Assignement introduction Examining Psychosocial Characteristics of Female Serial.pdf

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

Serial murder is a rare phenomenon, yet it remains a high topic of interest, both

for professionals and in the realm of pop culture. Emphasizing the concept of serial

murder as a phenomenon is essential. Serial murder is not common, and serial murderers

themselves are incredibly rare (Aamodt et al., 2020). While predictions and statistics

differ between sources, data shows that the number of active serial murderers operating in

the United States peaked in the 1980s, with victim numbers peaking in 1987 (4787

victims) and gradually declining each year (Aamodt et al., 2020). FBI statistics show

similar rates—they hypothesize that serial murder comprises less than 1% of all killings

in the United States (Aamodt et al., 2020). From 2016 to 2019, the last year with an

available data set at the time this research was conducted, Aamodt et al. (2020) estimated

that number of victims of serial murderers was eight. However, the authors noted that,

due to the common inability to explicitly tie victims to serial murderers until years after

the fact, data from recent years should not be seen as concrete proof. The comparison of

serial murder with other rates of violent crime is stark. In 2019, the number of violent

crimes totaled 1,203,808 (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

[FBI], 2020). In breaking that number down, officials reported the following crime

statistics- 16,425 murders; 139,815 rapes; 267,988 robberies; and 821,182 aggravated

assaults (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2020). While

these numbers are all just estimates that are not inclusive of unreported violent crimes,

basic math shows that the occurrence of serial killings is statistically insignificant in

comparison with other violent offenses.

The reasons for the decline in serial murder may vary—since the 1970s and

1980s, where serial killing was at its peak, there have been major cultural shifts in terms

of personal safety and stranger awareness, as well as advancements in forensic techniques

and law enforcement understanding of homicide and the psychology behind it (Vronsky,

2018)—but the general public’s fascination with serial killers has not declined in the

same rates actual serial killers have. Movies, novels, and true crime series have propelled

serial murderers into the spotlight. Ed Gein, with his skin suit and furniture made from

human breasts, was the inspiration for classic movies like Psycho (1960), The Texas

Chainsaw Massacre (1974), and The Silence of the Lambs (first as a novel published in

1988 and later as an Academy Award-winning film released in 1991), while the character

Dexter Morgan from the series of novels and the television series inspired several

individuals to commit murders. These individuals—whether real or fictional—exist in a

small facet of society, though they are often glamorized and blown out of proportion,

turning serial murder from a rare phenomenon to an everyday occurrence, something a

layperson walking down the street must be careful to avoid, women most especially.

The study of serial murder often takes both a sexual and sexualized approach,

meaning that the only serial murderer worth knowing, or understanding is a cis-gendered

male offender who kills for some form of sexual release or gratification. While sexual

gratification is one of the motivations behind most serial murders (Hickey, 2015),

focusing primarily on it neglects other aspects and experiences, namely those of female

murderers who may kill for other purposes (Harrison et al., 2017). The concept of a

female serial murderer, who is not incredibly rare within an already small percentage of

murderers, is an idea that has only recently begun to gather a similar amount of attention

as that of their male counterparts. While female serial murderers have been researched

since the mid-1980s (Hickey, 1986), a distinct gap becomes obvious when what is known

about female serial murderers is compared to what is known about male serial murderers.

Chapter 1 will provide context for the overall study, including the problem

statement, the purpose of the study, the nature of the study, the theoretical framework that

will be used to ground the study, the research questions, and any assumptions,

delimitations, or definitions that will be used or made throughout.

Background

In relation to serial murder or murder in general, women are often seen as the

victims (Mallicoat, 2019). The traditionally female role in murder has always been the

object being acted upon, not the object acting. Women have only been recently codified

as capable of violence, despite historical information showing that women always could

act violently against others, including their relatives and children. The exact reason for

this will never be conclusively known but is speculated to be, in part, a result of social

norms and dynamics related to gender (Hale & Bolin, 1998; Hickey, 2015; Holmes et al.,

1991; Gurian, 2011; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Mallicoat, 2019; Ramsland, 2007; Telfer, 2017;

Vronsky, 2018). Regardless of how the problem came to exist, the problem does exist. To

not address it is to allow a tradition of not taking female serial murderers seriously.

Eric Hickey completed the first study of female serial murderers in 1986 (Hickey,

1986). Numerous subsequent studies have been conducted to understand female serial

murderers, most often by situating them compared to their male counterparts. Holmes et

al. (1991) examined case studies of female serial murderers to explain or categorize their

behaviors using the Holmes and Holmes typology. The Holmes typology is a

classification model that separates serial murderers into five categories based on

motivation: the visionary killer, the mission-oriented killer, the hedonistic killer, and

power/control killers (Holmes & DeBurger, 1985). Within the context of the study

Holmes et al. (1991) completed, there are four different categories into which female

serial murderers can be grouped: the comfort killer, the hedonistic killer, the power-

seeker, and the disciple killer. In the study, the authors argued that most female serial

murderers appear to mostly fit under the umbrella of the comfort serial killer (Holmes et

al., 1991).

Hale and Bolin (1998) upheld the notion of female serial murderers using

financial gain as a primary motivator, though they also analyzed victimology and the

differences between female single murderers and female serial murderers. Regarding

victimology, female serial murderers often targeted latent victims with whom they had a

close personal relationship (Hale & Bolin, 1998). Aggression often appeared in an

inverse relationship with the perceived weakness of the victim. If a victim was weaker,

then the female serial murderer often acted more aggressively (Hale & Bolin, 1998).

Female serial murderers differed from females who committed a single murder in

multiple ways, though victimology was not one of them; like females who committed

multiple murderers, females who committed a single murder often killed someone who

had a close personal relationship with them, usually a spouse or romantic partner (Hale &

Bolin, 1998). The motivation of the murders often differed; female serial murderers

generally killed for profit or other financial gains, though female single murderers killed

in response to conflict, showcasing a direct example of the differences between

instrumental and expressive violence (Hale & Bolin, 1998).

Kelleher and Kelleher (1998), recognizing the need for a classification system

created solely for female serial murderers, created the Kelleher typology, which sorts

female serial murderers into eight categories: the black widow, the angel of death, the

sexual predator, the revenge killer, the profit or crime killer, the team killer, the question

of sanity killer, the unexplained killer, and the unsolved killer. The authors argued that

the typologies designed for male serial murderers could not accurately organize female

serial murderers and examined close to 100 case studies to develop their typology

(Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998). Kelleher and Kelleher also noted that female serial

murderers killed for more extended periods—eight years on average—than their male

counterparts and started killing later in life, often after 25 years of age. Like Holmes et al.

(1991) and Hale and Bolin (1998), Kelleher and Kelleher found that female serial

murderers are more likely to kill individuals with who they have a close personal

relationship, including family members, children, and romantic partners.

Recently, more studies have been completed to explain further the differences

between male and female serial murderers and the differences between males and females

convicted of single homicide events. Yourstone et al. (2008) completed a study

comparing the psychosocial characteristics of male and female offenders “convicted of

homicide in Sweden between 1995-2001” (p. 374), though the study is limited in its

relevance to this current study in that it was not solely focused on serial murderers. Their

research found several differences in the psychosocial backgrounds of male and female

offenders. Notably, female offenders were more likely to experience a range of adverse

childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, strained relationships, and parents with

mental illness (Yourstone et al., 2008). Yourstone et al. (2008) also found that female

offenders had a close relationship with their victim, were less likely to have a criminal

record, and had a history of psychiatric issues or mental illness, though there were several

similarities between female and male offenders, specifically childhood instability and

exposure to trauma.

Hildebrand and Culhane (2015) completed a study that used clinical tools on a

sample of four incarcerated females who fit the criteria for serial murder. The clinical

tools utilized were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), the

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III), the Levenson Psychopathy Scale

(LPS), the Psychopathy Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R), and the Self-Report

Psychopathy Scale-III (SRPS-III) (Hildebrand & Culhane, 2015). The authors found that

female serial murderers may have complex motivations that impact victimology while

also noting that “factors such as socialization and personality features interact in complex

ways to lead the women to commit murder” (Hildebrand & Culhane, 2015, p. 47). Like

Yourstone et al. (2008) and Hildebrand and Culhane, Harrison et al. (2015) completed a

study acknowledging the psychosocial characteristics and factors of female serial

murderers. Due to the sole focus on female serial murderers, the sample consisted of

women who murdered alone or acted as the dominant member of a partnership. The study

confirmed much of what was previously known about female serial murderers, including

that the most common means of murder was poison (50%), most offenders knew their

victims, and latent victims were the most common type (71.9% of offenders targeted

latent victims) (Harrison et al., 2015). Notably, the study results were similar to Hickey’s

2010 study despite using a different methodology. Like Yourstone et al. (2008), Harrison

et al. (2015) found that female murderers were disproportionately impacted by childhood

sexual abuse and physical abuse. In their study, 14.1 percent of offenders experienced

childhood physical and sexual abuse, compared to the national average of 9 percent of

children experiencing physical abuse and 1 percent of children experiencing sexual abuse

(Harrison et al., 2015). There were also apparent patterns of substance abuse, mental

illness, and maladaptive personality traits or behaviors (Harrison et al., 2015).

Harrison et al. (2019) continued research and expanded by using an evolutionary

framework to compare the differences between male and female serial murderers, testing

a “hunter/gatherer” hypothesis. The authors argued that male and female serial murderers

fit the historical models of the male “hunter” and the female “gatherer,” with the male

serial murderers hunting their victims by killing strangers they stalked, while the female

serial murderers gathered their victims from those around them, including romantic

partners, parents, friends, and children (Harrison et al., 2019).

While some studies address the psychosocial characteristics of female serial

murderers, it is most often done as a part of the study that is not related to its sole

purpose. By solely addressing the psychosocial characteristics of female serial murderers,

there may be an increased understanding of potential risk factors, as well as common

characteristics that may help further knowledge in both the forensic professional

communities and law enforcement communities. A more thorough analysis of the

existing literature will be completed in Chapter 2 of this study.

Problem Statement

Much of the information and discourse regarding serial murder centers on male

serial murderers (Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015; Pearson, 2021; Telfer, 2017; Thompson &

Richard, 2009; Vronsky, 2007, 2018), and it is not until recently that female serial

murderers began receiving similar amounts of attention. Eric Hickey completed the first

study of female serial murderers in the mid-1980s (Hickey, 1986), and, while numerous

studies (Cameron, 1999; Gurian, 2011; Hale & Bolin, 1998; Harrison et al., 2019;

Harrison et al., 2015; Hickey, 2015; Hildebrand & Culhane, 2015; Holmes, Hickey, &

Holmes, 1991; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998; Silvio, 2004) have been

completed since then, people are still reluctant to believe that female serial killers exist

(Hickey, 2015; Holmes, Hickey, & Holmes, 1991; Pearson, 2021; Schurman-Kauflin,

2000; Vronsky, 2007). Psychosocial characteristics is “a term used to describe the

influences of social factors on an individual’s mental health and behavior” (Vizzoto et al.,

2013, para. 1), and, as psychosocial characteristics tend to differ between men and

women (Archer, 2019), it can be surmised that the psychosocial factors between male and

female serial murderers also differ.

Because most of the research about serial murder focuses on the male experience,

there is little research regarding female serial murderers, specifically regarding their

psychosocial characteristics. While the psychosocial characteristics between male serial

murderers and female serial murderers may only differ slightly, the differences in factors

and characteristics may inform or explain why there is such a stark difference in how

they commit their crimes. Information on psychosocial characteristics is generally

included as extra information not related to the study’s overall purpose, despite the

potential benefits of focusing solely on psychosocial characteristics.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the psychosocial

characteristics of female serial murderers. Psychosocial characteristics refer to the

influences of the psychosocial environment on an individual’s thoughts and behaviors

(Vizzoto et al., 2013; Walker & Hepp, 2016) and often are related to psychosocial factors

(American Psychological Association, 2020). These factors can include childhood

experiences, including trauma; mental illness; relationships; adult experiences; and social

pressures. One of the key psychosocial factors that differ between men and women is the

mode of aggression (Yourstone et al., 2008), which could have a large influence on the

differences in how men and women kill their victims (Holmes et al., 1991; Vronsky,

2007). Other psychosocial factors could provide information on why these individuals

became serial murderers, possibly providing data on potential risk factors.

Research Questions

The questions for this study are:

RQ1. What are the psychosocial characteristics of female serial murderers?

Per Lexico (2021), psychosocial is a term “relating to the interrelation of social

factors and individual thought and behaviour” (para. 1), and psychosocial characteristics

are derived from this relationship (Vizzotto et al., 2013). Psychosocial characteristics

may include factors such as the environmental or social culture that an individual grows

up in or the innate characteristics of the individual, both of which may inform why the

individual decides to kill (Hughbank & Grossman, 2013). Psychosocial characteristics

also influence the way a person kills (Hughback & Grossman, 2013), which may explain

the differences in methods between male and female serial murderers, as psychosocial

characteristics differ between sexes (Archer, 2019). This question seeks to address how

psychosocial characteristics or factors may influence the way female serial murderers

commit their crimes.

RQ2. How do the psychosocial characteristics of solo female serial murderers differ from

offenders who have one or more partners?

Male serial murderers and female serial murderers have different motivations for

killing and operate in different ways (Hickey, 2015; Farrell et al., 2011; Kelleher &

Kelleher, 1998). Individually, female serial murderers are more likely to kill with money

and control acting as the primary motivators, whereas men are more likely to kill for sex

and control (Hickey, 2015). Within a team dynamic, the motivations shift to primarily

fulfill the motivations of the dominant partner. In team killings with one male partner and

one female partner, the male is more likely to take a dominant role within the relationship

(Hickey, 2015), and the three most common motivations are sex, money, and control

(Hickey, 2015). While control and money are present within each cohort, sex is only seen

as one of the top three motivators for male murderers and team murderers. However,

there have been cases where females, such as Myra Hindley, Martha Beck, and Karla

Homolka, have taken part in sexually motivated crimes with a male partner (Hickey,

2015; Thompson & Richard, 2009). Thompson and Richard (2009) completed three case

studies (Myra Hindley, Martha Beck, and Karla Homolka) and found that all three

women participated in the murders to please their partners or ensure their partners’

continued presence in their lives. Recognizing the extreme differences in the behavior

between solo female serial murderers and partnered female serial murderers, this question

seeks to address whether the psychosocial characteristics also differ.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study was grounded theory. Grounded theory,

essentially, is based on the “discovery of theory from data” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1)

and was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, two sociologists, in the mid-

1960s while conducting “research related to the sociology of illness” (Schroth, 2019,

para.1). While initially used solely for sociological study, grounded theory has become a

prevalent qualitative method of research used across all disciplines, including psychology

(Bryant & Charmaz, 2012; Henwood & Pigeon, 2003). Grounded theory is well-suited

for researching and attempting to understand phenomena (Birks et al., 2019; Chun Tie et

al., 2019). Several grounded theory techniques can be used to analyze data and attempt to

explain what might be happening within a line of research inquiry.

Regarding the current study, grounded theory and its techniques serve as an

appropriate qualitative framework, mainly due to the usage of secondary data analysis.

As grounded theory is rooted in discovering codes, concepts, categories, and themes

(Schroth, 2019), similarities or differences amongst the psychosocial characteristics of

the individuals explored in this study will be developed and analyzed through

comparison.

A more detailed explanation of grounded theory will be completed in Chapter 2 of

this study.

Nature of the Study

The nature of the study was a qualitative study as it is designed to examine

females who are serial murderers, who are relatively rare in criminological research.

Most of the analysis will be done through secondary data analysis. Due to the

improbability of conducting in-person interviews, data was collected from archival

interviews done by other professionals. Additional information was gathered from other

forms of data available in each case, including public records, videos, peer-reviewed

books authored by professionals, and peer-reviewed studies published in journals. The

information was then examined to address common characteristics and deviations within

the selected case studies. This qualitative analysis allowed themes and patterns between

the studied offenders to become apparent through manual coding.

Definitions

The terms used in the study are defined as follows:

Angel of death: A woman who systematically murders individuals who are in her

care or who rely on her for some form of medical attention or similar support. The

motives for these murders may be diverse (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 15).

Black widow: A woman who systematically murders multiple spouses, partners,

or other family members. She may also claim victims outside the family. The motives for

these murders may be diverse and may encompass other classifications, such as profit or

crime (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 15).

Expressive violence: Violence that is impulsive and meant to vent bottled-up

feelings (Pearson, 2021, p. 36).

High risk victim: A person who generally has a high probability of criminal

victimization (FBI, 2017).

Instrumental violence: Violence that is cool and calculating (Pearson, 2021, p.

36).

Latent victim: Victims who are unable or have limited abilities to defend

themselves because of their general condition (Hale & Bolin, 1998, p. 42).

Low risk victim: A person who generally has a minimal probability of criminal

victimization (FBI, 2017).

Moderate risk victim: A person who generally has a minimal probability of

criminal victimization but due to behavior, atypical or otherwise, the risk was

situationally elevated at the time of victimization (FBI, 2017).

Profit or crime: A woman who systematically murders individuals during other

criminal activities (or for profit) but is not a member of a team of killers and does not

meet the criteria for a black widow (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 16).

Question of sanity: A woman who murders in an apparently random manner,

usually without a clear and explicable motive, and who is later judged to be legally

insane. Alternatively, a woman who murders in a systematic way and is later found to be

suffering from a mental disorder that is connected to the crimes. In either event, a

psychological disorder must be present and be of such a magnitude as to bring the issue

of culpability into question (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 16).

Revenge: A woman who systematically murders individuals for motives of

revenge or jealousy (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 15-6).

Serial murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offenders

in separate events (FBI, 2008; Hickey, 2015, p. 36).

Sexual predator: A woman who systematically murders others in what are known

to be clear acts of sexual homicide. The motive for these murders must be sexual in

nature (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 15).

Team killer: In conjunction with at least one other person, a woman who

systematically murders others or who participates in the systematic murder of others. The

motives for these murders may be diverse, and the woman may not have personally

murdered others (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 16).

Unexplained: A woman who systematically murders for reasons that are wholly

inexplicable or for a motive that has not been made sufficiently clear for organization.

The perpetrator must not be judged legally insane (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998, p. 16).

Unsolved: A systematic pattern of murders that may be attributed to a woman (or

women) with relative confidence, but which have not been solved (Kelleher & Kelleher,

1998, p. 16).

Victim facilitation: The occurrence when a victim unintentionally makes it easier

for an offender to commit a crime (Daigle, 2016, p. 2).

Victim precipitation: The extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her

own victimization (Daigle, 2016, p. 2).

Victim risk level: The degree to which an individual’s personality, behavior,

lifestyle, habits, physical attributes, location, circumstances, judgment, security

consciousness, and/or other personal factors affect the probability of criminal

victimization (FBI, 2017).

Assumptions

The main assumption of this study is that female serial murderers have

psychosocial characteristics that are unique. This assumption is necessary because it

provides the foundation of the research study. Another assumption is that the data will be

reliable and factual. Because the Radford/FGCU Database undergoes stringent

requirements and vetting, the information collected from the database should be both

valid and reliable, though it will be checked against other sources.

Scope and Delimitations

This study aimed to examine the psychosocial characteristics of female serial

murderers. The study focused primarily on Canadian and American female individuals

who fit the FBI’s (2008) criteria for establishing serial murder. Participants were selected

from the Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database, and data was collected via a review of

the information available in the database, as well as peer-reviewed and scholarly outside

information.

One of the major delimitations of the study is the exclusion of male participants.

Because extensive research has been conducted on male serial murderers, this study is

solely focusing on the psychosocial characteristics of female serial murderers.

Additionally, female serial murderers from outside of the United States and Canada will

be excluded from this study due to offenders from other countries not being included in

the primary data resource, the Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database.

Limitations

One of the apparent barriers in this study is the lack of access to live participants.

Because female offenders are rare and often are a challenge to access, this study relied on

primary and secondary data, though primary data sources may be more challenging to

access. The reliance on public records and criminal files is a limitation that may

negatively impact the study’s overall findings. However, this is noted and will be

addressed throughout the data collection and analysis processes.

Other barriers to the study include the barriers created by the COVID-19

pandemic and the level of misinformation that can be present when researching this field

of study. Regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, this study is less affected due to a lack of

live participants, though access to resources and data may take longer because of ongoing

pandemic restrictions. In terms of misinformation and serial murder, because of the high

public interest and glamorization of serial murder, misinformation may be printed and

taken as fact. Additionally, authors can hold biases about serial murder, whether

intentional or not. These limitations were managed by cross-referencing information,

relying heavily on peer-reviewed publications, and obtaining as many reliable scholarly

sources as possible.

Significance

The importance of conducting further study into the psychosocial characteristics

of female serial murderers may lie in its benefit to the forensic community and law

enforcement. Though serial murder itself is a rare phenomenon, any increased

understanding allows the possibility of saving one life or more, which is accurate

regarding female serial murderers. Hickey (2015) estimated that “nearly 17 percent [of

serial killers] are female” (p. 5) and can often remain “invisible to public view and can

kill over many years” (p. 308), partly due to society’s reluctance to view women as being

capable of violence (Gurian, 2011; Hale & Bolin, 1998; Hickey, 2015; Holmes, Hickey,

& Holmes, 1991; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Mallicoat, 2019; Pearson, 2021; Ramsland, 2007;

Telfer, 2017; Vronsky, 2007, 2018). Because of the so-called invisibility of female serial

murderers, female serial murderers can operate undetected for significant periods.

Kelleher and Kelleher (1998), in their seminal study, found that female serial murderers,

on average, operate for approximately eight years, though they tend to begin killing at a

later age than male serial murderers. Female serial murderers have historically been

underestimated and dismissed in a variety of contexts: Aileen Wuornos was described as

the first actual female serial murderer despite the dozens of female serial murderers who

predated her (Hickey, 2015); the noms de guerre of female serial murderers are often

based on their appearance or age, belittling the violence of their crimes and the lives they

impacted (Harrison et al., 2017; Hickey, 2015); and, most significantly, there are still

individuals who view the concept of a female serial murderer as a joke rather than an

actual threat (Vronsky, 2007, 2018). Because females were unable to be viewed as

incapable of anything except nurturing, much about female serial murderers is still very

unknown.

An increased understanding of the psychosocial characteristics of female serial

murderers may improve the general awareness of why they kill, how their social and

cultural environments impact this, and increase understanding in both prevention and

apprehension. While research regarding serial murder is generally more helpful after a

murder has already been committed, an increased understanding of female serial murders

and how they operate may shorten the time female offenders are active and assist law

enforcement with identifying, understanding, and arresting them.

Summary

Though serial murderers are overwhelmingly male, female serial murderers do

exist and do pose a threat that should be taken seriously (Hickey, 2015; Vronsky, 2008,

2018). The reluctance to take female serial murderers seriously has led to several

problems, both historic and current, including female murderers being acquitted of their

crimes (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998), sentencing disparities between male and female

serial murderers, and a lessened level of dangerousness attributed to female serial

murderers (Hickey, 2015). Researchers postulate that this may stem from gender politics

and social dynamics (Gurian, 2011; Hale & Bolin, 1998; Hickey, 2015; Holmes, Hickey,

& Holmes, 1991; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Mallicoat, 2019; Pearson, 2021; Ramsland, 2007;

Telfer, 2017; Vronsky, 2007, 2018). Research regarding female serial murderers has

advanced in numerous ways, but a study regarding the psychosocial characteristics is

needed to further the scope. Because of that, the focus of this study is on the psychosocial

characteristics of American and Canadian female serial murderers.

In Chapter 2, a thorough review of seminal and recent research is completed.

Topics reviewed include the historical understanding of serial murder, the modern

understanding of serial murder, the etiological causes of serial murder, a review of

grounded theory and its applicability to the current study, and a summary of common

themes found in relating women to serial murder. Also included is a brief history of

notable female serial murderers.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Much of the information and discourse regarding serial murder centers on male

serial murderers (Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015; Pearson, 2021; Telfer, 2017; Thompson &

Richard, 2009; Vronsky, 2007, 2018), and it is not until recently that female serial

murderers began receiving similar amounts of attention. Eric Hickey completed the first

study of female serial murderers in the mid-1980s (Hickey, 1986), and, while numerous

studies (Cameron, 1999; Gurian, 2011; Hale & Bolin, 1998; Harrison et al., 2015;

Harrison et al., 2019; Hickey, 2015; Hildebrand & Culhane, 2015; Holmes et al., 1991;

Jurik & Winn, 1990; Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998; Silvio, 2004) have been completed since

then, people are still reluctant to believe that female serial killers exist (Hickey, 2015;

Holmes, Hickey, & Holmes, 1991; Pearson, 2021; Schurman-Kauflin, 2000; Vronsky,

2007). Psychosocial characteristics is “a term used to describe the influences of social

factors on an individual’s mental health and behavior” (Vizzoto et al., 2013, para. 1), and

as psychosocial characteristics tend to differ between men and women (Archer, 2019), it

can be surmised that the psychosocial factors between male and female serial murderers

also differ.

Because most of the research about serial murder focuses on the male experience,

there is little research regarding female serial murderers, specifically regarding their

psychosocial characteristics. While the psychosocial characteristics between male serial

murderers and female serial murderers may only differ slightly, the differences in factors

and characteristics may inform or explain why there is such a stark difference in how

they commit their crimes. Information on psychosocial characteristics is generally

included as extra information not related to the study’s overall purpose, despite the

potential benefits of focusing solely on psychosocial characteristics.

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the psychosocial characteristics

of female serial murderers. Psychosocial characteristics refer to the influences of the

psychosocial environment on an individual’s thoughts and behaviors (Vizzoto et al.,

2013; Walker & Hepp, 2016) and often are related to psychosocial factors (American

Psychological Association, 2020). These factors can include childhood experiences,

including trauma; mental illness; relationships; adult experiences; and social pressures.

One of the key psychosocial factors that differ between men and women is the mode of

aggression (Yourstone et al., 2008), which could have a large influence on the differences

in how men and women kill their victims (Holmes et al., 1991; Vronsky, 2007). Other

psychosocial factors could provide information on why these individuals became serial

murderers, possibly providing data on potential risk factors.

Literature Search Strategy

The literature search strategy includes gaining access to and exploring various

journals, online scholarly databases, websites, online books, and print books. The most

frequently used databases were JSTOR, APA PsycINFO, EBSCO, SAGE Journals, and

the Criminal Justice Database. The most frequented search engine was the online Walden

University Library. Google and Google Scholar were also utilized. Keyword searches

included various forms of the root words of terms including serial murder, serial killer,

female serial murder, female serial killer, female deviance, psychosocial characteristics,

psychosocial factors, childhood, trauma, grounded theory, gender, murder, homicide,

risk factors, violence, typology, criminal behavior, and psychosocial characteristics of

serial murderers. This intensive search consisted primarily of examining data from

studies published in or after 2000. Research published prior to 2000 served as

foundational or seminal and was used as supplemental when more recent research could

not be located.

Theoretical Foundation

The proposed theoretical framework for this study is grounded theory. Grounded

theory, essentially, is based on the idea of theories developing from data rather than data

being used to adhere to or prove a theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and was created by

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, two sociologists, in the mid-1960s while conducting

research related to terminally ill patients (Schroth, 2019). While initially used solely for

sociological study, grounded theory has become a prevalent qualitative method of

analysis used across all disciplines, including psychology (Bryant & Charmaz, 2012;

Henwood & Pigeon, 2003). Grounded theory is well-suited for researching and

attempting to understand phenomena (Birks et al., 2019; Chun Tie et al., 2019). Several

grounded theory techniques can be used to analyze data and attempt to explain what

might be happening within a line of research inquiry.

There are four stages of collection and analysis within a grounded theory analysis:

codes, concepts, categories, and theories (Schroth, 2019). Each stage of grounded theory

analysis builds off the other; codes lead to concepts, concepts lead to categories, and

categories may eventually develop into theories (Schroth, 2019). Initially, a grounded

theory method study begins with asking questions about how the data may inform rather

than how the data may prove or add to a pre-existing theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2012).

Different forms of sampling can be used within a grounded theory analysis, but

purposive, or nonrandom (Lavrakas, 2008), sampling is used most often (Bryant &

Charmaz, 2012). Data collection and analysis co-occur as the researcher continuously

interacts with the data (Bryant & Charmaz, 2012), with the overall goal being not to

apply preconceived notions or theories during the collection and analysis.

In the coding stage of the process, which is also the lowest stage of analysis,

researchers identify critical points of data that begin to point out larger pictures (Bryant &

Charmaz, 2012; Schroth, 2019), eventually leading to the concept process. Each stage of

analysis builds upon the previous ones in terms of specificity and increases in abstraction

(Bryant & Charmaz, 2012), eventually leading to the development of theories (Schroth,

2019). In developing theories, the researcher will group categories or possible

explanations and potentially establish a theoretical framework (Schroth, 2019).

Data analysis methods are often tested by their validity, whereas, with grounded

theory, research is tested by four things: fit, relevance, workability, and modifiability

(Bryant & Charmaz, 2012; Schroth, 2019). Schroth (2019) argued that fit refers to

whether the final research coincides with the data collected from interviews or secondary

sources of information, while relevance refers to whether the research is needed and will,

in some way, contribute to the discipline. Workability refers to whether the theoretical

framework can be used in several different areas or situations (Schroth, 2019).

Modifiability is what allows the theory or theoretical framework to be modified or

changed if new information becomes known (Schroth, 2019).

Despite all the benefits that grounded theory offers to the qualitative researcher

(Bryant & Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Kenwood, 2017; Schroth, 2019), the grounded

theory methodology is not without its critiques and criticisms (Charmaz & Kenwood,

2017; Clarke, 2011). One of the main concerns grounded theory faces is its validity in

subject truthfulness. Because grounded theory relies extensively on interviews, the

researcher must assume that the subjects are telling the truth and not intentionally

misleading the researcher (Clarke, 2011), which can later lead to concerns of validity.

Additionally, there is the potential for bias amongst researchers. Clarke (2011) noted that,

because grounded theory is unequivocally based on the researcher forming theories based

on their perceptions of the data, researcher bias is a likely and valid concern for critics.

Within the specific field of psychology, Charmaz and Kenwood (2017) noted that critics

essentially argued that grounded theory does not accurately portray or analyze the

psychological dynamics of participants, while also arguing that the methods of grounded

theory analysis are not enough to form a substantive theory or framework. In response,

Charmaz and Kenwood argued that these issues might be present within specific studies

that claimed to use a grounded theory framework rather than issues inherent in the

methodology itself. It should be noted that researcher bias and participant untruthfulness

are generally indicated as possible limitations in most, if not all, grounded theory studies,

including this one.

In psychological research, grounded theory has become a framework often used

for qualitative studies (Bryant & Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Kenwood, 2017; Clarke,

2011; Parveen, 2018; Schroth, 2019). Parveen (2018) completed a literature review of

twenty-two studies of psychological research that used a grounded theoretical framework;

in the review, she noted that all the studies gathered for the review benefitted from the

inclusion of grounded theory. Specifically, she argued that grounded theory allowed these

researchers to identify issues within their chosen field and identify possible solutions to

the problems identified (Parveen, 2019). Concerning the current study and its research

problem, a search of grounded theory and serial murder in both the Walden University

library, EBSCO, APA PsycInfo, and Google Scholar returned very few, if any, results.

Two prominent results included two master’s theses completed: The development of

serial killers: A grounded theory study (Sharma, 2018) and A qualitative exploration into

the subjective experiences of healthcare serial killers (Tang, 2020). While theses are

generally not seen as peer-reviewed sources of data, their inclusion is pertinent to the

current study as their research problems are closely related to this study’s.

Sharma (2018) used a grounded theory methodology to study the lived

experiences of three male serial murderers—Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and Richard

Ramirez—to develop possible etiological explanations for serial murder. The study found

that several factors—notably low-self-esteem, stress/trauma, loneliness, power/control,

and a need for belonging—were shared between all three murderers and were often

related to each other (Sharma, 2018). In recognizing the study’s limitations, Sharma

(2018) noted that his sample was limited by both gender and race and stated the need for

a study with a more diverse sample. Tang (2020) used a grounded theory methodology to

examine three healthcare serial murderers through the lens of neutralization theory. The

study sample included two males and one female (Tang, 2020). Tang (2020) found that

the three offenders shared similar experiences and often justified their murders using

neutralization techniques, arguing that committing the murders was their duty or their

crimes were necessary. Like Sharma (2018), Tang (2020) noted the need for a study with

a larger sample size and a more extensive representation of female offenders.

Regarding the current study, grounded theory and its techniques serve as an

appropriate qualitative framework, mainly due to secondary data analysis. As grounded

theory is rooted in discovering codes, concepts, categories, and themes (Schroth, 2019),

similarities or differences amongst the psychosocial characteristics of the individuals

explored in this study will be developed and analyzed through comparison. Additionally,

grounded theory methodologies have been used in numerous psychological studies

(Bryant & Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Kenwood, 2017; Clarke, 2011; Parveen, 2018;

Schroth, 2019), as well as studies pertaining specifically to serial murderers (Sharma,

2018; Tang, 2020).

Historical Understanding of Serial Murder

Serial killing itself has been chronicled dating back to ancient history (Vrosnky,

2007, 2018) and has been studied as early as medieval Europe, though it was not codified

as serial murder at the time (Hickey, 2015; Vrosnky, 2007, 2018). The first person known

to extensively research the topic of sexual deviance—which, for an extended period, was

considered necessary for a homicide to be indicative of serial murder—was Dr. Richard

von Krafft-Ebing (Oosterhuis, 2012). Krafft-Ebing conducted some of the first research

on sexual deviance, and, while it is limited from a modern standpoint based on it

reflecting the beliefs and politics of its time (Oosterhuis, 2012), Krafft-Ebing’s work has

been credited with shaping the contemporary notion of sexuality, primarily through

Psychopathia Sexualis, his most known work.

Despite Psychopathia Sexualis being predominantly targeted for medical

professionals, it served as a basis for understanding sexual deviance and perversion, both

of which would be integral to developing early definitions of sexual serial murder. In his

text, Krafft-Ebing described several acts of sexual deviance, including lust-murder and

sadism in both men and women (Krafft-Ebing & Chaddock, 1892). While Krafft-Ebing is

self-described as a medical professional and alienist—a historically dated term for

psychiatrist (Merriam-Webster, 2021)—he also included relevant legal aspects for the

deviances he considered especially dangerous to society.

One of the critical notes Krafft-Ebing (1892) made in his research is the

intersection between lust and cruelty, arguing that lust and anger are similar emotions in

several ways and often result in similar expressions of feeling. Krafft-Ebing (1892)

further stated that, in certain individuals, the emotions of lust and cruelty are inextricably

bound, causing weakened or absent inhibitory feelings; this could often result in the

aggressor causing pain, injury, or even death to the involved partner. Krafft-Ebing (1892)

credited the ties between sex and aggression to social dynamics, theorizing that, because

men must act as the aggressors when pursuing a sexual relationship with a woman, the

aggressive character may be overdeveloped, leading to a potentially dangerous encounter

where the man overpowered or harmed the woman to control her. Krafft-Ebing (1892)

described this relationship in a chicken-and-egg paradigm: sexual excitement can activate

cruelty, but cruelty can also activate a sexual response. This concept of sexual sadism as

Krafft-Ebing described it continued directly into his concept of lust-murder.

Citing several examples of lust murder, including the infamous Jack the Ripper

case, Krafft-Ebing (1892) provided several definitions for what may constitute a lust-

murder, including “acts of bestiality with the body” (p. 62), cannibalism, and arousal

from the sadistic acts committed, including strangulation, mutilation, rape, and acts of

necrophilia. In terms of the fixation on necrophilia, which would later be seen in killers

such as Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, and Jerry Brudos, Krafft-Ebing (1892) theorized that

“the corpse—a human form absolutely without will—satisfies an abnormal desire, in that

the object of desire is seen to be capable of absolute subjugation, without possibility of

resistance” (p. 68). The relationship described, linking sex, violence, and control, would

later prove to be instrumental in understanding the motivations of sexual serial

murderers.

Relating to Krafft-Ebing’s (1892) views on gender dynamics, he argued that

sadism was more frequent in men than women due to sadism being a perverted sense of

aggression and masculinity and that sadistic women reflected a reversal of traditionally

feminine behavior. While Psychopathia Sexualis provided numerous accounts of male

sadism, he only included two accounts of female sadism, both of which were marked by

the women involved experiencing odaxelagnia, or sexual arousal from the act of biting

(Krafft-Ebing, 1892). Additionally, the section on male sadism is five pages, while the

section devoted to sadism in women is only two (Krafft-Ebing, 1892). Again, it is

essential to acknowledge that Krafft-Ebing’s views were undoubtedly influenced by

opinions of gender and women consistent with his time. However, it is important also to

note that, in the centuries that followed, law enforcement and psychologists maintained

the view that women were too feminine and too weak to partake in the traditionally

masculine act of sadism (Hickey, 2015; Holmes, Hickey, & Holmes, 1991; Pearson,

2021; Schurman-Kauflin, 2000; Vronsky, 2007). The underestimation of the female

capacity for violence can be seen as one of the primary reasons female serial murderers

have often been able to operate undetected for longer periods.

While Krafft-Ebing’s contributions to the study of deviance still ring relevant

today, other early studies of serial murder were often conflated with tales of supernatural

killers, such as vampires or werewolves (Hickey, 2015; Schlesinger, 2000; Vronsky,

2018), which does limit the amount of historical perspective that has been provided in

this field. Because of these unexplained murders, which often included heinous

mutilations and cannibalism, several individuals—including Gilles de Rais and Peter

Stubbes—claimed not guilty by reason of lycanthropy as a defense for their crimes

(Schlesinger, 2000), and, subsequently, lycanthropy was considered a medical issue

(Hickey, 2015) known as lycanthropia (Vronsky, 2018). Early study of serial murder was

often limited by a lack of understanding of the psychology behind these crimes and an

intense fixation on the fear of the supernatural and a reliance on the church for moral and

legal direction. Based on information supplied by the church, namely at the hands of

demonologists and theologians, people believed that others did not commit crimes

because of mental illness or deviant impulses but because they were possessed or

consorting with the Devil (Vronsky, 2018). Individuals who committed gory crimes at

odds with societal norms at the time were seen as monsters, and offenders were charged

with crimes that fit within the schema of the church, notably witchcraft and lycanthropy

(Vronsky, 2018). Both Gilles de Rais (1404-1440) and Elizabeth Báthory (1560-1614)

were initially charged with “accusations of witchcraft and black magic and only

secondarily associated with charges of multiple murder” (Vronsky, 2018, p. 99). While in

hindsight it is evident to a modern audience that the murders were committed out of a

drive to satisfy a deviant urge, lycanthropy was a valid defense during this time, and,

ultimately, there were “at least 300 werewolf trials in Western Europe between 1450 and

1650” (Vronsky, 2018, p. 99). Peter Vronsky (2018) covered this phenomenon

extensively, drawing a comparison of the monster theory to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s controversial and now debunked organized-disorganized dichotomy:

Two of the most enduring monsters in human imagination— the preservative,

calculating, quasi-necrophiliac vampire and the destructive, frenzied, cannibalistic

werewolf— roughly correspond to the FBI’s serial-killer typology of the calculating,

coldy-neat organized serial killer (Dracula) and the messy, impulsive, disorganized serial

killer (the Wolf Man). (p. 32)

Other early modern notions of criminality also tended to follow the idea that

criminality reflected morality, often mixing with heredity (Hickey, 2015). While this

would later influence the founding of eugenics (and, indirectly, numerous genocides

across the globe, including the Holocaust) (Hickey, 2015), the idea of inherited or born

criminality provided a foundation for the overall study of criminology, especially within

the works of Cesare Lombroso. Considered the founder of modern criminology,

Lombroso (1835 - 1909) was well-known for his theory of the “born criminal.”

Within his works, Lombroso (2006) favored theories of atavistic biological

determinism, arguing that criminality was genetic and often related to traits seen in

inferior or savage races. While this viewpoint is rightfully derided in the modern era for

being biased by the race politics of its time, Lombroso’s influence on criminology is hard

to erase, despite his ideas now seeming ludicrous and pseudoscientific. Lombroso (2006)

argued that the primary way to determine whether someone was a criminal was based on

their appearance and the way their skull was shaped; that criminals were less sensitive to

pain than the ordinary citizen, as well as being morally insensitive; and that criminal

intelligence is below average. Modern researchers and psychologists now know that most

of these theories are inherently false, though that does not discredit the harm that they had

on society and individuals who did not fit societal norms:

The notion of born criminals provided the impetus of the eugenics movement of

the early 1930s. Based on the belief that many criminal traits and mental illnesses were

inherited, 27 states allowed the forced sterilization of the “feeble-minded, chronic

offenders, and the insane.” (Hickey, 2015, p. 69)

Lombroso also faced scrutiny and criticism during the early to mid-1900s, with

Lindesmith et al. (1937) arguing that Lombroso effectively made criminals out to be non-

persons, adding that Lombroso’s theories went against hundreds of years of

criminological research that both pre-dated his and often proved his theories factually

incorrect. The rise of Lombroso as the father of criminology could possibly be attributed

to American scholars, who did not have access to any prior criminological theories, as

they had not been translated into English, making their dissemination difficult for

English-speaking audiences (Lindesmith et al., 1937).

However, while it is important to recognize Lombroso’s faults as a researcher, it

is also important to understand that he may have been correct about some aspects of

criminality. Lombroso (2006) touched on how criminals seemed to lack genuine empathy

for those impacted by their crimes, were prone to boasting, and often committed crimes

to gain recognition, all valid observations of criminal behavior today. He also commented

on possible sociological influences of criminality at the time, including facilitators such

as alcohol, learned behavior observed from interactions with family members, and the

impact of education (Lombroso, 2006). Modern professionals often touch upon all these

factors in addressing possible risk factors or causes of modern criminal behavior.

Modern Understanding of Serial Murder

Serial murder is often believed to be a uniquely American phenomenon,

something that only Americans have experienced or researched. While serial murder was

popularized in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, particularly because of the

infamous killers who operated in that era, it is a global experience that has been

researched by American scholars and scholars from other countries. Most well-known

serial murderers often hail from developed Western countries such as the United States,

the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, something that Peter Vronsky (2018) argued

may be attributed to a lack of widespread reporting from other countries throughout the

globe.

The term serial killer was first coined by FBI agent Robert Ressler while

investigating the Son of Sam murders that plagued New York in the 1970s (Hickey,

2015). Initially, serial murder was said to be “three or more separate events in three or

more separate locations with an emotional cooling-off period in between homicides”

(Douglas et al., 1992, p. 21), though the same authors later changed this definition to

redefine serial murder as “the unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same

offender(s) in separate events,” with the cooling-off period having come to be regarded as

“historical” in nature (Douglas et al., 2013, p. 16). One of the most significant differences

regarding the two definitions is that the former definition required that some form of

sexual motivation be present at the scene or found within the offender’s actions, while the

latter does not.

Moving beyond the scope of Douglas et al. (1992, 2013), serial murder has, at

different times and by different people, been described as an act committed by “any

offenders, male or female, who kill over time” with a “minimum of three or four victims”

and a “pattern in their killing that can be associated with the types of victims selected or

the method or motives for killing” (Hickey, 2006, p. 23); the separate killings of at least

three people by an individual over a certain length of time (Bartol & Bartol, 2004); or

“the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant

cooling-off period between the killings” (Holmes & Holmes, 2006, p. 5-6). While the

fine details of each definition showcase their overall differences, the bones are the

same—serial murder is the act of killing a specific number of people over a period, not

out of necessity, but because the offender enjoys the act of killing. However, the fine

details of the definition are what often cause controversy and tension between scholars,

law enforcement, and profilers. Because of this, the FBI gathered for the 2006 San

Antonio Symposium and created a uniform definition that both professionals and law

enforcement could use: “the unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same

offenders in separate events” (FBI, 2008; Hickey, 2015, p. 36).

In comparing this definition to the original posed by Douglas et al. (1992; 2013),

several distinct differences—namely regarding the number of qualifying victims and the

less specific motivation—showcase the ever-evolving nature of studying serial murder.

While no definition of serial murder will ever come close to being labeled perfect, as

there will always be some level of disagreement between scholars and researchers, recent

evolutions on the definition have improved the ability to study the phenomenon.

Organized/Disorganized Dichotomy

Numerous typologies have been created to categorize these offenders, starting

with the FBI’s Organized/Disorganized Dichotomy (Douglas et al., 2013). The

Organized/Disorganized Dichotomy maintained that offenders could generally be

classified into three different groups—Organized, Disorganized, Mixed—based on

information found at the crime scene (Douglas et al., 2013). One of the first methods of

crime scene profiling, Douglas et al. (2013) theorized that the analysis of a criminal act

also spoke to the way a criminal’s mind worked. An organized offender is an offender

who generally shows more finesse at the crime scene; this offender often chose his victim

and exhibited a sense of control throughout the commission of the crime (Douglas et al.,

2013), whereas a disorganized offender often commits crimes that are unplanned and

could be a consequence of several factors, including age, intelligence, experience, and

substance misuse (Douglas et al., 2013). A mixed offender may display aspects of both

organized and disorganized offenders for several reasons, including more than one

offender, a deteriorating attack, unplanned escalation (e.g., rape to murder), or external

stressors (Douglas et al., 2013). Victimology, methodology, and crime scene indicators

will differ between all the offenders, and offender typology is not necessarily static

(Douglas et al., 2013). As an example, Ted Bundy, who was regarded as a highly

organized offender, later devolved and deteriorated into a disorganized offender when he

attacked the Chi Omega sorority house at FSU. Notable for being one of the first serial

murderer typologies, the Organized/Disorganized Dichotomy has mainly been debunked

and is no longer used by the National Center for Analysis of Violence Crime (NCAVC)

when conducting day-to-day case analysis (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2017).

While the study was foundational for showing that there are commonalities between

serial murderers, the study also suffered from a poor research design, notably a small

sample size, a sampling bias, and self-reported counts from the interviewed offenders

(Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2017).

Holmes Typology

Another notable typology of serial murder is the Holmes typology, which divides

serial murderers into four different types of offenders—the visionary killer, the mission-

oriented killer, the hedonistic killer, and power/control killers (Holmes & Deburger,

1985). Visionary killers are one of the few serial murderers who may be classified as

psychotic, as they often hear outside voices or visions that compel them to murder.

Within their foundational paper, Holmes and Deburger argued that this type of killer is

often out of touch with reality and may classify for an insanity plea after apprehension.

The mission-oriented killer has identified a group or subset of people that he or she feels

needs to be destroyed (Holmes & Deburger, 1985). These people may be individuals he

or she feels morally offended by, such as sex workers, transient populations, or other

high-risk individuals, though it may also just be groups or people he or she deems

unworthy of life. While not psychotic, the mission-oriented serial killer believes it is his

or her duty to rid the world of an undesirable group. The hedonistic serial killer is what

the average layperson often thinks of when they imagine what a serial killer should be.

Hedonistic killers are killers who kill for enjoyment, or, as Holmes and Deburger (1985)

put it, the “thrill of it” (p. 32). Sexually motivated killers can often be classified as a

subtype of hedonistic killers. The power/control serial killer is one who “receives

gratification from the complete control of the victims” (Holmes & Deburger, p. 32,

1985). For the power/control type of serial murderer, the allure of murder comes from

having complete control over the victim, and, most importantly, whether the victim dies.

While there may be some initial similarities between the hedonistic serial killer and the

power/control serial killer, the primary (and most significant) difference lies in what the

killer derives their pleasure from: for the hedonistic killer, the pleasure comes from the

act of killing itself, while the power/control killer derives pleasure from their control over

the victim and whether they live or die (Holmes & Deburger, 1985).

The Holmes typology also delineated the differences between geographically

stable and geographically transient serial murderers. A geographically stable serial

murderer is generally stable within a certain area, choosing and killing his victims from

spaces near place of residence (Holmes & Deburger, 1985), while a geographically

transient serial murderer is not tied to any specific location and travels while committing

their crimes (Holmes & Deburger, 1985). Outside of their geographical locations, stable

and transient murderers also differed in other ways. Geographically stable murderers are

more likely to have ties to the community, are well-liked, and have motivations that are

often sexual in nature, while a geographically transient murderer moves between police

jurisdictions for each murder and rarely has long-term ties (Holmes & Deburger, 1985).

Kelleher Typology

Most typologies surrounding serial murder are created for male serial murderers

without any regard for their female counterparts and only applied to female serial

offenders after the fact. One of the exceptions to this is the typology proposed by

Kelleher and Kelleher (1998), which examined close to one hundred cases of female

serial murderers and categorized them based on each murderer’s perceived motivations.

They designed nine categories of female serial murderers—the black widow, the angel of

death, the sexual predator, the revenge killer, the profit or crime killer, the team killer, the

question of sanity killer, the unexplained killer, and the unsolved killer (Kelleher &

Kelleher, 1998). All definitions for each category are provided in Chapter 1. The Kelleher

and Kelleher typology separated female serial murderers who work alone from female

serial murderers who work with others. As reported within their study, it is more common

for females to murder when working with others than it is for them to do so alone, though

women who do murder alone are more likely to be categorized as Black Widows or

Angels of Death (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998). It is also highly rare for a woman to be

labeled as a Sexual Predator, and the only one mentioned in their study is Aileen

Wuornos (Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998). While also susceptible to the criticism that comes

with providing a typology within this realm of the study, the Kelleher and Kelleher

Typology has consistently been rated one of the best typologies when attempting to

understand female serial murderers.

There are many models, typologies, dichotomies, or methodologies outside of the

ones listed here that have been used to try and explain why men and women feel the need

to kill others. Of course, no typology can ever concretely explain why these people exist

and do what they do, but most methodologies do have their merits, despite the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (2017) arguing otherwise by stating that most methodologies

have a minimal positive impact on law enforcement personnel trying to apprehend these

offenders. Thus, begging the question—is the study of serial murder designed to only

support law enforcement? The answer, of course, is no.

Etiological Theories of Serial Murder

The question of nature versus nurture is one that features prominently in both the

professional’s and layperson’s understanding of why a person may grow up and kill

others. Forensically speaking, there are several theories or approaches that attempt to

explain the reasons why someone may become a serial murderer, generally through the

mode of explaining why people become violent or aggressive. These approaches often

fall under three categories: biological theories, psychological theories, and sociological

theories (Lee & Choi, 2014).

Biological Theories of Serial Murder

There is little to no empirical evidence showing that biological factors have a

hand in influencing aggressive or violent behaviors (Coleman, 1974; Hickey, 2015).

Despite this, numerous attempts have been made to show that genetics or biological

factors have some hand in determining aggression (Hickey, 2015), including theories of

biological atavistic determination (Hickey, 2015; Lombroso, 2006), the now-debunked

XYY Syndrome (Coleman, 1974; Fox, 1971; Hickey, 2015; Jarvik et al., 1973; Re &

Birkhoff, 2015; Rizzo, 2019), and theories surrounding the impacts of traumatic brain

injury or head trauma (Aaronson et al., 2021; Bannon et al., 2015; Bernard et al., 2017;

Brewer-Smyth & Burgess, 2021; Byrne & Coetzer, 2016; Fullerton et al., 2019; Katzin et

al., 2020).

Early biological theories of murder and violence often followed in line with

Lombroso’s criminological theories of biological atavism, where criminality was an

inherited trait and violence a symptom of that (Lombroso, 2006). These theories have

been attributed, in part, to the spread of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (Lindesmith et al.,

1937), which argued that species evolved based on natural selection (Britannica, 2019).

Lindesmith et al. (1937) argued that “Darwinian concepts not only swept through the

biological sciences but were also applied in a wholesale manner in the social sciences—

in anthropology, political science, and sociology” (p. 667). Lombroso’s theory of the

born criminal and hereditary criminality was an example of this (Lindesmith et al., 1937).

XYY Syndrome

First developed in the mid-1900s, one of the early leading biological theories of

serial murder or aggression was the 47 XYY syndrome, where a male individual had one

more Y-chromosome than typical (Coleman, 1974; Fox, 1971; Hickey, 2015; Jarvik et

al., 1973; Re & Birkhoff, 2015; Rizzo, 2019). XYY males were generally thought to have

specific characteristics that were manifestations of the chromosomal defect, including a

low intelligence, acneic skin, an above-average height, and a short temper (Jarvik et al.,

1973). Individuals with XYY Syndrome were, for a time, believed to be at a higher risk

of committing violent or aggressive acts against others, and XYY Syndrome was used as

an unsuccessful criminal defense in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States

and Australia (Coleman, 1974; Fox, 1971). While XYY Syndrome was considered a

predictor of violence or aggressive behavior for a short period of time, the theory was

eventually debunked by other scholars, who argued that the experiments suffered from a

poor sample size and that the presence of an extra Y chromosome did not necessarily

prove causation of crime (Coleman, 1974; Fox, 1971; Re & Birkhoff, 2015; Rizzo, 2019).

Scholars also argued that the theory of XYY Syndrome was essentially a continuation of

Lombroso’s theories of atavism (Coleman, 1974). XYY Syndrome is believed to be a risk

factor for later offending due to the physical manifestations of the syndrome; essentially,

because the individuals who have it are often larger with bad acne and low intelligence,

they may be treated differently than others (Re & Birkhoff, 2015). Re and Birkhoff

(2015) argued that, because of this, individuals with XYY Syndrome may be more likely

to show deviance and violent or antisocial behaviors. Likewise, Rizzo (2019) argued that

individuals with XYY Syndrome may seem more likely to display violent behavior

because of environmental factors rather than genetic ones. The public appeal of the XYY

chromosomal explanation may be a result of people wanting to be able to distance

themselves from offenders who committed brutal crimes (Fox, 1971). To put it simply,

people are more attracted to theories such as XYY Syndrome so they can assuage

themselves by arguing that they cannot be predisposed to violent behavior because they

do not have the chromosomal abnormality that predisposes individuals to violent

behavior.

Head Trauma

One of the more recent developments in biological theories of violence is centered

on the role of head trauma and violence (Allely, 2018). Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and

acquired brain injury (ABI) have been studied in their relation to violence in increasing

frequency (Allely, 2018). Head injury was first linked to violence in a study linking head

injury and intimate partner violence (IPV) in the late 1980s (Rosenbaum & Hoge, 1986),

and subsequent studies have branched out from IPV to explore other realms of violent

behavior, including serial murder (Allely et al., 2014). Head trauma, especially during

childhood or developmental years, have been linked to declines in impulsivity and self-

control, along with cognitive impairments and decision-making abilities (Bannon et al.,

2015; Byrne & Coetzer, 2016; Fullerton et al., 2019). Fullerton et al. (2019) conducted a

study on twins, one of whom had experienced an early childhood head injury. They found

“moderate support for the idea that early childhood head injury impacts the trajectory of

impulse control in adolescents” (Fullerton et al., 2019, p. 1040), specifically noting that

adolescents with a childhood head injury retain higher levels of impulsivity than the

noninjured (Fullerton et al., 2019). They also noted that, the earlier the age of injury, the

smaller the difference in decline in impulsivity (Fullerton et al., 2019). Katzin et al.

(2020) completed a study exploring TBI and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) in

young male offenders who were incarcerated at the time of data collection. They found a

positive relationship between TBI and young male offenders, as well as information

speaking to a relationship between TBI and other deviant or antisocial behaviors,

including substance misuse (Katzin et al., 2020). Ultimately, the study provided no

information on the severity of TBI or the causation of the demonstrated associations

(Katzin et al., 2020).

Also related to the concept of TBI is chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE),

which occurs after numerous and repeated head injuries, including concussions

(Aaronson et al., 2021). Despite existing as a concept for almost a century, CTE as a

medical diagnosis is a relatively new prognosis whose “biological validity and reliability”

(Aaronson et al., 2021, p. 64) is generally unknown. Knowledge about CTE is limited for

a number of reasons—specifically poor samples in previous research and most research

and diagnosis being done on deceased participants (Aaronson et al., 2021).While the

effects of CTE are considered wide and ranging, with different opinions on CTE’s

diagnosis, prognosis, and severity, CTE has often been linked to boxers and professional

football players (Aaronson et al., 2021), two careers in which repeated head trauma is a

likely event. Aaron Hernandez, a former player for the New England Patriots, committed

suicide by hanging two years after being found guilty of a single homicide event, though

he was later charged with the homicides of two other individuals (Gregory, 2020).

Hernandez was posthumously diagnosed with CTE (Gregory, 2020). The link between

CTE and aggression is often related to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC);

VMPFC atrophy or damage is thought to lead to an increase in antisocial behavior

(Aaronson et al., 2021; Allely, 2018). Individuals with damage to the prefrontal cortex

may understand that what they are doing is wrong, but they may not be able to control

their actions or behaviors (Allely, 2018). Allely (2018) noted that, because of this, frontal

lobe damage-based insanity defenses are rare and usually unsuccessful. Similarly, CTE is

not currently a valid insanity defense (Aaronson et al., 2021). Due to the inability to

diagnose CTE in a living brain, CTE cannot be used as an insanity defense.

In respect to serial murder, several male offenders have a history of TBI that

occurred prior to when the first murder took place, including Richard Ramirez (Allely et

al., 2014) and Frederick ‘Fred’ West (Stone, 2001). In a case study, Allely et al. (2014)

noted that Ramirez sustained multiple head injuries causing trauma throughout this life.

These included a dresser falling on top of him when he was two and being hit by a park

swing at age five (Allely et al., 2014). Later in life, Ramirez was diagnosed with frontal

lobe epilepsy (Allely et al., 2014). Fred West, who later sexually assaulted, tortured, and

murdered multiple women with his wife, sustained a head injury that left him

unconscious for several days following a motorcycle accident; two years later, West

sustained another head injury after being pushed down a fire escape by a woman he was

sexually assaulting (Stone, 2001). Per Stone (2001), friends and family noticed

personality and mood changes in West following the first head injury.

Menstruation

Biological theories of female criminality have often been related to the menstrual

cycle or menstruation. Beginning with Cesare Lombroso, crime and menstruation have

been connected since the end of the nineteenth century continuing into the mid-twentieth

century and beyond (Horney, 1978). Hall (1904) connected menopause to suicidal and

homicidal impulses, as well as “loss of reason, morality, and responsibility” (p. 318). Hall

(1904) also argued that women who commit crimes during their menstrual cycle and

during menopause cannot be held responsible for their actions, as they are experiencing a

form of diminished capacity related to the bodily functions of menstruation. Dalton

(1961) conducted a study on incarcerated females who fit certain criteria related to their

menstrual cycle and found that nearly one-half of the study participants “committed their

crime during menstruation or the pre-menstruum” (p. 1753), sparking a wave of similar

subsequent studies, though her study was later criticized for a lack of empirical validity

and poor data analysis (Harry & Baker, 1987; Horney, 1978). Early studies of crime and

menstruation often excluded other important variables that often correlate with

criminality, including socioeconomic and psychological demographics (Horney, 1978).

Even though there is no scientific evidence or empirical data showcasing a causal

relationship between menstruation and criminality (Harry & Baker, 1987; Horney, 1978),

studies on the relationship between menstruation and crime have continued to occur.

Studies on the effects of the menstrual cycle on aggression have often relied on self-

reporting measures, which affects the empirical validity of the study’s results (Ritter,

2003). Dougherty et al. (1998) found that, when women reported their own menstrual

symptoms, there was evidence that showed higher levels of aggression although data

reporting the rates of aggression remained consistent during pre-menstruation,

menstruation, and post-menstruation periods. The interest in the relationship between

menstruation and aggressive behaviors, such as criminality, may be rooted in hormones:

aggression can be tied to varying levels of progesterone and estrogen, which are both

believed to lower aggression levels (Ritter, 2003). Because levels of progesterone and

estrogen are lower during menses, women are often thought to act ‘more like men’ in

their behavior and thought patterns (Ritter, 2003). This is tied to the thought of

testosterone increasing aggression levels, though this has been primarily debunked

(Demause, 2007).

Despite the numerous attempts to connect biological theories to aggression, and

subsequently serial murder, there is little to no empirical evidence showing that the two

can be connected to a level of statistical significance (Hickey, 2015). Biological theories

have been derived from racist or sexist ideologies that seemed to both ostracize and

condescend to the participants being studied, and society latches onto these theories to

further distance itself and its “normal” citizens from criminal behavior. It is unlikely that

an empirically sound biological theory will ever successfully prove a solid causal

relationship to violence or aggression, as crime is often a mix of multiple influences

rather than just a singular one (Hickey, 2015).

Psychological Theories of Serial Murder

Psychological theories of serial murder often attempt to explain whether

personality characteristics or psychological factors have a role in the development of a

serial murder, and, if they do, how much of a role they play (Hickey, 2015).

Psychological theories of murder often revolve around two categories: the role of mental

illness in determining behavior and psychoanalytic theoretical approaches developed, in

part, from the works of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). In terms of the role of mental illness

or defect, much of the conversation is centered on the idea of psychopathy or the

psychopath despite it not being a current diagnosis.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is either a neuropsychiatric or personality disorder, though it has not

been included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as of

its fifth and most recent edition (Peterson & Brown, n.d.). Psychopathy is characterized

by several aberrant behavioral traits, notably:

impulsivity; a lack of guilt, loyalty, or empathy; an incapacity to form deep or

meaningful interpersonal relationships; a failure to learn from experience or

punishment; profound egocentricity and superficial charm; persistent antisocial

and criminal behavior without any evidence of remorse for the harm done to

others; and a predisposition to aggression, particularly under the influence of

alcohol. (Harpur et al., 1994, p. 150)

Not every single psychopath, regardless of gender, will present with every

symptom commonly associated with psychopathy (Hickey, 2015). Hickey (2015) argued

that psychopathic behavior may be “cyclical” (p. 99) in nature. Additionally, the

presentation of psychopathy can and often does differ between men and women who

exhibit psychopathic personality traits (Hickey, 2015; Smith et al., 2018, 2021). Male

psychopaths tend to display more apparent signs of malignant narcissism then their

female counterparts, who are often characterized as histrionic and dependent on others

for approval (Hickey, 2015; Smith et al., 2018, 2021). Female psychopaths appear to be

primarily defined by a chronically low sense of self-image or self-esteem (Smith et al.,

2021). Because of her chronic need for attention, the female psychopath may be more

likely to present a facade of caring or of wanting to improve; Smith et al. (2018) noted

that female psychopaths are more likely to engage in therapeutic services of their own

accord and may falsely present that they are improving due to therapeutic intervention.

Though psychopathy is not a diagnosis and should not be considered as such, the

Psychopathy Checklist—revised (PCL-R) can be used to assess the presence of

psychopathic traits (Arrigo & Griffin, 2004; Hare, 2016; Hickey, 2015; LaBrode, 2007;

Smith et al., 2018, 2021). Originally developed in the 1970s by Robert Hare, the PCL-R

assesses individuals based on 20 variables, including superficial charm,

manipulativeness, impulsiveness, and irresponsibility, on a 40-point scale (Hare, 2016).

Per Hare (2016), the creation of the PCL-R drew from clinician experiences and Hare’s

personal experiences, as well as observations from institutions and prisons. To score the

individual, the PCL-R draws on observable behaviors instead of inferences (Hare, 2016).

Since its introduction, the PCL-R has been used widely in both clinical and forensic

settings (Hare, 2016; Hickey, 2015). In forensic settings, the PCL-R is often used to

establish male offender risk (Hare, 2016). Hickey (2015) noted that psychopaths tend to

score at 30 points or higher, while “the typical male incarcerated offender in North

America rates about a 23” (p. 100). While the PCL-R is currently considered the soundest

methodology to assess psychopathy, there are some concerns about its validity and

applicability to females (Arrigo & Griffin, 2004). The PCL-R was developed for a male

population and its intended use is on male populations; because of this, it may not be as

reliable (Hickey, 2015). Arrigo and Griffin (2004) noted that there is a need for the

development of a tool that is catered to female offenders, as did Hickey (2015).

It should be noted that being a psychopath does not automatically make an

individual a criminal (Hickey, 2015; Itzkowtiz, 2008; LaBrode, 2007). Psychopaths are

often attracted to positions of power that feed their sense of self-importance and speak to

their narcissistic personality. Jobs that attract psychopaths meet these criteria, and it has

been theorized that a person is more likely to meet a psychopath in a white-collar

boardroom than in a prison (Hickey, 2015). There are some serial murderers who can be

assessed as psychopaths using the PCL-R. Norris (2011) studied six offenders—three

males and three females—and assessed them using the PCL-R. Though it should be noted

that the PCL-R is only designed for use by individuals with a clinical license (Hickey,

2015) and that is recognized when reviewing the results of this thesis, Norris’s use of the

PCL-R on convicted serial murderers speaks to the potential variance of psychopathy

amongst offenders. Norris (2011) found that Ted Bundy had a potential score of 33/40,

Richard Ramirez had a potential score of 18/40; Dennis Rader had a potential score of

22/40; Elizabeth Bathory had a potential score of 17/40; Jane Toppan had a potential

score of 17/30; and Aileen Wuornos had a potential score of 23/30. Within the confines

of this study, it is interesting to note that only one of the offenders, Ted Bundy, meets the

traditional minimum score (30) defined by the PCL-R and that, given the concerns

regarding the PCL-R’s use on female offenders, Aileen Wuornos had a higher potential

PCL-R score than both Richard Ramirez and Dennis Rader.

Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Theories

Psychoanalytic theory, which attempts to explain behavior because of personality

traits, is drawn from the works and writings of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) (Konvalina-

Simas, 2016). Freud is considered a controversial figure in the field of psychology, with

some arguing that his influence is often inescapable while others have argued that

Freud’s theories lack perspective and often present single-sided arguments (Woodward,

1917). Along with the theories of transference and the Oedipal complex, Freud is well

known for his theory of the id, ego, and superego, which attempts to explain the inner

workings of the human personality and mind (Freud, 1923, 2019; Hickey, 2015). The id,

ego, and superego represent the three levels of the human consciousness (Freud, 1923,

2019). The id and superego are diametrically opposed, with the id representing the most

primitive impulses and the superego representing the moral conscience (Freud, 1923,

2019). The ego, or median part, often acts as the mediator between the two, representing

“reason and prudence” (Freud, 1923, 2019, p. 16). Psychoanalytic theory has been related

to serial murder in several ways, including via the Oedipus complex.

Named after a tragedy written by the Greek playwright Sophocles (Blackmon,

2021), the Oedipus complex refers to the Freudian belief that all men children act

aggressively towards their fathers because they harbor sexual feelings for their mothers

(Blackmon, 2021). While the Oedipus complex has been primarily discredited and is now

generally only used within literature studies, childhood sexual trauma or abnormal sexual

feelings that are not properly dealt with may impact later adult behaviors (Blackmon,

2021). Within the field of studying serial murderers, the Oedipus complex has been used

to study behavior and potential root causes. Knight (2006) argued that traumas in the pre-

Oedipal or Oedipal stages of development may lead to psychological issues in sexually

motivated serial murderers, and that strong feelings toward the mother, whether incestual

or angry, may later influence their killings. The murder of women may be seen as

“displaced matricide” (Knight, 2007, p. 1200). Interestingly, Ed Kemper displayed signs

of displaced matricide throughout his murders and eventually culminated by killing his

mother and sexually assaulting her corpse; Kemper was also known to have blamed his

mother for his murders (Hickey, 2015). Knight (2007) reasserted their argument of pre-

Oedipal and Oedipal development influencing murderous tendencies, while also arguing

that psychoanalytic theory suggests that “evil as aggression” (p. 27) is innate and fuels

motivation.

Mental Illness

Mental illness is defined as a health condition involving “changes in emotion,

thinking, or behavior (or a combination of these)” (American Psychiatric Association,

2018, para. 1) and are often “associated with distress and/or problems functioning in

social, work or family activities” (American Psychiatric Association, 2018, para. 1).

Clinically, mental illnesses are diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders, which is currently in its fifth edition. Mental illnesses often range in

severity and type, though there is evidence to suggest that most serial murderers do have

a history of at least some mental illness or disorder (Harrison et al., 2015; Hickey, 2015),

and an emphasis is often placed on personality disorders, which are characterized by

personality defects that severely impact functioning (American Psychiatric Association,

2013).

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a cluster-B personality disorder

commonly characterized by a disregard for others, laws, and social norms; impulsivity;

and a lack of remorse, among other behaviors (Fisher & Hany, 2021). Per the DSM-V,

antisocial personality disorder can only be diagnosed in an individual 18 years of age or

older who, in addition to at least three antisocial behaviors, was diagnosed with conduct

disorder prior to age 15 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The exact cause of

ASPD is unknown, but researchers postulate it may be a combination of genetic and

environmental factors (Fisher & Hany, 2021). While ASPD and psychopathy are

commonly seen as the same thing, almost all psychopaths fit the criteria for ASPD, but

most people with ASPD do not meet the criteria for psychopathy (LaBrode, 2007). In

terms of ASPD prevalence in serial murderers, Hickey (2015) argued that “all serial

killers exhibit antisocial qualities, but not all in the same manner” (p. 92). Additionally, a

diagnosis of ASPD does not mean that a person will become a serial murderer (Simons,

2001); there may be correlation, but there is nothing to suggest causality.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a cluster-B personality disorder

characterized by an inflated sense of self and lack of empathy for others (Mitra & Fluyau,

2021). Like ASPD, NPD is believed to have genetic foundations, though there is also

research that suggests early childhood experiences, including excessive praise, may lead

to the development of NPD as an adult (Mitra & Fluyau, 2021). NPD may also be

diagnosed in conjunction with other personality disorders. The connection between NPD

and serial murderers may be related to the narcissistic individual’s complete lack of

empathy for other individuals; to the narcissist, other people exist solely to feed their ego

and sense of self. Schlesinger (1998) completed a case study of a suspected serial

murderer and found that the individual displayed signs of pathological narcissism, which

likely contributed to the offender’s crimes.

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a cluster-B personality disorder

characterized by impairments in self-functioning and in relationships (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013). Individuals with borderline personality disorder often

struggle with maintaining healthy relationships and see things as either wholly good or

wholly bad. BPD is believed to derive from a mix of factors, including genetic and

socioenvironmental, with extensive childhood trauma being a main risk factor for the

development of BPD (National Institute of Mental Health, n.d.). Regarding BPD and

criminality, BPD is often overrepresented in prisons, particularly in female populations

(Sansone & Sansone, 2009). Liebert (1985) noted that there are similarities between

personality traits of list serial murderers and personality traits common in those

diagnosed with BPD. Liebert also theorized that, for people diagnosed with BPD, murder

can act as a means of protecting one’s mental health from “disintegration” (p. 196).

Sociological Theories of Serial Murder

Sociological theories have often been used to explain criminal behaviors,

including serial murder (Hickey, 2015). Sociological theories attempt to provide

explanations for both “human society” (Trueman, 2015, para. 1) and how individuals

interact with both the parameters of society and the others living in it. Sociological

theories of criminality often encompass broad topics including class, gender, and even

political identity (Rock, 2002), though some scholars argue that the sociological study of

crime traces its roots to Durkheim’s theory of anomie (Zembroski, 2011).

Emile Durkheim

Émile Durkheim (1858 - 1917) is often considered to be the father of sociology

(Zembroski, 2011). While Durkheim was primarily concerned with the impact of

modernity on society, his theories have influenced several modern sociological theories,

including strain theory and control theory (Zembroski, 2011). Durkheim’s most relevant

book is arguably Suicide (1897). In Suicide, Durkheim (1897, 2002) argued that suicide,

and by extension criminal or abnormal behavior, often occurred because of a breakdown

of moral or collectivist values within a society. Durkheim’s (1897, 2002) theories often

took on a classicist approach like that of Marx or Engels, focusing on the influence of

class and labor divisions and their impact (Zembroski, 2011). Derived from these works,

the concept of anomie, or a lack of norms, later informed Merton’s sociological theories,

which include strain theory and Merton’s theory of deviance (Zembroski, 2011).

Strain Theory

Strain theory holds that individuals commit crimes or criminal activity due to

stress, or strain, that they are unable to properly cope with (Agnew, 1985, 2013;

Campbell, 2020; Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). Originally proposed by Merton, the original

strain theory was criticized in the 1970s due to a perceived lack of empirical validity

(Campbell, 2020; Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). Strain theory was later revised by Agnew

(Agnew, 1985, 2013; Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). General strain theory (GST) holds the

same tenements of original strain theory, namely that people unable to cope with stress

may commit crimes because of that strain (Agnew, 1985, 2013). One key difference

between the original theory and Agnew’s revised version is that, while strain theory

originally solely focused on strain because of goal-seeking, Agnew (1985) noted that

strain can also be caused by pain-blocking behavior (Cullen & Wilcox, 2013). Agnew

(1985) held that strain because of pain-blocking behavior occurs when an “individual is

walking away from an aversive situation and his or her path is blocked (p. 154); because

of this stress, an individual may react violently or criminally.

A common critique of GST is based on the question of why some people who

encounter strain engage in criminal activity while others who encounter the same type of

strain do not (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). Agnew (2013) argued that different factors

influence the impact strain may have on a person, including social support, the presence

of positive or negative coping skills, and the presence of negative influences, among

others. Additionally, the type of strain experienced may have an impact on a criminal

reaction (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010); these could include adverse childhood experiences,

victimization, and other stressors (Agnew, 2013). GST also considers potential

predispositions to crime or criminal behavior, such as negative peer associations (Cullen

& Wilcox, 2010). GST has been found to be empirically sound in several different studies

(Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). In relation to serial murder, many serial murderers experience

strains, or stressors, early in life, including parental abandonment, little to no social

bonds, extensive abuse, and early antisocial and criminal behavior (Hickey, 2015).

Neutralization Theory

Neutralization theory argues that offenders often attempt to make their behaviors

appear less deviant using different techniques (Dziak, 2021; Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Offenders may utilize techniques of neutralization to justify their crimes, including denial

of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners,

and appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Most techniques of neutralization

involve denying some aspect of the crime, whether that may be the role they played in it,

the severity of the injury, or the amount of harm done to the victim(s) (Sykes & Matza,

1957). It should be noted that denial of responsibility does not only refer to the literal

sense of an offender denying that they committed the crime, but also to the offender

placing the cause of their behavior on someone else (Dziak, 2021; Sykes & Matza, 1957).

This has been seen with serial murderers, who often blame internal forces that they could

not resist as the cause of their murder(s).

While initially used to explain delinquent behavior, neutralization theory has been

applied to understanding the behavior of serial murderers (James & Gossett, 2018;

Pettigrew, 2020). In separate studies, both James and Gossett (2018) and Pettigrew

(2018) found that all serial murderers use at least some forms of neutralization, either to

successfully exist in society as a serial murderer or to deal with negative emotions they

may suffer from after committing their crimes. Pettigrew (2020) also found that serial

murderers may use techniques of neutralization outside of the killing process, revealing

“some personal sense of mitigation, excuse, or justification for the murder(s) they have

committed” (p. 70).

While neutralization theory has been used in studies extensively and holds some

merit, it is not without its criticisms (Hickey, 2015). Hickey (2015) argued that, to

successfully validate neutralization theory, one would have to prove that “an offender

first neutralized his moral beliefs before drifting into violent behavior” (p. 125), which

may not be possible due to the inability to gain undoubtedly true information or data from

an offender about his or her thoughts prior to the crime occurring.

Trauma-Control Model

With his trauma-control Model, Hickey (2015) argued that there are a multitude

of factors that eventually culminate in someone being a serial killer, including

predispositional factors and traumatizations, or “the destabilizing event(s) that occur in

the lives of serial offenders” (p. 148). Traumatizations can include several factors, such

as abuse, parental conflict, and other events. The traumatizations may serve as a

triggering event for later adult offending, but it is important to note that not everyone who

experiences an adverse childhood becomes a serial murderer. Hickey (2015) also noted

this, arguing that trauma may be exacerbated by other issues mentioned in the trauma-

control model, like facilitators and trauma reinforcements. For serial murderers, “the

most common effect of childhood traumatization manifested is rejection, including

rejection by relatives and parent(s)” (Hickey, 2015, p. 149). When faced with situations

that remind the individual of times during these childhood traumatizations where he or

she felt like they lacked control, the individual may overcompensate for that feeling by

overcompensating in other areas to gain control. Coupled with low self-esteem, violent

tendencies, and facilitators such as drugs or alcohol, an individual may be driven to

exercise control in the extreme by controlling whether someone else lives or dies. The

primary goal for the serial offender is to maintain “control of oneself, of others, and of

one’s surroundings” (Hickey, 2015, p. 150).

The trauma-control model is praised due to its broadness and lack of focusing

solely on sexual serial murderers; because of its focus on psychosocial aspects, it does

not limit or specify based on the types of predispositions, traumatizations, or facilitators

an offender may have experienced or used (Petherick & Petherick, 2009). Additionally,

the trauma-control model has been used previously in empirical studies (Arrigo &

Purcell, 2001; Arndt et al., 2004) with success.

Fractured Identity Syndrome

Initially proposed by Holmes et al. (1999), fractured identity syndrome essentially

argues that a traumatic experience or event causes a fracture in an offender’s personality,

which eventually causes a fractured identity. The individual may experience other

traumas or events later in life that compound the issue, but the original traumatization

often occurs in early childhood (Holmes et al., 1999). The damage that occurs because of

the fracture may change or ‘darken’ the offender’s personality, though this shift may not

be noticed by anyone except for the offender despite the hidden personality often being

destructive or harmful (Holmes et al., 1999). The strain of hiding the true personality may

be taxing on the offender, which eventually culminates in the release of energy through

murder. Holmes et al. (1999) argued that only the offender’s victims see the serial

murderer’s true identity, which is why, ultimately, the offender must eliminate them.

Adverse Childhood Experiences

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) .“are stressful, traumatic events such as

physical, sexual, or emotional abuse and physical and emotional neglect” (Kennedy,

2021, para. 1). ACEs transgress race and gender, though children in impoverished or

lower-class households are more likely to experience them. Most forms of abuse,

including physical, emotional, and sexual, are considered ACEs, though ACEs also

include witnessing domestic violence, a parent having a mental illness, parental absence

(whether through incarceration, death, or abandonment), and substance misuse in the

household (Center for Disease Control, 2021; Kennedy, 2021). While certain types of

stress are necessary and beneficial to a child’s ongoing brain and socioemotional

development, extreme stress may impact a child’s cognitive, behavioral, and

socioemotional abilities, eventually causing long-term problems (Kennedy, 2021). The

more ACEs a child experiences, the higher their chance of encountering chronic issues,

whether health-related or behavioral, later in life.

Multiple researchers have found that serial murderers, regardless of gender, often

experience higher rates of childhood traumatizations, including ACEs (Harrison et al.,

2015; Hickey, 2015; Schurman-Kauflin, 2000). Harrison et al. (2015), in a review of 64

female serial murderers, found that “one in ten FSKs [female serial killers] experienced

severe childhood illness or trauma” (p. 398) while also noting that physical and sexual

abuse were overrepresented in the population (14.1 percent of offenders experienced

childhood physical and sexual abuse, compared to the national average of 9 percent of

children experiencing physical abuse and 1 percent of children experiencing sexual

abuse). Schurman-Kauflin (2000) theorized that extensive abuse and abandonment as a

child may have influenced the mentality of offenders as an adult, creating a ‘hurt before

you get hurt’ mindset.

Animal Cruelty

The role of animal cruelty in the background of a serial murderer or offender is

something that has been researched and established (Hickey, 2015; Schurman-Kauflin,

2000; Wright & Hensley, 2003). Considered to be part of the Macdonald triad, three

behaviors that can serve as a predictor for adult antisocial behavior (Hickey, 2015),

animal cruelty “encompasses a range of behaviors harmful to animals, from neglect to

malicious killing” (The Humane Society of the United States, n.d., para. 1). Hickey

(2015) argued that most serial killers tend to partake and enjoy in “the vivisection and

exploration of dead animals” (p. 141), though some also torture live ones for pleasure.

Researchers have argued that animal cruelty may occur due to emotional

transference. Essentially, animals are used as scapegoats for the offender’s feelings as the

source of the negative emotions was often out of reach (Schurman-Kauflin, 2000; Wright

& Hensley, 2003). In a study on the graduation of animal cruelty to serial murder, Wright

and Hensley (2003) detailed the patterns of five male serial murderers. In almost every

case profiled, the techniques used to torture and kill the animals were the same

techniques the offenders used on their human victims. Animal cruelty is also not

exclusive to gender. Both male and female serial murderers reported a history of

childhood animal cruelty. Schurman-Kauflin (2000) noted that almost every female serial

murderer profiled in the study engaged in some form of animal cruelty, with cats being

the most frequent victims. Per the female offenders, cats were chosen because they were

less likely to be able to injure the offender, which mirrors females being more likely to

choose latent victims than male offenders (Schurman-Kauflin, 2000). Animal cruelty

often graduates to violence against others, with murder being the most extreme example

of that.

Fantasies

Sexual fantasies are a common experience for most adults, and most sexual

fantasies are not deviant or abnormal (Joyal et al., 2015). Sexual fantasies exist on a

spectrum, with sexually deviant fantasies existing on the extreme part of that spectrum.

The role of deviant or paraphilic sexual fantasies and their role in offending has been an

interest in researchers since the late 1980s (Baughman et al., 2014; Brineman &

McAnulty, 2020; Gilbert & Daffern, 2017; Mangiilo, 2010; Murray, 2017; Prentky et al.,

1989; Stein, 2004). Prentky et al. (1989) found that there is a positive relationship

“between fantasy and repetitive assaultive behavior” (p. 890), noting that offenders often

escalate because acting out the actual fantasy never lives up to the feeling of the actual

fantasy itself. In like with Prentky et al. (1989), Brineman and McAnulty (2020) stated

that the “severity of their [offenders] deviant fantasies may escalate as these perpetrators

require increasing degrees of control or victim suffering to achieve sexual gratification”

(para. 3). Fantasies also serve as a model for how offenders perpetuate their crimes,

acting as both a motivation and a roadmap (Gilbert & Daffern, 2017; Murray, 2017;

Stein, 2004).

Fantasies play a large role in the development of a serial murderer (Hickey, 2015;

Schurman-Kauflin, 2000). Hickey (2015) includes fantasies in his trauma-control model

of serial murder, arguing that fantasies derived from the offender’s low self-esteem

eventually develop into increasingly deviant and violent fantasies, which eventually lead

to the offender committing homicide. Similarly, Schurman-Kauflin (2000) argued that

there is something like a tornado effect with female offenders. Powerlessness leads to

rage, which leads to fantasies, which lead to violence, which leads to increasingly deviant

or aggressive fantasies, which culminate in murder (Schurman-Kauflin, 2000). The act of

committing the crime may remove the pressure of the fantasy, but the actual act will

never live up to the fantasy, and so the cycle continues.

Gender and Violence

When the phenomenon of serial murder first began to be studied by professionals

and law enforcement in the modern age, the concept of gender was not a variable that

needed to be included unless considering offender victimology. Serial murderers were

perceived to be only male until the mid-1980s, when the first study on female serial

murderers was completed (Hickey, 1986). The disregard of females operating as serial

murderers can have its roots in many places, but most believe that it stems from a social

reluctance to see females as beings capable of violence (Hale & Bolin, 1998; Hickey,

2015; Holmes, Hickey, & Holmes, 1991; Gurian, 2011; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Mallicoat,

2019; Pearson, 2021; Ramsland, 2007; Telfer, 2017; Vronsky, 2007, 2018;). Most of this

is due to the way that different genders express different kinds of violence and because

numerous social psychologists have viewed violence through a masculine lens, defining

aggression in masculine ways that tend to exclude feminine experiences (Pearson, 2021).

Socially, aggression is usually synonymous with violence, though there are

generally two types of aggression as seen by researchers: expressive aggression and

instrumental aggression (Sechrist & White, 2011; Gavin & Porter, 2015; Pearson, 2021).

Expressive aggression is often “impulsive” and meant to vent “bottled-up feelings”

(Pearson, 2021, p. 36) that the aggressor may be experiencing at the time, while

instrumental aggression is aggression that is “cool and calculating” (Pearson, 2021, p.

36). Women are generally seen as only being capable of expressive aggression, generally

provoked by an abusive situation (Holmes, Hickey, and Holmes, 1991; Vronsky, 2007).

It is reactionary violence, caused by someone else, whereas instrumental aggression is

solely caused by the aggressor in a manner that leaves little thought to his or her

intentions. The instrumental aggressor plans his or her actions—there is minimal, if any,

emotion involved. Women who display acts of expressive aggression are still playing into

society’s expectations of what female violence should look like.

Social norms and customs do have roles in the ways that people learn to display

their anger, as aggression is undoubtedly a human trait rather than a gendered one.

Aggression generally follows the course of the effect/danger ratio, which essentially

states that “the benefits of the aggression will be weighed against the social, physical, and

psychological consequences of the aggression” (Sechrist & White, 2011, p. 90). For

women, the negative consequences of displaying instrumental aggression are much

higher than those of men who display instrumental aggression: “Displays of overt direct

aggression are not acceptable feminine behaviors and can be met with social

consequences. Indirect aggression often goes unnoticed and unsanctioned, in part due to

the aggressor’s anonymity” (Sechrist & White, 2011, p. 90). These social consequences

often alter how aggression is displayed from direct to indirect, and this is frequently seen

in the behavioral patterns of adolescent boys and girls. Boys are more likely to engage in

direct aggression where they get into physical altercations with others, while girls are

more often prone to indirect aggression where they gossip and create rumors about the

individuals of scorn (Pearson, 2021), with its aim being “to harm the victim, often by

damaging the victim’s social status or self-esteem” (Gavin & Porter, 2015, p. 34). In

short, indirect aggression in girls and women is socially accepted and even encouraged by

peer groups and authority figures:

By emphasizing the importance of ‘being nice’ and maintaining relationships,

parents teach girls that relational disruption is bad, leaving the way open for indirect

aggression as a tool for both dealing with aggressive desires and maintaining the social

façade of ‘niceness.’ (Gavin & Porter, 2015, p. 36)

That is not to say that indirect aggression is less harmful than direct aggression; in

certain instances, indirect aggression can be more harmful than a simple physical

altercation would be. Pearson (2021) noted instances where indirect aggression in the

form of rumors led to women being killed by male family members in honor killings

meant to correct the damage and shame that the woman had brought on the family.

Another concern within the scope of gender and violence is the level of attention

that scholars and researchers pay to it. Prior to feminism’s second wave in the 1970s, “of

314 studies of human aggression …, only 8 percent focused on women or girls” (Pearson,

2021, p. 39). In fact, feminism may have played a role in the feminine inclusion in

aggression studies. Mallicoat (2019) noted that “the inclusion of women and girls in

criminological research was catalyzed by the second wave of the feminist movement in

the late 60s and early 70s” (p. 25) and that “for decades criminologists by and large

ignored the gender gap (or dropped girls and women from the analysis as many early

longitudinal studies did), which had the effect of normalizing high levels of male

violence” (p. 27) and essentially providing female violence to be nonexistent.

As with Krafft-Ebing’s theories regarding the relationship between sex and

violence, there is a chicken-and-egg paradigm to be found in the relationship between

social norms and accepting the female capacity for cruelty. Society deems women

incapable of violence, and, later, researchers alter their studies to prove this. Researchers

alter their studies due to gender norms, and these results—which prove men to be the

main aggressors—later reinforce them. The inclusion of females and girls in aggression

studies threatens the social norms and accepted conventions surrounding femininity, and,

despite thousands of years showing the contrary, societies, especially Westernized ones,

still have an aversion to seeing women as being capable of violence. That aversion may

be a link to why early criminologists often categorized female criminals as more

masculine than feminine, with Cesare Lombroso (2006) explicitly stating that “all female

criminals tend to be masculine” (p. 55), with the only exception being a poisoner.

Gender and Serial Murder

Most serial killers are male, though the occurrence of female serial murderers has

been increasing with time, particularly since the 1970s (Hickey, 2015). Hickey (2015)

estimated that 17% of all serial murderers were female, while Aamodt et al. (2020) had a

more conservative estimate at 11%. Outside of gender, male and female serial murderers

differ in multiple domains, including demographics, motivations, methods, and behaviors

(Aamodt et al., 2020).

Differences Between Male and Female Murderers

The question as to why men and women kill so differently has been posed by

countless professionals, and, yet, there is no clear answer. Harrison et al. (2019) used an

evolutionary theoretical framework to tackle this question, arguing that male and female

serial murderers fit the historical models of the male “hunter” and the female “gatherer.”

The male serial murderers hunted their victims by killing strangers they stalked, while the

female serial murderers gathered their victims from those around them, including

romantic partners, parents, friends, and children (Harrison et.al., 2019). Their research

was centered on the argument that the differences between male and female serial

murderers “may stem from sex-specific tendencies derived from labor divisions in the

ancestral environment whereby men hunted animals as prey and women gathered nearby

grains and plants as food” (Harrison et.al., 2019, p. 296). Using Murderpedia.org as a

resource, as well to direct to other sources, all hypotheses were supported, validating their

“hunter-gatherer” hypothesis. Harrison et al. (2019) found that “male serial killers stalked

and “hunted” victims more frequently” (p. 304), while “FSKs [female serial killers] were

more likely to kill a spouse or long-term partner and were 6 times more likely than MSKs

[male serial killers] to kill relatives” (p. 305). Additionally, their research continued to

support previously known information about the victimology differences between male

and female serial murderers—victims of male serial murderers were more likely to be

adult individuals of the opposite sex (Harrison et.al., 2019). While the evolutionary

approach should be considered and revisited in further research, it is also important to

consider whether the differences between male and female serial murderers are mainly

rooted in the ways aggression and violence have become gendered in modern

Westernized societies. If indirect aggression is preferred over direct aggression for

females as previous research has shown, then one can postulate that indirect murder is

often seen as more palatable than direct murder.

Demographics

Demographically, male and female serial murderers differ in more categories than

sex alone. Offenders may also differ in categories such as age, occupation, and location

of the crimes, though there are aspects where male and female serial murderers do share

some similarities (Hickey, 2015; Keeney & Heide, 1994).

Age

Per Aamodt et al. (2020), most serial murderers being killing at an average age of

28, though female serial murderers are, on average, older than their male counterparts at

the onset of criminal activity.

Occupation

Male serial murderers and female serial murderers are likely to have jobs that

prescribe to their specific gender; female serial murderers are more likely to have more

feminine jobs, while males are more likely to engage in blue-collar work (Hickey, 2015;

Schurman-Kauflin, 2000). It should also be noted that male serial murderers served in the

military at a higher average than the general population, though data on female serial

murderers serving in the armed forces is unknown (Aamodt et al., 2020).

Location

Keeney and Heide (1994) found that female serial murderers often committed

their crimes in Southern states, notably Florida, which had the highest offender

population for that study. Notably, male serial murderers were more likely to commit

their crimes in the Pacific Northwest (Hickey, 2015; Keeney & Heide, 1994).

Race

Historically, most serial murderers, both male and female, have been white

(Aamodt et al., 2020; Hickey, 2015; Keeney & Heide, 1994), though there is an

increasing percentage of minority serial murderers, particularly black serial murderers

(Aamodt et al., 2020; Hickey, 2015). Aamodt et al. (2020) in their annual Radford/FGCU

Serial Killer Database report, noted that “the majority of serial killers were African

Americans (50.8%) followed by Whites (36.5%), Hispanics (10.5%), Asians (1.8%), and

Native Americans (.4%)” (p. 34). It should be noted that motivation also typically differs

between races; white offenders are more likely to kill while they enjoy it, while black and

minority offenders are more likely to kill through “Gang or Criminal Enterprise”

(Aamodt et al., 2020, p. 35) activity.

Victimology

Male and female serial murderers often differ in victimology (Hale & Bolin,

1998; Harrison et al., 2019; Hickey, 2015; Holmes et al., 1991; Gurian, 2011; Jurik &

Winn, 1990; Kenney & Heide, 1994) based on several different factors. Female serial

murderers are more likely to choose latent victims with whom they have a personal

relationship with, while male serial murderers are more likely to victimize strangers

(Hale & Bolin, 1998; Harrison et al., 2015, 2019; Schurman-Kauflin, 2000). Essentially,

female serial murderers choose victims who are already helpless, while their male

offenders choose victims and make them helpless throughout the commission of their

crime. These victims could be incapacitated by illness or injury or defenseless due to age,

whether extremely young or older than the offender (Schurman-Kauflin, 2000).

Relationships with their victims are common for female serial murderers, with Hickey

(2015) noting that one-third of female serial murderers profiled exclusively killed family

members, “whereas about half of all these offenders murdered at least one member of

their family” (p. 318). Hickey (2015) also argued that there has been an increase in the

number of female serial murderers who participate in stranger-killing.

A further difference in serial murderer victimology between gender is the

facilitation and risk of the victim (Hickey, 2015). The concepts of victim precipitation or

victim facilitation are not meant to imply that the victims are to blame for their

victimization, though both acknowledge that there are actions, whether intentional or

unintentional, that a victim may take which increases their likelihood of victimization

(Daigle, 2016). An example of this would be an individual who engages in sex work;

while the offender is not intentionally seeking victimization, their behavior makes it more

likely for them to be victimized. Hickey (2015) argued that “female offenders almost

exclusively killed victims who were categorized as low-facilitation homicides” (p. 323).

The victims of male serial murders may often precipitate or facilitate their victimization

through their behaviors, primarily if they engage in sex work or other risky behaviors.

Additionally, victim demographics differ between male and female serial

murderers (Aamodt et al., 2020). Female serial murderers are equally as likely to kill both

male and females, while male serial murderers were more likely to have victims of one

sex, most often females (Aamodt et al., 2020). Both Aamodt et al. (2020) and Hickey

(2015) noted that female serial murderers were more likely to kill victims within any age

range, notably children and the elderly, than their male counterparts, who often stuck to

one specific age range.

Methods and Motives

At this point in the study of serial murder, it is well known that male and female

serial murderers kill in different ways and for different reasons. The same can be said for

females who kill within a couple dynamic, especially when the partner is a male. While

the reigning stereotype for male serial murderers is that they kill solely to fulfill sexual

fantasies that often involve masochistic acts, that is not necessarily true. Per Hickey

(2015) the top five motives for male serial murderers are delineated as follows: “sex

sometimes - 47 percent, control sometimes - 31 percent, money sometimes - 18 percent,

enjoyment sometimes - 15 percent, sex only - 8 percent” (p. 275). Hickey (2015) argued

that the reason most people believe serial murder to be synonymous with lust murder is

because of their prevalence in pop culture, leading the public to mistake the two as

mutually inclusive. On the contrary, female serial murderers are often stereotyped as

being Black Widows who kill their husbands for comfort, profit, or revenge. Where the

male serial murderer is violent and sexually deviant, the female serial murderer is cool

and calculated, justifying murder based on the amount of profit it provides. This

preconception is somewhat proven by statistical analysis, with the following constituting

the top five motives for female serial murderers: “money sometimes - 47 percent, money

only - 26 percent, control sometimes - 14 percent, enjoyment sometimes - 11 percent, sex

sometimes - 10 percent” (Hickey, 2015, p. 324). While the motive is one of the most

significant ways in which male and female serial murderers differ, the method is the most

apparent and immediately obvious.

Female murderers are more likely to use poisons to kill their victims, whereas

male murderers are more likely to use more personal means of violence, including guns,

knives, and strangling (Hickey, 2015). There is a degree of removal when women kill

with poison—one noted female serial murderer was once quoted as saying that she was

able to rationalize one of her murders by telling herself that the poison killed her victim

and that she did not (Vronsky, 2007)—that is not present when a male serial murderer

kills someone by stabbing them, shooting them, or strangling them.

Monikers

The media’s usage of monikers when discussing serial murderers is a

controversial practice, one that often ends up belittling or trivializing both the offender

and his actions. This is never clearer when contrasting the monikers given to male female

serial murderers and the monikers given to female serial murderers (Harrison et al., 2019;

Hickey, 2015; Vrosnky, 2007, 2018). Harrison et al. (2019) noted that the monikers given

to female serial murderers often placed grater prominence on the gender of the offender

than monikers given to male serial murderers, which they attributed to both the media

and the offender’s subversion of typical gender norms. These monikers could also

highlight the offender’s physical appearance, with Wuornos often being characterized as

a monster, in part because of her physical appearance (Harrison et al., 2019). Conversely,

“over ¾ of men had nicknames that underscored their gruesome MO versus slightly more

than ½ of FSK’s nicknames” (Harrison et al., 2019, p. 305-6). Hickey (2015) showed

clear examples of this. Male serial murderers had monikers like “BTK Strangler,”

“Bedroom Basher,” “Vampire Killer,” and “Slavemaster” (p. 236-7) compared to women,

who had monikers such as “Beautiful Blonde Killer,” “Duchess of Death,” “Giggling

Grandma,” and “Damsel of Death” (p. 331). Hickey (2015) also noted that monikers are

often sexist or based on the offender’s gender, arguing that these nicknames may be

based, in part, in a reluctance to view female serial murderers the same as male serial

murderers in terms of dangerousness or lethality.

Female Murderers in Killing Teams

Within killing teams, males are much more likely to take a dominant role in the

dynamic (Hickey, 2015; Vrosnky, 2007, 2018). While male-male killing partnerships are

common and killer groups do occur, as in the case of the Manson family, male-female

partnerships occur more often (Vronsky, 2007). Within killing partnerships, women often

commit far more brutal crimes than they would have alone, with more elements of sexual

motivation being present (Hickey, 2015; Vronsky, 2007, 2018). Most people within a

killing team may have never killed if it were not for meeting their partner.

Within male-female killing partnerships, most women indicated that they engaged

in the murders to please their partners (Gurian, 2011; Thompson & Ricard, 2009;

Vronsky, 2007, 2018). Thompson and Ricard (2009) used a radical feminist theoretical

framework to examine the case studies of three offenders: Martha Beck, Myra Hindley,

and Karla Homolka. All three women had a male partner, and, apart from Martha Beck,

the male acted as the leader in the relationship (Hickey, 2015; Thompson & Ricard,

2009). The study found that all three women participated in the crimes to maintain their

relationships and please their partner (Thompson & Ricard, 2009). In most scenarios, the

male partner may have deviant fantasies regarding other individuals, including keeping

women as sex slaves or torturing women, which the submissive female partner helps

fulfill (Vronsky, 2007; Ramsland, 2007). Gurian (2011) found that female partnered

murderers are more likely to engage in pleasure-motivated murders, while solo female

serial murderers are more likely to kill for a purpose, such as financial gain. Perhaps

because of this, the crimes committed by team murderers are often more violent, with

higher occurrences of mutilation and torture (Hickey, 2015; Vronsky, 2007).

Victimology between solo serial murderers and team serial murderers also differs

(Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015). Team serial murderers mostly target female strangers,

though team murderers are more likely to target both genders than solo male murderers

(Hickey, 2015). Team murderers may also have more victims than their solo

counterparts. Gurian (2011) found that team murderers had a victim average of eight to

ten compared to solo murderers, who had an average of seven to nine victims.

Contrastingly, the span of their crimes is often less than that of solo serial murderers

(Vronsky, 2007).

Myth of the Compliant Victim

The myth of the compliant victim can be traced back to a 1992 study completed

by FBI agent Roy Hazelwood, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, and Janet Warren. In that

article, Hazelwood et al. (1992) defined a compliant victim as a person who enters “into a

voluntary relationship but are manipulated into sadomasochistic activities for an extended

time” (p. 14). Victims will become compliant through extensive abuse, whether physical,

sexual, or emotional (Hazelwood et al., 1992). While the myth of the compliant victim is

derided by contemporary professionals (Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015; Vronsky, 2007), its

roots can be traced back to an unwillingness to accept female criminality and the rare

occurrence of the female partner acting as the dominant one (Hickey, 2015).

While there are undoubtedly some cases where women were victimized and

forced to do things they did not want to do, painting every female offender as a compliant

victim removes responsibility and culpability from the offender. This is harmful to

numerous people, including the victims’ families. The myth of the compliant victim may

have had an impact on offender sentencing. Females, on average, received lesser charges

and lighter sentences than their male counterparts (Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015).

Summary and Conclusions

Since the 1970s, research on serial murder has gained momentum. While most

historical research focused solely on male serial murders, the inclusion of female serial

murderers has revealed new insights into their behavior and how they differ from their

male counterparts (Gurian, 2011; Harrison et al., 2015, 2019; Hickey, 2015; Vronsky,

2007, 2018). Much of what is known about female serial murderers has been discovered

through the application of typologies and methodologies originally developed for male

offenders. Still, the comparison of what is known about female offenders and what is

known about male offenders shows a stark absence of information. An increased

understanding of the psychosocial characteristics of female serial murderers may increase

understanding of female serial murderers themselves.

While professionals know that females kill for different reasons, use different

methods, and are often served with different punishments (Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015;

Holmes et al., 1991; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Vronsky, 2007, 2018), female serial murderers

are still delegitimized and dismissed in varying ways, from monikers (Harrison et al.,

2015; Hickey, 2015) to sentencing (Gurian, 2011; Hickey, 2015). By drawing further

attention to and increasing knowledge of female serial murderers, this analysis may be

able to shed light on how and why these women become serial murderers.

In Chapter 3, a description of the study is provided. The role of the qualitative

researcher is also explained, as is the study methodology. The study methodology

includes information on the participant selection process, the coding method used, and

the plan for data analysis. Also referenced are issues of trustworthiness, researcher biases,

and study limitations.

Chapter 3: Research Method