The book is the result of my two academic interests. On a professional level I have too often found that there is a lot of misleading information being dished out on the reasons behind some of the most high profile cyber attacks. Both the media and the so called security experts end up in a blame game without factual evidence or a clear understanding of what lies behind the obvious. My research focuses on proposing a model for Cyber Criminal Psychology & Profiling that incorporates multiple intelligence, Interviewing Techniques, Cyber Criminal Psychology, Cyber forensics and Offender Profiling. The traditional model of offender profiling does not incorporate the human side of the profiler nor the offender. A better profile of a Cyber-Criminal will help in speeding up the investigation process and ensuring better identification of the Cyber-Criminal.

On a personal level, especially after going through a traumatic cancer struggle, I have found that people around me are missing vital things in life. Some out of ignorance and some out of misinterpretation of facts.

The book is a collection of 31 articles, which took almost three years of constant effort. The book is split into five chapters, each representing a unique theme, each with multiple articles of interest. Chapter 1 focuses on Cyber Forensics, Chapter 2 on Profiling, Chapter 3 on Interview Techniques, Chapter 4 on Forensics Psychology and Chapter 5 on Multiple Intelligences. Although the chapters are in a certain order, each article can be read on its own in any order.

The one thing I learnt in preparing the articles is how valuable knowledge of the self and surroundings are in figuring out better solutions for oneself and in the workplace. I hope you enjoy reading these articles as much as I enjoyed writing them. I also hope you find them useful.





Gardner (1983) challenged the conventional view of intelligence by proposing seven (later extended to nine) types of intelligence and how people learn. Those with naturalistic intelligence are smart in dealing with the natural world while those with existential intelligence as asking deep moral questions; those with visual-spatial intelligence think in terms of physical space; those with bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence have a keen sense of their body; those with musical intelligence are sensitive to sound; those with interpersonal intelligence are better at interacting with others; those with intrapersonal intelligence are in tune with their inner feelings; linguistic intelligence refers to those good with words; and logical-mathematical intelligence describes higher ability to reason and calculate (Gardner, 1983).

Multiple intelligence are hard to measure and difficult to assess (Luskin, 2013). While Gardner (1983) proposed a limited set of intelligence, intelligence is not black and white. Emmons (2000), for example, considered spiritual intelligence an extension to Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligence. Marty Klein is a researcher on sexual intelligence (Kerner, 2012). This paper limits its analysis to three types of intelligence – EQ, CQ and PQ.

This paper refers to intrapersonal intelligence as a subset of Emotional Intelligence (EQ), whereas interpersonal intelligence is referred to as People Intelligence (PQ). This paper first discusses the meaning of three types of intelligence that are rapidly gaining importance in the field of crime scene investigation techniques. These are Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Cultural Intelligence (CQ) & People Intelligence (PQ). The significance of these intelligences within investigation techniques is discussed in detail.


Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is a psychological concept that defines an individuals’ ability to identify, understand, use and manage their emotions in a way that helps relieve stress, empathize and communicate effectively with other people, defuse conflict and overcome challenges (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). This ability allows individuals to understand and recognize what other people are experiencing emotionally. For the most part, this understanding and recognition is a nonverbal process that influences how well individuals connect with other people. It also influences people’s thinking about others. EQ differs based on an individual’s intellectual ability.

Golemon (1998) indicated that unlike intellectual ability, which is acquired, EQ is learned. Golemon (1998) and other proponents of this new psychometric, including psychologists Mayer & Salovey (1997) emphasize that EQ exists innately in certain individuals. Golemon (1998) added that everyone has a certain level of EQ and have the ability to monitor their own emotional states, emotions and enhance their EQ. Golemon (1998) suggests that society, both the private and public sector, should dedicate more resource towards research and programs that would help people develop EQ. Other researchers (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) regard EQ as a skill that combines emotions (feelings) and cognitions (thoughts). Mayer & Salovey (1997) placed EQ within the context of well-being, health and personality.

EQ is defined by four key attributes: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Chong, Lee, Roslan, & Baba, 2015). Self-awareness is an individual’s ability to recognize their emotions and how they affect their thoughts. Self-management is the individuals’ ability to control behaviors and impulse feelings and manage their emotions in healthy way, follow through on commitments, take initiatives, and adapt to changing situations and circumstances. On the other hand, social awareness is the ability of individuals to understand their needs; emotions; other people’s concerns; pick up on emotional cues; recognize the power of organization or group’s dynamics and feel comfortable socially. Lastly, relationship management is the individual’s ability to communicate clearly, develop and maintain good relationships, influence and inspire other people, manage conflict and work well with team members.

A large body of research has suggested a possible link between EQ and criminal behaviour suggesting that criminal psychologists can understand criminal behaviour by understanding their EQ and ultimately profiling a criminal accordingly (Caspi,, 1994; Eysenck, 1996; Gottfredson & Travis, 1990; Hayes & O’Reilly, 2013; Lynam, 1993; Megreya, 2013; Puglia,, 2005; Sharma,, 2015).


Cultural Intelligence (CQ) refers to the ability of an individual ability to recognize and understand values, behaviors, customs, values and languages of a people and to apply that knowledge in order to achieve specific goals. It enables an individual to work and relate effectively across culture (James, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). This tool can help improve an individual’s performance in different cultural settings and identify meanings that could be misunderstood or lost in translation in non-verbal behavior. Securing and using CQ can enable an investigator to function effectively in multicultural settings, blend into the community and gain acceptance and thus, conduct a successful investigation.

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) impacts the person’s ability to interact with different cultures in an effective manner. A popular model of CQ proposed by Earlye & Ang (2003) has four dimensions – Cognitive, Meta-cognitive, Motivational, and Behavioral. Cognitive focuses on the person’s knowledge of cultural practices; Meta-cognitive focuses on the awareness of cultural background during interpersonal interactions; Motivational focuses on the individual’s drive to learn more about culture; and Behavioral aspect focuses on their verbal and non-verbal abilities (Ward, Fischer, Lam, & Hall, 2009).


The Big Five personality traits, or the Five Factor Model (FFM) is a well-known model that describes personality. The model was initially proposed by Tupes & Christal (1961) and later improved by Digman (1990). The five factors are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, also known as OCEAN. Openness is the curiosity to experience something new; Conscientiousness is the tendency to be either organized or careless; Extraversion explains whether the person is outgoing or socially reserved; Agreeableness describes friendliness or compassion against being detached; and Neuroticism is about being sensitive or nervous against being secure and confident.

People Intelligence (PQ) makes individuals aware of the inner motivations of people they interact with in everyday life. Individuals with high PQ have the ability to perceive what makes their coworkers, friends, and family tick. They can read non-verbal behaviour and body language of other people and accurately weigh choices they are presented with in work, family life and relationships and accurately judge whether their personal life goals to together well or conflict. Police detectives and other investigators with high PQ are inquisitive about people, open to own experiences, show willingness to change themselves can anticipate their actions and desires, and ultimately predict behaviors of offenders or criminals (Zacker & Bard, 1973).


It is suggested that EQ can help criminal investigators recognize to a certain extent, intentions of other people and consequently in determining whether an individual is being manipulative. As such, investigators can use EQ as an element of investigation. As revealed in multiple studies, EQ can provide detectives with clues about offenders and their mode of operation. For example, the FBI investigator, Robert Ressler became sensitive to significant difference in mode of operations between John Gacy and Ted Bundy. Bundy would first use a blunt strike to know out victims. On the contrary, Gacy would use deceit to kill his victims (Guy, 2016). On this basis, an investigator can check whether the offender’s victim was prone to abuse or deceit. The investigator can also determine the mode of operation of the perpetrator (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000).

Elsewhere, it has been argued that higher EQ is a predictor of satisfaction in life (Mayer et al., 2000). Mayer et al. (2000) believe that individuals with high EQ are more likely to exhibit healthier psychological adaption because such people demonstrate adaptive defense behavior against adaptation. Similarly, studies on performance measures of EQ have suggested that higher EQ levels can be associated with increased and improved relationships with family and friends. On the contrary, lower EQ have been associated with problematic behavior and unfavourable interactions with family and friends (Mayer et al., 2000). Lower EQ was associated with trouble-prone behavior and lower self-reported violent behavior among college students (Mayer et al., 2000). In Mayer et al. (2000), lower EQ was measured using Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence (MSCEIT) and found to associate with increased involvement in deviant behavior, including the involvement in vandalism and physical fights and increased use of alcohol and illegal drugs. Erasmus (2007) revealed that individuals who are lacking in emotional and social competence lack the ability to relate and empathize with others and are self-centered. Erasmus (2007) also found that students with delinquency problems (i.e., participate in crimes, sale drugs, engage in sexual behavior, truancy, dishonesty and pornography) experience emotional and personal problems. A prospective study by Fortin (2003) further revealed that students with delinquency behavior lack self-control and that this makes unable to accept other people and react to criticism in a better way. Fortin (2003) also suggested that a lack of the ability to control moods and emotions makes these delinquent students to conflict with adults and other students. In another study investigating the EQ-delinquency behavior, Chong et al. (2015) confirmed that students with higher delinquency behavior had lower EQ than the normal students.

Researchers in various fields including criminology, sociology and psychology have also suggested a possible correlation between criminal behavior and EQ with remarkable interests being given to personality and intelligence (Frisell, Pawitan, & Langstrom, 2012; Lynam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Eysenck, 1996). Two studies (Frisell, Pawitan, & Langstrom, 2012; Lynam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993) suggested that criminal offenders tend to have lower EQ than non-offenders. Other studies have associated criminal behavior with personality variables including low level of self-control; high level of adverse emotionality; and high levels of neuroticism, psychoticism and extraversion; and difficulty in impulse control (Mottus et al., 2012; Caspi et al., 1994; Gottfredson & Travis, 1990).

Cultural orientation has been found to influence criminal violence because they are supportive of violence (Messner, 1988). Culture is a set of values and beliefs. Therefore they can be learned through social interactions and passed on through groups and across generations (Holt, 2009). Ferrell (1995) states that criminal behaviour is subcultural behaviour, whether carried out by an individual or a group. Research has found a relationship between criminal acts and symbolism, which is commonly found in criminal subcultures. This highlights the importance of CQ in criminal profiling.

A recent study by Gottfredson and Travis (1990) associated criminal behavior with high level of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness (PQ). Other studies found conflicting results regarding correlation between criminal behavior and EQ. Results by Moriarty et. al. (2001) showed that adolescent sex offenders and age-matched none-offenders had similar EQ variables. However, the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) revealed a deficit in offenders’ attention to feeling. In another study, Puglia et al. (2005) did not find significant difference between controls and adult offenders in EQ, as measured by MSCEIT. However, in Puglia et al. (2005) sex offenders had a higher score than none-sex offenders on a MSCEIT scale. In Hayes and O’Reilly (2013), 26 male juveniles were found to have lower EQ than 30 control male juveniles. On the contrary, Hemmati et al. (2004) found adult male offenders to have higher trait EQ levels than the normative sample of Emotional Question Inventory (Hoaken et al., 2007; Owen, & Fox, 2011; Megreya, 2013). Other studies supporting low EQ in offender found that violent perpetrators had low score than nonviolent offenders in empathy and facial expression recognition (Hoaken et al., 2007; Owen, & Fox, 2011). EQ was also found to strongly correlate with criminal thinking styles (Megreya, 2013). Megreya et al. (2012) found EQ to correlate with criminal styles of thinking, which differed with the types of offense. Violent offenders were found to experience more problems on multiple components of EQ than offenders, including social problem solving, personal control, self-regulation, mental health, and emotional stability (McMurran et al., 2001; Ross, & Fontao, 2007; Mak, 1991; Jones et al., 2007). Elsewhere, Megreya (2013) examined the link between criminal behavior and EQ using samples of Egyptian adult none-offenders and offenders. Megreya (2013) further examined the possible correlation between EQ and types of offenses by dividing offenders who had sentenced into three categories: those sentenced for murders, drugs, and theft. Results were in conformity with indirect and direct aggression theory that physical aggression requires less social intelligence than indirect aggression. According to developmental theory of aggressive behavior, direct verbal aggression requires less social intelligence than indirect aggression, and physical aggression requires more social intelligence than direct verbal aggression (Fisher, Beech, & Browne, 1999). This theory suggests that high EQ levels constrain individuals from participating in criminal activities. It was suggested that EQ training should be included in the forensic intervention programs. Elsewhere, it was suggested that criminal behavior could be minimized by improving on components of EQ, including facial expression recognition, social problem solving and anger management (Penton-Voak et al., 2013; Walters, 2008; Nelis et al., 2009).

Sharma et al. (2015) examined the relationship between criminal behavior and low levels of EQ using a sample of 202 subjects. The sample consisted of 101 matched normal controls and 101 convicted offenders. The offender group was picked from a jail and consisted of persons convicted of robbery, rape, murder and other different crimes. The control groups and the intervention groups were matched on gender, marital status, occupation, education, and age and assessed on Mangal Emotional Intelligence Inventory (MEII) and General Health Questionnare-12. The convicted offenders group received significantly lower score on MEII domains than the control group. These domains include interpersonal awareness (other emotions), intrapersonal awareness (own emotions), interpersonal management (other emotions), intrapersonal management, and aggregate emotional quotient.

Canter (1994) identified crime as a form of interpersonal relations/connection, involving one person observing specific ways via which an offender treats the victim. He emphasized the dependency between personality traits and behaviors of a criminal. Canter (1994) likens crime to theoretical performance. Canter (1994) contests that criminal offenders use violence to dramatically write for themselves and cast their crime victims in three key roles: people, vehicles and objects.

This discussion explains how an investigator without adequate understanding of EQ, CQ and PQ could easily misinterpret a person’s behaviour.


As confirmed in this paper, findings from several studies discussed in this paper suggest that cyber profiling can be improved by adding the element of EQ, CQ and PQ as forensic experts can interview offenders with a view to determine their EQ. Certain criminal investigations could further benefit from sexual and spiritual intelligence which might reveal motives behind the criminal activity.

This paper analyzed how multiple intelligences (in particular EQ, CQ and PQ) could make criminal investigation more effective. EQ is useful to understand one’s own emotions and this helps the investigator defuse interpersonal conflicts. EQ teaches the importance of self-awareness and how this ability could help the investigator pick up vital emotional cues when interviewing people.

CQ is equally important because people from different ethnic origins display different behaviour. The knowledge of different customs will allow the investigator to behave in a suitable manner and not jeopardize the investigation by giving out wrong signals. Investigation of certain crimes requires a good deal of people interaction. PQ is vital because not knowing personality traits could lead the investigator in the wrong track.

Considering these studies it is clear that the importance of EQ, CQ and PQ within investigation techniques cannot be denied. A person’s openness or the lack of it, their cultural background could be valuable information to understand them. These are indicators of certain personality traits but cannot be interpreted as a judgment of their behaviour.


1.Canter, D. (1994). Criminal Shadows. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

2.Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger, R. F., & Schmutte, P. S. (1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology , 32, 163–96.

3.Chong, A. M., Lee, P. G., Roslan, S., & Baba, M. (2015). Emotional Intelligence and At-Risk Students. SAGE Open.

4.Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology , 41, 417–440.

5.Earley, C. P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford University Press.

6.Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is Spirituality an Intelligence? Motivation, Cognition, and the Psychology of Ultimate Concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 10 (1), 3-26.

7.Erasmus, C. P. (2007). The role of emotional intelligence in the adaptation of adolescents boys in a private school. University of South Africa, Pretoria.

8.Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and crime: where do we stand? Psychol Crime Law , 2, 143–52.

9.Ferrell, J. (1995). Culture,Crime, and Cultural Criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture , 3 (2), 25-42.

10.Fisher, D., Beech, A., & Browne, K. (1999). Comparison of sex offenders to no offenders on selected psychological measures. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 43, 473–491.

11.Fortin, L. (2003). Students’ antisocial and aggressive behaviour: Development and prediction. Journal of Educational Administration , 41, 669-688.

12.Frisell, T., Pawitan, Y., & Langstrom, N. (2012). Is the association between general cognitive ability and violent crime caused by family-level confounders? PLoS ONE .

13.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

14.Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

15.Gottfredson, M. R., & Travis, H. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

16.Guy, F. (2016, March 12). Robert Ressler: Psychological Profiling of Serial Killers. Retrieved 2017 from

17.Hayes, J. M., & O’Reilly, G. (2013). Psychiatric disorder, IQ, and emotional intelligence among adolescent detainees: a comparative study. Legal Criminological Psychology , 18, 30–47.

18.Hemmati, T., Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (2004). The validity of the Bar-On emotional intelligence quotient in an offender population. Personality and Individual Differences , 37, 695–706.

19.Hoaken, P. N., Allaby, D. B., & Earle, J. (2007). Executive cognitive functioning and the recognition of facial expressions of emotion in incarcerated violent offenders, non-violent offenders, and controls. Aggress Behav , 33, 412–421.

20.Holt, T. (2009, December). Cultural Theories. Criminology .

21.James, P. J., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-Cultural Competence in International Business: Toward a Definition and a Model. Journal of International Business Studies , 37 (4), 525–43.

22.Jones, A. P., Forster, A. S., & Skuse, D. (2007). What do you think you’re looking at? Investigating social cognition in young offenders. Crim Behav Ment Health , 17, 101–106.

23.Luskin, B. J. (2013, Sep 30). How are you smart? Retrieved 2017 from

24.Lynam, D. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the relation between IQ and delinquency: class, race, test motivation, school failure, or self-control? J Abnorm Psychol , 102, 187–196.

25.Mak, A. S. (1991). Psychosocial control characteristics of delinquents and nondelinquents. Crim Justice Behav , 18, 287–303.

26.Mayer, J. D. (2013). Personal Intelligence: The Power of Personality and How It Shapes Our Live. NY: Scientific American.

27.Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence. In P. Salovey, & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications (pp. 3-34). New York: Harper Collins.

28.Mayer, J. D., Caruso, R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional students for an intelligence. Intelligence , 27, 267-298.

29.McMurran, M., Fyffe, S., McCarthy, L., Duggan, C., & Latham, A. (2001). Stop & Think! Social problem-Solving therapy with personality-disordered offenders. Crim Behav Ment Health , 11, 273–85.

30.Megreya, A. M. (2013). Criminal thinking styles and emotional intelligence in Egyptian offenders. Crim Behav Ment Health , 23, 56–71.

31.Megreya, A. M., Bindemann, M., & Brown, A. (2012). Criminal thinking in a Middle Eastern prison sample of thieves, drug dealers and murderers. Leg Criminological Psychol Forthcoming .

32.Messner, S. F. (1988). Research on cultural and socioeconomic factors in criminal violence. Psychiatr Clin North Am. , 11 (4), 511-525.

33.Moriarty, N., Stough, C., Tidmarsh, P., Eger, D., & Dennison, S. (2001). Deficits in emotional intelligence underlying adolescent sex offending. J Adolesc , 24, 743–51.

34.Mottus, R., Guljajev, J., Allik, J., Laidra, K., & Pullmann, H. (2012). Longitudinal associations of cognitive ability, personality traits and school grades with antisocial behavior. Eur J Pers , 26, 56–62.

35.Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional intelligence: (how) is it possible? Personality Individ Differ , 47, 36–41.

36.Owen, T., & Fox, S. (2011). Experiences of shame and empathy in violent and non-violent young offenders. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol , 22, 551–63.

37.Penton-Voak, I. S., Thomas, J., Gage, S., McMurran, M., McDonald, S., & Munaf, M. (2013). Increasing recognition of happiness in ambiguous facial expressions reduces anger and aggressive behaviour. Psychol Sci , 24 (5), 688–97.

38.Puglia, M. L., Stough, C., Carter, J. D., & Joseph, M. (2005). The emotional intelligence of adult sex offenders: ability based EI assessment. J Sex Aggress , 11, 249–58.

39.Ross, T., & Fontao, M. I. (2007). Self-regulation in violent and non-violent offenders: a preliminary report. Crim Behav Ment Health , 17, 171–8.

40.Sharma, N., Prakash, O., Sengar, K. S., Chaudhury, S., & Singh, A. R. (2015). The relation between emotional intelligence and criminal behavior: A study among convicted criminals. Ind Psychiatry J. , 24 (1), 54-58.

41.Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Lackland Air Force Base, TX.

42.Walters, G. D. (2008). Anger management training in incarcerated male offenders: differential impact on proactive and reactive criminal thinking. Int J Forensic Ment Health , 8, 214–7.

43.Ward, C., Fischer, R., Lam, F. S., & Hall, L. (2009). The Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of Scores on a Self-Report Measure of Cultural Intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 69 (1).

44.Zacker, J., & Bard, M. (1973). Effects of conflict management training on police performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 58 (2), 202-208.

Translate »