In their 2000 study, what they did was they gave each group of participants basic multiple choice questions about cognitive processes, physical characteristics, offense behaviors and social dynamics. They then had to write detailed accounts for each of these, and as Pinizzotto and Finkel found, profilers wrote more detailed and longer accounts. But these accounts didn’t show accuracy. What they found was that profilers were better for physical characteristics and not for any of the other characteristics—profiler’s accuracy was between 43-46%. In their 2004 study, what they did was they repeated the same process, but provided the participants information pertaining to a crime series and not one particular crime. Providing a series of crimes is a more realistic depiction of the circumstances in which profilers are typically employed as consultants. What they found in this study was the profilers exceeded in each category over the other groups with 70% accuracy. What this means in comparison to both studies is that profilers only exceed when prior information is given to them to give them a lead. When no information is there, they are up to par with the other participants in the study, including college students with no profiling …show more content…
Starting in the early 1990s, profilers were undistinguishable from other law enforcement when it came to making profiles, and that continued through the early 2000s. Pinizzotto and Finkel were the first people to try to identify this. Since then the media and television have taken over, portraying a different view of profiling. Shows like Criminal Minds and the Profiler falsely portray criminal profiling that make it seem like an everyday activity. In reality, (Chifflet, 2015) criminal profiling is used in high stakes cases where all other leads have gone cold in the investigation: this happens very