered expressions of offenders personality structure (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Once behavioral signatures have been investigated, a subsequent step would involve establishing contextualized individual differences in behaviors by demonstrating that groups of offenders share similar patterns of behavior variation (Van Mechelen, 2009). This step would ascertain whether certain types of offenders commit expressive homicides and whether certain types of offenders commit instrumental homicides. It would also ascertain whether a certain type of offender commits hybrid crime scenes by demonstrating that these particular offenders consistently change the meaning of interpersonal situations, and that this is actually a component of their personality structure. A third step would identify characteristics unique to each offender type, since personality structure is shaped by our learning, experiences, biology, environments, and genetics (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Mischel, 2009). These characteristics should be considered salient characteristics and may be useful for establishing the links between an offender s actions at a crime scene and their background characteristics. The avenues for future research outlined above would continue to develop our understanding of the nature of hybrid crime scenes. Hybrid crime scenes, and even the mixed scenes included in other classifications (Douglas, et al., 2006), have largely been attributed to the impact of situational factors on offenders crime scene actions (e.g., Salfati, 2000). In other words, an offender who is committing an expressive homicide reacts to a victim s resistance strategies and begins to engage in instrumental actions- thus, perpetrating a hybrid scene.

133 132 However, this view of hybrids is rather simplistic and lacks the capacity to address some important points. Most notably, why did this particular offender react to victim s resistance by altering their style of behavior, while another offender may have continued to perpetrate an expressive scene? All behavior after all is situated. An offender who commits an expressive scene will process, interpret, and respond to the situation surrounding homicide as will an offender who commits an instrumental crime scene. Our understanding of hybrids needs to be grounded within a theory that can adequately explain the mechanisms, which generate expressive and instrumental actions, and explain how hybrid scenes are fundamentally different from expressive or instrumental scenes. If it can be established that a type of offender consistently attempts to change the meaning of interpersonal situations and that this type of offender commits a hybrid scene, then the CAPS approach suggests the possibility that hybrids are something more than just a random reaction to an unanticipated event. Beyond offender profiling, the theoretical advancement proposed here has implications for other areas of criminal investigative analysis. The current study complements the approach taken by the offender-interaction process model (OIPM) (Dover, 2010). The OIPM has been applied to homicide in an effort to explain offenders interactions with victims (Dover, 2010). Dover (2010) proposed that the OIPM can assist investigators with understanding the progression of a homicide event and in instances where information regarding offenders behaviors is unknown help make predictions regarding the course that likely took place. Both the theoretical advancement developed in the present study and the OIPM are approaching homicide from systems perspective. Aligning the expressive/instrumental classification with the OIPM may increase the practical applications of the categorization system and offer the OIPM a theoretical basis for some its propositions. This may be a productive undertaking for both

134 133 models. The current study also has practical implications for crime scene analysis. Crime scene analysis is an investigative technique that involves making inferences about the meaning of crime scene action (Douglas et al., 2006) and often times these inferences pertain to offender/victim relationship, offenders emotions and motivations, as well as the extent of premeditation/planning involved in a crime. Crime scene analysis may be used during active cases, but it has also been introduced into legal proceedings during expert testimony (e.g., Simmons v. State, 2000; State v. Trapp, 2012). Consequently, supporting crime scene analysis with theory and research is important. The theoretical advancement undertaken in study two outlines three areas from which inferences about the meaning of crime scene behavior could be derived: inferences pertaining to the situations in which behaviors are enacted, inferences pertaining to the cognitive and affective processes involved in behaviors generation, and inferences regarding the situational features that actions were intended to alter. If law enforcement professional can classify crime scenes in accordance with the expressive/instrumental model s criteria, then inferences regarding the interpersonal meaning of situations could be made. Understanding expressive and instrumental actions as lower-order goals provides information regarding the situational feature that actions were intended to alter. Furthermore, the results of MCA and CA could be used to guide inferences about the psychological processes involved in generating expressive and instrumental actions. Inferences pertaining to social control actions should focus on the extent of intention, cognition, and control that tasks in homicide require and offenders proficiency with physical and non-physical forms of violence. With respect to resource control, inferences should center on offenders awareness of status-related opportunities and threats, which pertained to material and sexual resources, and offenders beliefs about their victims. Finally, inferences regarding proximity actions should

135 134 pertain to offenders understanding of where victims and crime locations were located and how spatial behavior was achieved in homicide. The current study does not propose that the inferences outlines above should be made in an investigative or legal capacity at this time. However, the current study has provided a basis from which future empirical studies could continue to build support for these inferences in a manner consistent with Toulmin s philosophy of argument. That is, claims about situations, psychological processes and crime scene actions could be supported with specific scientific evidence, studies could focus on developing an indication of how accurate these claims may be, and provide empirically grounded information regarding when a particular claim about situations, psychological processes, and actions may not be true (Alison et al., 2003; Rainbow, 2008). Through this line of inquire, conclusions about the meaning of crime scene action may be made more reliably and validly. There are several areas of study in criminology (e.g., recidivism, specialization versus versatility, and re-victimization), which could also benefit from a theoretical framework that addresses the issue of behavioral consistency in the manner undertaken here. This is particularly true for studies of recidivism. Understanding whether there are situations in which offenders consistently engage in unlawful behavior, identifying the cognitive and affective processes that generate unlawful behavior within these situations, and ascertaining the criminal actions that are consistently generated in response to situations and psychological processes could have important implications for recidivism studies and correctional programming intended to have an effect on recidivism. Recidivism could also be explored from both a within-individual perspective and a between-individual perspective. This avenue of research could reveal important patterns of recidivism among subpopulations of offenders, particularly sex offenders.

136 135 Although these areas of research were outside the scope of the present study, it is important to note these broader implications. Limitations The generalizability of the current study s results is limited by its data source. As discussed in the methods sections, the nature of investigative information itself may introduce a source of bias. Although the cases were obtained from regions across the U.S., the cases are unlikely to be nationally representative. These limitations necessitate that further studies replicate the procedures and findings reported here, particularly with respect to study two. It is however again important to acknowledge that a reliable and valid measurement tool was used in the current study in an effort to offset the variability in investigative information. As discussed in the subsequent section, the current study s results need to be validated through methods other than those employed here. The method for developing a behavioral classification of homicide designed by Salfati (2000) has been paramount in the advancement of homicide classification. Without examining the co-occurrences of behaviors with SSA, the reconceptualization of expressiveness and instrumentality in terms of victims meaning to offenders would not have been made and the theoretical advancement proposed here would not have been possible. However, reaching the same conclusions with other methods would strengthen the reliability and validity of this study and further support the categorization system. The current study employed the 1.5x criterion during classification, which is less stringent than the criterion used in other studies (e.g. Salfati, 2000), and the present studies reliance on this criterion may be considered a limitation. Future research needs to replicate the expressive/instrumental classification with U.S. single homicides to determine whether other datasets can classify the majority of crime scenes with more stringent criteria. Although it was

137 136 beyond the scope of the present study, there is also a need for further evaluations of classification procedures. Specifically, the impact of missing information regarding crime scene behaviors on classification procedures needs to be assessed and how the total number of behaviors present within crime scene affects the proportional method of classification should be evaluated. Although grounded in theory, the organization of individual actions within Schank and Abelson s (1977) lower-order goal scheme also needs to be validated. Inter-rater reliability assessments, which involve multiple researchers organizing actions within the goal scheme, would be beneficial. If inter-rater reliability assessments reached acceptable levels of agreement, then this would provide needed support. Interviews with offenders could also focus on confirming that actions were intended to alter situational features in the manner suggested by the current study. Conclusions Systems perspectives are emerging within many scientific fields, and have the potential to offer significant advantages to social scientific research. The current study placed the expressive/instrumental classification within a systems approach to behavior. Linking interpersonal situations with psychological processes and actions provided a basis for refining actions included within the expressive/instrumental classification. This refinement improved the classification ability of the model and increased the number of scenes that were exclusively expressive or instrumental. Investigating these links within homicide addressed three key questions. The situations surrounding homicide, which impact offenders crime scene actions, were specified and an explanation regarding how and why these features impacted actions was provided. The actions generated in response to situational features and psychological processes were further identified. Finally, a framework for examining consistency across situations was

138 137 laid out, which can be used to investigate multiple actions within an event. By aligning the expressive/instrumental classification with a prominent theory of behavioral consistency, the current study has important implications for future research that seeks to link offenders crime scenes actions with corresponding background characteristics.

139 138 References Agresti, A. (2012). Categorical Data Analysis (3 rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Alison, L., Snook, B., & Stein, K.L. (2001). Unobtrusive measurement: Using police information for forensic research. Qualitative Research, 1(2), Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A. & Omerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8 (1), Alison, L., Smith, M.D., Eastman, O., & Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin s philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2), Ayduk, O. & Gyurak, A. (2008). Applying the cognitive-affective processing systems approach to conceptualizing rejection sensitivity. Social and Personality Psychology 2(5), Bailey, S. (1996). Adolescents who murder. Journal of Adolescence, 19, Barone, D.F., Maddux, JE., & Snyder, C.R. (1997). Social Cognitive Psychology: History and Current Domains. NY: Springer Science and Business Media. Bateman, A.L. & Salfati, G.C. (2007). An examination of behavioral consistency using individual or groups of behaviors in serial homicide. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, Bennell, C. & Canter, D.V. (2002). Linking commercial burglaries by modus operandi: tests using regression and ROC analysis. Science & Justice, 42(3), Birnboim, S. (2003). The automatic and controlled information-processing dissociation: Is it still relevant? Neuropsychology Review, 13,

140 139 Borg, I. & Groenen, P.J.F (2010). Modern Multi-dimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. New York: Springer. Bereczkei, T., Deak, A., Papp, P., Perlaki, G., & Orsi, G. (2013). Neural correlates of Machiavellian strategies in social dilemma task. Brain and Cognition, 82, Bereczkei, T., Papp, P., Kincses, P., Bodrogi, B, Perlaki, G, & Orsi, G. (2015). The neural basis of the Machiavellian s decision making in fair and unfair circumstances. Brain and Cognition, 98, Bushman, B.J. & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108(1), Buss, D.M. & Duntley, J.D. (2003). Homicide: An evolutionary psychological perspective and implications for public policy. In R.W. Bloom & N. Dess (Eds.), Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (pp ), Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Buss, D.M. & Duntley, J.D. (2004). The evolution of evil. In A.G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp ), NY: The Guilford Press. Caceda, R., James, G.A., Gutman, D.A., & Kilts, C.D. (2015). Organization of intrinsic functional brain connectivity predicts decisions to reciprocate social behavior. Behavioural Brain Research, 292, Canter, D. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, Canter, D. & Heritage, R. (1990). A multivariate model of sexual offence behavior: Developments in offender profiling. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry,1, Canter, D.V., Alison, L.J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorganized

141 140 typology of serial murder: Myth or model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10 (3), Canter, D.V. & Wentink, N. (2004). An empirical test of the Holmes and Holmes s serial murder typology. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 31(4), Canter, D. & Youngs, D. (2003). Beyond offender profiling: The need for an Investigative Psychology. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.) Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts, 2 nd ed. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Canter, D. & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Carre, J.M., Gilchrist, J.D., Morrissey, M.D., & McCormick, C.M. (2010). Motivational and situational factors and the relationship between testosterone dynamics and human aggression during competition. Biological Psychology, 84, Cervone, M. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Psychological Review, 56, Cisek, P. & Kalaska, J.F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, Clausen, S.E. (1998). Applied correspondence analysis: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, Douglas, J.E., Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W. & Hartman, C.R. (1986). Criminal profiling from crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 4(4), Douglas, J.E., Burgess, A.W., Burgess, A.G., & Ressler, R.K. (1992; 2006). Crime Classification

142 141 Manual. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass. Downs, R.M. & Stea, D. (2011). Cognitive maps and spatial behaviour: Process and products. In M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, & C. Perkins (Eds.), The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representations ( ). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Duntley, J.D. & Buss, D.M. (2004). The plausibility of adaptations for homicide. In P. Carruthers, S. Lawrence, & S. Stitch (Eds.), The structure of the innate mind, NY: Oxford University Press. Duntley, J.D. & Schackelford, T.K. (2008). Darwinian foundations of crime and law. Aggression and Violence, 13, Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Paving the Way for Personalized Medicine. CM pdf Feshbach, S. (1964). The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive. Psychological Review, 74(4), Fontaine, R.G. (2006). Applying systems principles to models of social information processing and aggressive behavior in youth. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, Fontaine, R.G. (2007). Disentangling the psychology and law of instrumental and reactive subtypes of aggression. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, Fournier, M.A., Moskowitz, D.S., & Zuroff, D.C. (2008). Integrating dispositions, signatures and the interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), Fournier, M.A., Moskowitz, D.S., & Zuroff, D.C. (2009). The interpersonal signature. Journal of

143 142 Research in Personality, 43, Frank, M.J. & Badre, D. (2015). How cognitive science guides neuroscience. Cognition, 135, Freeman, G.H. & Halton, J.H. (1951). Note of exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit, and other problems of significance. Biometrika, 38, Fritzon, K. & Ridway, J. (2001). Near death experience: The role of victim reaction in attempted homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(7), Funder, D.C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), Funder, D.C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, Funder, D.C. (2009). Persons, behaviors, and situations: An agenda for personality psychology. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, Funder, D.C. & Colvin, C.R. (1991). Explorations in behavioral consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, Furr, M.R., & Funder, D.C. (2004). Situational similarity and behavioral consistency: Subjective, objective, variable-centered, and person-centered approaches. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, Gedoski, A. & Gray, J. (2011). It may be true, but how is it helping?: UK police detectives views of the operational usefulness of offender profiling. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13(2), George, J.A. (2008). Offender profiling and expert testimony: Scientifically valid or glorified results? Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1),

144 143 Gerberth, V.J. (2006). Practical Homicide Investigations: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques, 4 th Ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Goodwill, A. M., Allen, J.C., & Kolarevic, D. (2014). Improvement of thematic classification in offender profiling: Classifying Serbian homicides using multiple correspondence, cluster, and discriminant function analyses. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, (2014), DOI: /jip.1416 Gottfredson, M.R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hakkanen, H., Hurme, K., & Liukkonen, M. (2007). Distance patterns and disposal sites in rural area homicides committed in Finland. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, Hamm, J.M., Stewart, T.L., Perry, R.P., Clifton, R.A., Chipperfield, J.G., Heckhausen, J. (2013). Sustaining primary control striving for achievement goals during challenging developmental transitions: The role of secondary control strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological Review, 117(1), Hettema, P.J. (1989). Transformation rules: Towards a taxonomy of everyday behavior. In Hettema, P.J. (Ed.) Personality and the Environment: Assessment of Human Adaptation, (pp ). Wiley, Chichester. Hettema, P.J. & Hol, D.P. (1989). The assessment of behavioral strategies. In Hettema, P.J. (Ed.) Personality and the Environment: Assessment of Human Adaptation, (pp ). Wiley, Chichester.

145 144 Hettema, J. & Hol, D.P. (1998). Primary control and the consistency of interpersonal behavior across different situations. European Journal of Personality, 12, Hickey, E.W. (2006). Serial Murderers and Their Victims. Toronto: Wadsworth Group. Holmes, R.M. & Holmes, S.T. (1998). Serial Murder (2 nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Homicide and Rape Profiling Index (HPI-R, Salfati 2010). Data Coding Dictionary. Investigative Psychology Research Unit (IPRU), web.jjay.cuny.edu/~gsalfati/hpi. Hooker, C.I., Gyurak, A., Verosky, S.C., Miyakawa, A., & Ayduk, O. (2010). Neural activity to a partner s facial expression predicts self-regulation after conflict. Biological Psychiatry, 67(5), Jarvilehto, T. (2009). The theory of organism-environment system as a basis of experimental work in psychology. Ecological Psychology, 21(2), Juodis, M., Woodworth, M., Porter, S., & Leanne, T.B. (2009). Patterns in crime: A comparison of individual and multi-perpetrator homicides. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(8), Keppel, R. D. & Walter, R. (1999). Profiling killers: A revised classification model for understanding sexual murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, Koban, L., Pichon, S., & Vuilleumier, P. (2014). Responses of medial and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to interpersonal conflict for resources. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9.5, Kraemer, G.W., Lord, W.D., Heilbrun, K. (2004). Comparing single and serial homicide offenses. Behavioral Science and the Law, 22, Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

146 145 American Psychologist, 46(8), Liao, W., & Tsai, F. (2013). Personalized medicine: A paradigm shift. BioMedicine, 3, Loscalzo, J., Kohane, I., & Barabasi, A. (2007). Human disease classification in the postgenomic era: A complex systems approach to human pathology. Molecular Systems Biology, 3, Magidson J. & Vermunt, J.K. (2001). Latent class factor and cluster models, Bi-plots and related graphical displays. In Becker and Sobel (Eds.), Sociological Methodology (pp ). Boston, MA: Blackwell. Maslow, A.H. (1948). Higher and lower needs. Journal of Psychology, 25, McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1991). The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, Mechelen, I.V. (2008). A royal road to understanding the mechanisms underlying person-in context behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, Miether, T.D., & Drass, K.A. (1999). Exploring the social context of instrumental and expressive homicides: An application of qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 30, Mischel, W. (2009). From Personality and Assessment (1968) to Personality Science, Journal of Research in Personality, 43, Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2),

147 146 Norusis, M. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion. Addison Wesley. Polaschek, D.L.L., Calvert, S.W. & Gannon, T.A. (2008). Linking violent thinking: Implicit theory-based research with violent offenders. Journal of interpersonal violence, 24, 75. Polaschek, D.L.L. & Ward, T. (2002). The implicit theories of potential rapists: What our questionnaires tell us. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, Pinizzotto, A.J. & Finkel, N.J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14(3), Rainbow, L. (2008). Taming the beast: The UK approach to the management of behavioral investigative advice. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23, Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W., Douglas, J.E., Hartman, C.R., & D Agostino, R.B. (1986). Serial killers and their victims: Identifying patterns through crime scene analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, Reis, H.T. (2008), Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J.R., & Snyder, S.S. (1982) Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), Salfati, C. G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implications for offender profiling. Homicide Studies, 4 (3), Salfati, C. G. (2003). Offender interaction with victims in homicide: A multidimensional analysis of frequencies in crime scene behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18 (5),

148 147 Salfati, G.C. (2006). The Homicide Profiling Index (HPI): A tool for measurements of crime scene behaviors, victim characteristics, and offender characteristics. In C. Gabrielle Salfati (Ed.) Homicide Research: Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings of the 2005 Meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group. Chicago, IL: Homicide Research Working Group. Salfati, G.C. (2008). Offender profiling: Psychological and methodological issues of testing behavioral consistency. Issues in Forensic Psychology: Investigative Psychology. British Psychological Society, Division of Forensic Psychology Publications, Volume 8, Salfati, G.C. (2014). Homicide crime scene analysis: An investigative psychology approach. In D. Youngs (Ed.) Behavioural Analysis of Crime: Studies in David Canter s Investigative Psychology. (pp ) Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Salfati, C. G. & Bateman, A. (2005) Serial homicide: An investigation of behavioral consistency. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2, (2), Salfati, C.G. & Canter, D. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Journal of Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, Salfati, C.G. & Dupont, F. (2006). Canadian homicide: An investigation of crime scene actions. Homicide studies, 10, Salfati, C.G. & Haratsis, E. (2001). Greek homicide: A behavioral examination of offender crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 5, Salfati, C.G. & Park, J. (2007). An analysis of Korean homicide crime scene actions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(11), Salfati, G.C. & Taylor, P. (2006). Differentiating sexual violence: A comparison of sexual

149 148 homicide and rape. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12(2), Samuelson, L.K., Jenkins, G.W., & Spencer, J.P. (2015). Grounding cognitive-level processes in behavior: The view from dynamic systems theory. Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 7, Santilla, P., Canter, D., Elfgren, T., & Hakkanen, H. (2001). The structure of crime-scene actions in Finnish homicides. Homicide Studies, 5, Schank, R.C. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, Erlbaum, Hilsdale. Schank, R.C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schlesinger, L.B. (2004). Sexual murder: Catathymic and compulsive homicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Schneider, W. & Shiffirin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, Sherman, R.A., Nave, C.S., Funder, D.C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, Shiffirin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J.C. (1993). The role of situational demands and cognitive competencies in behavior organization and personality coherence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J.C. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the organization and

150 149 patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations in the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), Skinner, E.A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), Smith, R.E., Shoda, Y., Cumming, S.P., & Smoll, F.L. (2009). Behavioral signatures at the ballpark: Intraindividual consistency of adults situation-behavior patterns and their interpersonal consequences. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, Sorochinski, M. & Salfati, G.C. (2010). The consistency of inconsistency in serial homicide: Patterns of behavioural change across a series. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, Swann, W.B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A.G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thijssen, J. & De Ruitter, C. (2011). Instrumental and expressive violence in Belgian homicide perpetrators. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, Trojan, C. & Salfati, C.G. (2008). Methodological considerations of determining dominance in multidimensional analyses of crime scene behaviors and offender characteristics, Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, Van Heck, G.L. (1989). Situation concepts: Definitions and classification. In Hettema, P.J. (Ed.) Personality and Environment: Assessment of Human Adaptation (pp ). Wiley, Chichester. Van Mechelen, I. (2009). A royal road to understanding the mechanisms underlying person-in context behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43,

151 150 Vandamme, D., Fitzmaurice, W., Kholodenko, B., & Kolch, W. (2013). Systems medicine: Helping us understand the complexity of disease. QJM, 106, Vansteelandt, K. & Van Mechelen, I. (2004). The personality triad in balance: Multidimensional individual differences in situation-behavior profiles. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller, Inc. New York:NY. Ward, T. (2000). Sexual offenders cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, Ward, T. & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, Wolfgang, M.E. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48(1), Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conception of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), Woodworth, M. & Porter, S. (1999). Historical foundations and current applications of criminal profiling in violent crime investigations. Expert Evidence, 7,

152 151 Figures and Tables Abstract goals Concrete goals Immediate goals Delta goals Knowledge Task level Proximity Resource control High level Intermediary level Task level Knowledge Preparation Social control Task level Proximity Figure 1. At the highest-level goals are abstract and may pertain to one s future aspirations and life projects. These future goals are met by intermediary goals that are less abstract and more concrete. At an even lower level are specific task-oriented goals, which specify what is to be immediately accomplished, so that intermediary goals can be achieved. Delta goals exist at a lower level and organize information, so that immediate tasks can be accomplished.

153 152 Event-level: Rape & Murder Task-level: Encounter & Incapacitate Task-level: Rape Proximity Social Control Proximity Social Control Preparation Walk toward victims Manual asssault Drag victim behind bush Threaten victim Rip victims clothes Blames victim Change in Distance Change in Control Change in Distance Change in Control Prep Res Control Prep Res Control Task-level: Kill Task-level: Leave scene Resource Control Social Control Preparation Proximity Vaginal penetration Manual strangulation Cover victims body w. debris Walk away & leave scene Change in Control of Resources Change in Control Prep for Prox Change in Distance (a). Event-level motivations Task/ level! Lower/ order!goal! Actions! Situation!change!&! interaction/level! Event-level: Murder Task-level: Encounter & Incapacitate Task-level: Rape Task-level: Kill Task-level: Body Disposal Preparation Deception Prep for Prox Proximity Social Control Preparation Resource Control Preparation Social Control Proximity Lure victim to home Manual assault Forensic awavoid: condom Vaginal penetration Weapon from scene Ligature strangulation Transport victims' body Change in Distance Change in Control Prep for Res Control Change in Control of Resources Prep for Soc Control Change in Control Change in Distance (b). Figure 2. Provides an illustration of event-level, task-level, and interaction-level motivation with an example of rape-murder (a) and murder (b).

154 153 Figure 3. Study One SSA of Expressive and Instrumental Behaviors. Expressive behaviors are designated with red markers. Instrumental behaviors are designated with blue markers. Black markers denote high frequency behaviors, which are not designated to either expressive or instrumental regions.

155 154 Figure 4. Study Two SSA of Expressive and Instrumental Lower-order Goal Actions. Expressive lower-order goal actions are plotted in the right region of the SSA plot and are denoted by red diamonds. Instrumental lower-order goal actions are plotted in the left region and are denoted by blue circles. Markers that have white centers denote lower-order goal actions, which have not previously been examined in relation to expressive and instrumental themes.

156 155 Figure 5. Study two MCA of expressive and instrumental social control actions. The correspondence map plotted social control actions along two dimensions with dimension one representing an impulsive-control dimension and dimension two representing a contact-no contact dimension. Red markers indicate variable conditions for expressive social control actions and blue markers indicate variable conditions for instrumental social control actions.

157 156 Figure 6. Study two MCA of instrumental resource control actions. The correspondence map plotted resource control actions along two dimensions with dimension one representing a material sexual dimension and dimension two representing a personal-impersonal dimension. Blue markers indicate instrumental resource control actions.

158 157 Figure 7. Study two MCA of expressive and instrumental proximity actions. The correspondence map plotted actions along two dimensions with dimension one representing an offender facilitated victim facilitated dimension and dimension two representing a planned opportunity dimension. Red markers indicate expressive proximity actions. Blue markers indicate instrumental proximity actions.