Investigative Psychology - Literature review Example

Investigative Psychology Type of paper March 25, 1422 words Investigative psychology (IP) is a study of offender and all people involved in crime that goes deeper compared to offender profiling. IP creates a framework for integration of psychology in different aspects of police investigation and legal procession of any crime1. It is a problem-solving mechanism that embraces all crime-related details and helps professionals to work more effectively.2 The is a need to analyse main features of IP and apply them in the domain of insurance fraud to see how IP can contribute to fraud detection in this sphere. Canter describes IP as a cycle with 3 main elements presented by information, action and inference. Information is meant to be effective and well-analysed because it becomes the cause of further actions and inferences made about the crime.3 IP uses all psychology domains which are relevant to crime investigation process. It gives a great tool for professionals because it enables them to test hypotheses about offenders and detect personality types and certain characteristics that can prevent crime at all. IP approach to insurance fraud reveals many misconceptions about offenders in this sphere. According to Dodd, the study of motive shows that 13% of offenders out of 209 cases under analysis experienced financial difficulties. Contrary to expectations, 53% of that sample were employed and had regular income. The study itself had a simple design as it only analysed data available from 209 selected cases but it was enough to destroy the myth that only people in need commit fraud. 4 Many people do not treat exaggeration of insurance claim as a crime at all; however, Canter insists that crime is defined legally, not psychologically. Generally, IP application to insurance fraud domain presupposes gathering data of all kinds about fraudster with the purpose to identify common features in their profiles.5 The article by Button, Pakes & Blackbourn is a relevant example of psychology applied to data analysis in the domain of insurance fraud with a purpose to fill the gap in this industry by providing a comprehensive offender profiling.6 It is based on the analysis of 33 189 fraudulent claims identified by conversation management investigative tool. The authors aim at testing Routine Activity Theory in the domain of insurance fraud. This theory establishes connections between daily life of the offender and features of crime. Authors refer to Canter in their study to show that they attempt to go further than typical criminal profiling. They find out that fraudsters are motivated to commit crimes by their daily lives; the way they act, choose a fraudulent scenario and an object of the claim come from daily routine. For a long time Dodd was the only person who attempted to profile insurance fraud offender; however, his results are inconsistent for further research because the sample included only 209 cases, 60% of which were household fraud. 7 In this way, recent study by Button, Pakes & Blackbourn is a step further into applying IP framework in insurance fraud sphere. According to Kapardis and Krambia-Kapardis, typical fraud offenders are male, married, with high education degree, aged between 35 and 45, with no prior criminal record. Moreover, they tend to act alone, think rationally and use fake documents. They can resort to victimisation of people they know and be convicted for several charges.8 In this case, offenders use close relationships with other people for personal sake and make them victims by abusing their trust. Kapardis and Krambia-Kapardis retrieve this data from existing empirical research and create a comprehensive fraudster profile. The main motive for action is identified is either financial problems or greed for money. Button, Pakes & Blackbourn advance this profile and add that fraudsters usually have 6+ years of experience in managerial positions especially if their job gives them an opportunity for fraud. 9 Offender profile is totally different in household fraud compared to occupational fraud, which can be defined as a use of resources available at work for personal needs. It is notable that the number of female and male offenders is almost equal in this group. The study by Button, Pakes & Blackbourn shows that 46% of 30000 cases are committed by female offenders.10 These findings are similar to Dodds findings with 42% out of 209 cases commit by women.11 Previous studies identified that women are more likely to be involved in insurance fraud compared to other crimes. Also, it is proved that women and men behave similarly when they have the opportunity for fraud. Button, Pakes & Blackbourn state that Age of dishonest claimants is 30-50 years in average with significant 29% of claimants over 50. These findings are similar to Brussman and Werle with 71% of the sample aged 31-50.12 According to Button, Pakes & Blackbourn, this age group is more likely to run household and this facts creates the opportunity for fraud. They are also more likely to experience family issues that serve as an impetus for crime in many cases.13 Occupation of fraudster is not identified in the majority of cases. Button, Pakes and Blackbourn state that this information is provided only in minority cases of the sample; however, their number is enough to come to certain conclusions. Household fraud is committed by people in lower positions or those who are inactive in the labour market. Fraudulent claimants are more likely to work in the sphere of healthcare, management or clerical positions. Retired and unemployed are also very likely to resort to fraudulent claims.14 The next point to analyse in the profiling of insurance fraud offenders is that value of claim made. Interestingly, the study by Button, Pakes & Blackbourn shows that fraudsters do not claim for large amounts of money. Fraudulent claims are usually related to small household items such as TV-sets, computers or mobile phones. Most of the cases in the sample claimed 500 pounds in average. In this way, in it possible to say that people perceive such an amount of money to be relatively small. Since they want to gain balance between being honest and getting benefit from their offence, it is necessary to find a balance between these two values.15 Most fraudsters submit their claims during the first year of the policy use. Moreover, 30% of all cases do this within first 6 months. Button, Pakes & Blackbourn suggest that professionals should pay additional attention to all claims submitted during the first year due to the high risk of fraud.16 Usually, people do not have previous experience of insurance fraud. Despite possible gaps in information, household insurance fraud does not seem to attract experience criminals or grow into organised crime series. Scenarios with which people submit their claims are not really diverse; most of them talk about some sort of the incident or theft. Detailed analysis of time of the claim shows that this type of crime happens all year round and shows slight increase between August and November.17 Peoples verbal and non-verbal behaviour can also contain hints to the fraud. Inconsistencies in the claim, lack of information, aggressive manner, weird behaviour, uncertainties and hesitations are usually associated with fraud. If these signs appear in addition with high risk profiles, professionals should spend more time investigating the claim.18 The article by Gill gives a deeper psychological insight into insurance fraud offender profile as it provides an example of extended criminal case with its discussion. The case of Harry looks representative for the sphere of insurance fraud; a young man with higher education resorts to insurance fraud due to hardships in his family. His friends suggest him how to make easy money filing fraudulent mobile phone claims. He does not perceives his actions as a crime because he rationalises his actions and feels that he is forced to act this way. Several other cases discussed by Gill come to the conclusion that fraud is easy to do because insurance companies does not spend enough time to check claimants.19 In summary, Investigative Psychology framework perfectly fits the domain of insurance fraud. Despite the fact that it requires additional resources and well-educated and trained professionals, it makes it easier to define the characteristics typical for insurance fraud cases. Knowledge of average age, occupation, gender, location and even personality type of fraudster can greatly contribute to the ability of insurance industry to cope with fraud.20 IP is based on different branches of psychology and social science which make sense in the context of crime investigation. Establishing ties between crime characteristics and general profile of the offender is promising in terms of benefits for the industry and potential preventive measures for insurance providers. References Bussmann, K.D. and Werle, M.M., Addressing Crime in Companies: First Findings from a Global Survey of Economic Crime. British Journal of Criminology, vol. 46, no. 6, 2006, pp. 1128–1144. Button, M., Pakes, F., & Blackbourn, D., ‘All walks of life’: A profile of household insurance fraudsters in the United Kingdom, Security Journal, 2014. Canter, David V., Offender Profiling. London, Cambridge University Press, 2010. Canter, D., & Youngs, D., Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action. London, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Dodd, N.J., Insurance Claims Fraud: Applying Psychology to the Reduction of Insurance Claims Fraud. Insurance Trends, vol. 18, 1998, pp. 11–16. Farashah, A. D., & Estelami, H., The Interplay of External Punishment and Internal Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Insurance Fraud. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, vol. 19, no. 4, 2014, pp. 253-264. Gill, M., Learning from Fraudsters. Leicester, UK, Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International, 2005. Kapardis, A. and Krambia-Kapardis, M., Enhancing Fraud Prevention and Detection by Profiling Fraud Offenders, Journal of Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, vol. 14, no. 3, 2004, pp.189–201. Morley, N. J., Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C., How the Detection of Insurance Fraud Succeeds and Fails. Psychology, Crime & Law, vol.12, no. 2, 2006, 163-180. Taylor, P. J., Bennell, C., Snook, B., Porter, L., Cutler, B. L., & Zapf, P., Investigative Psychology. APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 2013. Read More