Is behavioural profiling a viable alternative to more traditional approaches to profiling, viewed from the perspectives of underlying theoretical assumptions and measures of effectiveness? In this article we describe behaviour profiling in relation to other types of profiling, we review relevant psychological mechanisms that underpin behaviour profiling, and discuss effectiveness of this type of profiling as well as methodological aspects of measuring effectiveness. Behaviour profiling is a method largely used to select potential offenders before the offence is committed by observing and giving meaning to behaviours preceding incidents. Deviant behaviours exhibited by suspects can be either part of a modus operandi related to the offence, the consequence of increased stress, or an atypical response to prodding actions by security officers. Relevant psychological mechanisms to explain ways behaviour profiling works include direct characteristics of deception as well as indirect indicators of deception, such as a criminal being more self-focused and more cognitively engaged. Effectiveness of behaviour profiling is increased by training, including learning more about modi operandi and related behaviours, awareness of biases in general, specific relevant biases, and techniques to correct for these biases.

Surveillance measures in public places such as train stations, large events or business premises are aimed at increasing security at those specific locations. They enable people to move around securely at public (high) risk locations. However, people often experience these measures as an obstacle. Too much security often results in limitations of freedom of movement and violations of privacy. Could surveillance measures be designed in such a way that they are perceived more as a ‘service’? The authors studied the variables that influence whether people experience surveillance as a service or as a hindrance. At three surveillance locations (Schiphol Airport, Hoog Catharijne shopping area and Amersfoort railway station) more than thousand visitors were surveyed. They were asked how they experienced service and security on the site. The results show that there are differences in service perception in relation to security measures at the three locations studied. They show how the tension between service and safety can be reduced and provide clues for improving security measures. The results can be used by owners of public locations, surveillance stakeholders or private companies for the optimalisation and re-design of a location, as their goal is to attract loyal visitors, who are not frustrated and are willing to use the location frequently, and who preferably speak positively about the location to others. Also the security measures themselves can be improved, both technical security measures as well as human security measures.