Psychological autopsy is a generic term used to describe a form of psychological assessment undertaken in a postmortem and postdictive capacity for determining various attributes in a person who is deceased. The goal and thus purpose of undertaking a psychological autopsy varies and is largely dependent on the circumstance in which the evaluation is being undertaken. In this respect, there are generally three broad contexts wherein psychological autopsies are used. The first is within the framework of an investigation into the death of an individual that has occurred in indeterminate and thus equivocal circumstances such as those undertaken by coroners. In this context, the purpose of a psychological autopsy is to assist in determining whether the deceased person’s demise was most likely due to natural causes, some form of accident, a suicide, or a possible homicide. The second context is within the framework of a police operation whereby an understanding of a deceased person might assist with some ongoing or ancillary aspect of the police investigation. An illustration of this circumstance is the use of a psychological autopsy to obtain some understanding of a deceased offender’s mental state and thus likely motive for perpetrating a mass shooting before the offender was killed by responding police or security personnel. The third context is within a therapeutic setting such as a hospital or psychiatric facility or some form of research concerned with the treatment and/or study of the etiology and predisposing factors associated with suicide. An example illustrating the use of psychological autopsy in this context is an evaluation of a patient who has committed suicide and the factors which led to the patient’s death. With this information, treatment regimens can be improved upon in the future.
Although these contextual frameworks for undertaking a psychological autopsy differ, the underlying functional theme to the analysis of a deceased person is generally the same, and thus, in many respects, the functional outcome of a psychological autopsy is analogous to the reconstructive task undertaken by biographers and historians when they consider the likely sentiments and disposition of a historical figure.
The Process for Undertaking a Psychological Autopsy
Although the psychological autopsy technique has achieved considerable professional recognition in terms of its acceptance and widespread use in many operational environments (e.g., law enforcement, coronial inquiries), it does not feature a uniformly recognized procedure concerning how precisely the technique is undertaken. Many of the variations in procedure for the technique appear to be nuances and artifacts of the disciplinary background of the individuals who are undertaking the analysis. For example, individuals from legal or law enforcement backgrounds typically place greater emphasis upon the analysis of tangible evidence, whereas individuals from mental health disciplinary backgrounds tend to be more orientated to evaluating motivational drives and possible psychopathologies.
Despite these different disciplinary perspectives and points of emphasis, there are, nonetheless, a number of underlying procedural commonalities that all approaches share. The most fundamental is that all approaches commence with an information collation process wherein a myriad of data sources connected with the deceased are consulted. Examples of such sources include reviewing archival records (e.g., medical records, educational records, police records) as well as conducting interviews with family members, friends of the deceased, and any other relevant parties (e.g., treating doctors) who may have been in a position to offer some insight into the disposition of the deceased prior to their death.
Following this data collection phase, the next frequent step is a preliminary analysis of core attributes concerning the deceased. From this initial analysis, a composite of many descriptive features concerning the deceased is developed, which leads to some preliminary conclusions such as the deceased’s likely mental state and overall well-being prior to his or her death. In addition, some impression of the deceased’s life history as well as any significant life events and stressors that may have been in operation prior to the individual’s demise is developed.
The final common procedural component to the composition of a psychological autopsy typically involves a more focused analysis of the deceased. At this stage, the operational context of the psychological autopsy is a key factor in shaping the questions which the psychological autopsy seeks to determine. For example, within the aforementioned context of a coronial inquiry, there is some consideration of the likely intentions of the deceased and thus some assessment as to whether his or her death was in some context intentional or unintentional. Likewise, within the previous example concerning a law enforcement investigation of a shooting spree, the questions under consideration might revolve around whether the deceased harbored any prejudicial views or held any radical political beliefs that might suggest his or her actions was an expression of a hate crime versus an act of political violence (e.g., terrorism).
With respect to the matter of method, there does not appear to be any clear consensus as to whether psychological autopsies are optimally undertaken by a single person or via the efforts of multiple analysts collectively working together. There are favorable and unfavorable aspects to both approaches. Psychological autopsies undertaken by a single person are believed to facilitate a better level of perspicuity via the expertise of the analyst. In this context, all collected information and conducted interviews have been undertaken by a single person who has a better overall understanding of all the gathered information. However, many of the methodological problems inherent to psychological autopsy (examined in the following section) arise within this single analyst/practitioner operating model. In contrast, a psychological autopsy undertaken via a team effort involving multiple analysts who collectively work together may be more robust and thus not as prone to such problems surrounding the reliability of psychological autopsies. However, through this team approach, diffusion of the collected information can also occur, and thus, the perspicuity and level of insights garnered from such analysis may suffer via this approach.
Limitations
Despite the touted benefits derived from the use of psychological autopsies, the technique itself is hindered by a number of methodological limitations and one irreconcilable issue concerning its validity. With respect to methodological limitations, there are numerous issues concerning the reliability of the collected information upon which any evaluation is founded. These limitations feature two dimensions in terms of the reliability of the supplied information as well as how the collated information is subsequently interpreted.
With respect to the reliability of the collated information, there are numerous hazards associated with the accounts family members and friends of the deceased may supply. Ironically, the unreliability of such information can be quite polarized in nature wherein descriptions of a deceased individual may be grossly exaggerated in either an extremely favorable or unfavorable manner. For example, when asked to recollect aspects of the deceased’s life, bereaving family members can romanticize their recollections and thus consciously or even subconsciously deny or downplay patently evident issues connotative of dysfunction within the life of the deceased person. Alternatively, when the circumstances of a deceased individual’s death are considered to be the source of some form of great shame that subsequently extends to the surviving family members, recollections may grossly misrepresent any anomaly. That is, the exaggeration of any dysfunction may act as a means of quarantining surviving family members or significant others from any perceived stigma and disgrace caused by the deceased individual.
To address these problems, various methodological procedures that attempt to buttress the overall reliability of the evaluative process for the purpose of a psychological autopsy have been suggested. Some simple mechanisms involve the corroboration of information from multiple differing sources. However, more sophisticated protocols involve structured interviews that are conducted at differing time intervals (when permissible), whereby any manifest grief in, for example, a relative may have dissipated.
The problems surrounding the reliability of information used for psychological autopsies also extend to the personnel who may be undertaking the analysis. That is, during the course of conducting interviews with bereaving family members and friends, a degree of empathy and thus sympathy can readily develop, which can thereafter skew the objectivity of the conclusions formulated within a psychological autopsy. To counteract this problem, a number of contingencies have been proposed. One is having separate individuals conducting interviews with those who thereafter use the obtained information for analysis incumbent to the psychological autopsy. Another strategy involves the overall analysis for a psychological autopsy being undertaken by a group of analysts whereby any determinations are made via a process of consensus.
Despite these limitations and their various countermeasures, the psychological autopsy technique suffers from one irreconcilable issue concerning its validity. The simple fact is that there is no way in which some of the key conclusions inherent to psychological autopsies can be unequivocally and empirically verified as accurate and thus valid. That is, it is impossible to definitively ascertain whether any espoused conclusions surrounding the motives and intentions of the deceased are indeed correct, because the only individual who could confirm the validity of these conclusions is the deceased. Thus, the validity of the psychological autopsy technique is a matter of stringency in perspective somewhat analogous to the standards of proof encountered in legal forums generally. In many civil law contexts, the standard of proof is based upon the balance of probabilities as to what is most likely the case, whereas in criminal law, the standard is far more stringent and based upon the belief that determinations must be beyond a reasonable doubt. In an analogous context, the validity of psychological autopsies is a matter of perspective in determining whether the conclusions are highly probable as being valid or whether a definitive standard must be met consistent with some independent metric for verification.
Psychological Autopsies as Evidence in Court Proceedings
Despite the aforementioned limitations, the psychological autopsy technique enjoys a somewhat paradoxical status when considered as a form of expert witness evidence for legal proceedings. In jurisdictions outside the United States, such as, for example, the United Kingdom and Canada, the submission of evidence in the nature of psychological autopsy has been largely rejected irrespective of whether it is tendered in civil or criminal proceedings. The overall reason for this rejection has been the lack of scientific research capable of robustly substantiating its validity and thus any testimony derived from its premises.
In stark contrast to this position, the psychological autopsy technique has been regarded as an admissible form of expert witness evidence in many jurisdictions in the United States. Indeed, in the United States, the admission of evidence in the nature of psychological autopsy dates back to the 1930s. In this respect, the applications of psychological autopsy as legal evidence are quite diverse and include applications of the technique to legal proceedings concerning medical malpractice and insurance and workers’ compensation claims. However, this acceptance of psychological autopsy as evidence is not unilateral; thus, in some civil law contexts, it is regarded as inadmissible, such as in matters pertaining to intestate succession and testamentary capacity. Moreover, within the context of criminal law, the admissibility of psychological autopsy is quite divided in terms of it being accepted in some jurisdictions but not others; thus, its admission within criminal proceedings is heavily dependent on the specific parameters of the issues to be determined before the court and the extent to which psychological autopsy is exclusively meant to be relied upon in making such determinations.
References:
- Cavanagh, J. T. O., Carson, A. J., Sharpe, M., & Lawrie, S. M. (2003). Psychological autopsy studies of suicide: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 33, 395–405.
- Ebert, B. W. (1987). Guide to conducting a psychological autopsy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 52–56.
- Hawton, K., Appleby, K., Platt, S., Foster, T., Cooper, J., Malmberg, A., & Simkin, S. (1998). The psychological autopsy approach to studying suicide: A review of methodological issues. Journal of Affective Disorders, 50, 269–276.
- Kocsis, R. N. (2009). Psychological autopsy. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Applied criminal psychology: An introduction to forensic behavioral sciences (pp. 235–254). Springfield, IL: CC Thomas.