Review of: Police psychology: New trends in forensic psychological science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before discussing Police Psychology: New Trends in Forensic Psychological Science, the reviewer has a disclosure. I am a forensic psychiatrist, not a forensic psychologist. In addition, I have been an operational forensic psychiatrist, with law enforcement, for over three decades. The stated aim of this book is to bridge the gap between research in the different disciplines of police psychology and those practitioners in the field. It is directed not just at psychologists but policymakers, patrol officers, and crisis negotiators who respond to individuals in crisis, and those who investigate interpersonal violent crimes including sexual assault. The text explores the four distinct components of psychology, as applied to law enforcement: the selection and assessment of officers, crisis intervention, operational support, and organizational consultation. To accomplish this goal, the book is divided into three very broad sections addressing the role of psychology in police culture, psychology as applied to special topics in law enforcement, and the application of psychology in criminal investigations. This is a daunting task but is accomplished because the book, for the most part, is structured on evidence-based policing. I say for the most part because although the chapter addressing police traumatization is excellent, and the authors try to provide a balanced view of the efficacy of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD), it falls short because they ignore the evidence that it can do more harm than good. Despite the evidence, CISD is still practiced by a good proportion of police psychologists in North America. In reading some chapters as a knowledge seeker, I was impressed by the chapters that covered topics that I had little, if any, knowledge of, such as the selection and screening of recruits; the role of psychological science in crowd control and public order policing; the introduction and incorporation of psychological skills in the recruit academy and psychological jurisprudence, to name a few. As a practitioner of operational police psychiatry, I was equally impressed with the chapters on police suicide; communications with persons in crisis—whether it is with a subject suffering from a major mental illness or a barricaded person and/or hostage taker. The chapter examining both risk assessment and threat assessment was well-balanced and current with the “state of the art” regarding the subjective judgment tools utilized in police threat assessment units that encounter criminal harassment and stalking, domestic violence, workplace violence, and extremist threats. The chapter on how to think like a detective was interesting and informative because it was written by a senior detective who is also a psychologist. The chapter on offender profiling was also excellent and covers the current state of research and the limitations of profiling. Individuals trained by the FBI or the International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship to become profilers are aware of the strengths and limitations of crime scene analysis and offender profiling but, unlike its portrayal on American TV and movies, much of the work conducted by profilers is not determining the identity of the unknown subject. In practice, profilers are consulted to conduct crime scene analysis, investigative strategies, interview strategies, undercover strategies, and much more. The training to become a profiler is an intensive endeavor and candidates who are accepted must have at least eight to ten years of violent crime investigative experience. Despite the interest of profiling as an undergraduate course or online program, I have never met anyone who has worked with the police in that capacity. Psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be profilers; however, there are a few who are members of the profiling team as in-house behavioral consultants. I agree with the author of the chapter on profiling that further research must be undertaken to lift offender profiling into the area of evidence-based policing. Likewise, the chapter on communication as a “weapon” in resolving barricades and hostage situations is clear and concise, providing a succinct overview on the basics of active listening utilized by trained police crisis/hostage negotiators. The purpose of any textbook is to give a sense of a field by presenting key questions, concepts, and theories. In my professional opinion, Police Psychology: New Trends in Forensic Psychological Science accomplishes this. Police psychology has evolved in diverse areas of study, and practice, and is a growing field. This book is a major contribution to that field and is highly recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".