Malaysian J Pathol 2017; 39(3) : 217 – 226

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Psychological markers underlying murder weapon profile:
a quantitative study
Mohammad Rahim KAMALUDDIN PhD, Azizah OTHMAN* DPsych, Khaidzir Hj. ISMAIL PhD and
Geshina Ayu MAT SAAT** PhD

Psychology and Human Well Being Research Centre, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia,*Pediatric Department, School of
Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia,**Forensic
Science Programme, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150 Kubang Kerian,
Kelantan, Malaysia

Abstract

The horrific nature of murder using different types of weapons has been an important focal point of
many criminological studies. Weapons that are used in murders seem to play dominant roles in murder
investigations as they may provide information leading to arrest. The established factors for weapon
usage include environmental context, demography and availability of weapons. However, there is
insufficient research attention on the psychological functioning of murderers for particular weapon
usage. In light of this, the current study seeks to narrow this gap of information by identifying the
influences of psychological traits on weapon usage among a sample of male murderers. The present
cross-sectional study was conducted among 71 male murderers incarcerated in 11 prisons within
Peninsular Malaysia. The selection of the sample was based on predetermined selection criteria
using a purposive sampling method. A guided self-administered questionnaire comprising socio-
demography variables and four Malay validated psychometric instruments: Zuckerman-Kuhlman
Personality Questionnaire-40-Cross-Culture, Self-control Scale, “How I Think” Questionnaire and
Aggression Questionnaire; was used. Independent sample t-test was performed to establish the
mean score differences of psychological traits between the murderers who used single and multiple
weapons while Kruskal-Wallis tests were carried out to ascertain the differences between the specific
types of weapons used among the murderers. Following this, one-way ANOVA was carried out to
ascertain the psychological trait differences among the murderers according to the different sources
of weapon. Results indicated specific psychological traits influenced the number(s), source(s) and
type(s) of weapon used in committing murder. The findings have implications for the psychological
profiling of unknown murderers within the Malaysian context.

Keywords: Malaysia, murder, murderers, psychological markers, weapon profile

INTRODUCTION behaviour of murderers. Furthermore, type and

source of a weapon that was used to kill someone
Studies on the number and choice of weapon(s) may reflect the intent of an offender - which is
in the event of murder are escalating interest and a vital element to classify such killing action as
becoming significant, especially when researchers murder or culpable homicide.
aim to understand the act and nature of murder. Different types of weapons have been
By definition, Brennan and Moore1 described recognized in both murder and culpable homicide
weapons as a tool that is designed or adapted to through a large body of violence related literature.
cause physical harm including death. In violence Reviewing the available literature, the typical
and criminological research, weapons used in classification includes ‘unarmed’ (e.g., hands,
murder have been an important focal point to fists, or feet), blunt objects, sharp objects, and
address the degree of violent and aggressive firearms. Examples of sharp objects include

Address for correspondence: Dr. Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin, Criminologist, Psychology and Human Well Being Research Centre, Faculty of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Email: Email: rahimk@ukm.edu.my

217
Malaysian J Pathol December 2017

items ranging from actual knives to machetes, well as normative patterns influences the type
sickles, chainsaws, ice picks and broken bottles. of weapon used in homicide.15
In the Malaysian context, murder weapons Also relevant to this current study are previous
are categorized mainly into one of ten types.2 studies focusing on abnormal perpetrators of
The ten categories are blunt weapons, knives, murder. Several studies had established the
machetes, firearms, fire/acid, sharp weapons relationship between psychopathology and
(other than knives and machetes), ligatures, choice of weapon. An empirical study among
physical force, vehicles, and unidentified.2 The Scottish offenders supported the relationship
reason for separating knives and machetes from between psychopathy and weapon usage. 16
sharp objects is mainly due to the higher prevalent Mental disorders such as delusional disorder and
rate of these weapons in crimes. depression were also found to be predictive in the
From the criminological point of view, choice of weapon, especially when the disorder
the usage of weapons in murder tends to be is characterized by non-bizarre delusion and no
the result of several factors. One of the most depatterning behaviour.14 Researchers reported a
established factors is the availability of that strong correlation between delusional disorder
particular weapon. In countries where firearm and the use of sharp instruments with high
legislation is less strict, firearms seems to be the numbers of strikes and blows, mostly targeted at
most preferred weapon.3-5 For instance, murder a vital zone.14 For example, psychotic offenders
using firearm is more frequent in countries where were found to use sharp weapons more frequently
firearms are easy to obtain legally, such as in the since these objects were available at the particular
United States compared to other countries. In moment of killing and had immediate visceral
contrast, in countries with more stringent laws effects, with most injuries inflicted onto the face
on firearm ownership such as Malaysia, other of the victims.17
murder weapons especially sharp objects are Although much research and evidence have
more common. been put forth to explain the potential associated
Blunt and sharp objects are the most common factors related to the weapon profile of murderers,
weapon which results in stabbing and cutting the psychological markers behind the choice
injuries in New Zealend.6 In Finland, the knife of weapon among the ‘mentally fit’ murderers
was the preferred murder weapon among still remain unexplored. It is essential to shed
drunken men with a history of violent crime.7,8 some statistical perspective on the psychological
With regards to epidemiological profiles of markers of murderers in the descriptive and
murder weapon usage in Malaysia, a national inferential framework of number, types, and
retrospective study by Mohammad Rahim et al9 sources of weapon(s) that they used. In the
indicated sharp objects as the most commonly present study, we elected to focus on the influence
used weapon and only 10.6% of Malaysian of psychological markers of murderers towards
homicide incidents involved firearms. Other than particular choice of weapons. The psychological
sharp objects, blunt objects also seemed to be markers include personality traits, self-control
commonly used in Malaysia. For example, blunt level, cognitive distortion level and also the
objects appeared to be the weapon of choice in aggression trait of the murderers.
homicide cases in Penang, Malaysia.10 By doing so, we can determine whether and
From another angle, the choice of weapon to what extent psychological markers affect
has been said to be associated with the motive weapon usage among murderers within the
of the murder. Given the characterization of Malaysian setting. Three research questions were
expressive motivation as impulsivity and volatile addressed. First, are there any differences in
emotions; weapons that are most likely to be psychological markers in selecting one or more
used are predicted to be non-gun weapons such types of weapons to commit murder? Second, are
as blunt objects or bare hands, indicating a more there any differences in psychological markers
spontaneous action.11 When the killing serves corresponding to particular types of weapons?
an instrumental goal, premeditated weapons Finally, are there any psychological marker
like guns and machetes are usually brought differences in terms of sources of weapons?
to the murder scene. Other factors that have The findings that are generated in this study may
been associated with choice of weapon include provide new insights and inputs to criminologists,
murderous relation 12, gender 13, context of investigative psychologists, forensic pathologists
murder14 and many more. In summary, it appears and crime scene analysts on ‘psychological –
that instruments which are widely available as weapon’ profiling of murderers.

218
 Psychology of Murder Weapon Profile

METHODOLOGY achieve the aims of this study. The guided self-

administered questionnaire – PsychoMechanical
Respondents
Questionnaire (PMQ) was utilized to investigate
The present study recruited 71 murderers
the influences of psychological markers on
incarcerated from 11 prisons within Peninsular
weapon usage among male murderers.
Malaysia. The selection of the respondents
The study was reviewed and approved by the
was based on predetermined selection criteria
ethical committee of Universiti Sains Malaysia
using a purposive sampling method. All the
and the Malaysian Department of Prisons.
respondents were Malaysian males aged nineteen
The respondents were assured anonymity and
years and older. At the start of the study, the
confidentiality of their responses in order to
sample included 84 respondents, however 13
maintain honesty and validity of their responses.
of them were later deemed ineligible to take
The respondents participated on a voluntary
part (e.g., because they claimed that they were
basis. All respondents provided written informed
innocent). The sample size was based on the
consent prior to their participation in the research.
recent murderers population statistics obtained
from the Malaysia Department of Prisons.
Measures
Regarding the age of respondents, information
The PMQ consisted of three sections. The
on two types of age were collected: age during
sections and contents of PMQ were as follows:
commission of murder and current age. The age
of respondents during commission of murder
Socio-demographic section
ranged from 19 to 64 years old with a mean
This section was designed to establish the
of 29.9 years old (SD = 10.76). The current
socio-demographic profiles of the participants.
age of the respondents during the time of data
It included items on respondent’s age,
collection ranged between 21 and 67 years old
ethnicity, marital status, occupational status and
with a mean of 37.2 years old (SD = 10.89).
educational status.
Their ethnic backgrounds consisted of 40.8%
Malay, 33.8% Indian, 23.9% Chinese, and
Weapon usage profile
1.4% of other ethnicities. A high proportion
Three pertinent questions were asked in this
of respondents (46.5%) were single during the
section. The first was a question on the number of
commission of murder, 33.8% were married,
weapons that were used in murder. Respondents
15.5% were divorced and separated from their
were required to select either ‘single’ or
partners and the remaining 4.2% were widowers.
‘multiple’ weapon(s). Here, the usage of more
Prior to their conviction, most of the respondents
than one different weapon was considered as
were in semiskilled professions (59.2%) such
‘multiple’ weapons. The second question was
as security guards, lorry drivers, labourers, and
naming the specific type of weapon(s) used in
odd job workers. 12.7% had worked in clerical
murder. The last question was regarding the
or skilled professions. 11.3% were considered
source of weapon. For this, four responses were
as not working (either unemployed or between
provided: from crime scene, from offender, from
jobs). The same proportion (11.3%) were self-
victim, and own physical strength.
employed and engaged in business. The rest of
5.5% were former civil servants.
Psychometric instruments
As for highest level of education, 36.6% of
Malay language versions of four psychometric
the respondents completed lower secondary
instruments were used in this study. The
education and 31.0% of them completed upper
instruments were: (i) Zuckerman-Kuhlman-
secondary education. 25.4% completed primary
personality Questionnaire-40-Cross Culture
education and only a small percentage of
(ZKPQ-M-40-CC), (ii) Self-Control Scale
respondents had pre-university education (2.85),
(SCS-M), (iii) “How I Think” Questionnaire
diplomas (2.8%) and one respondent was not
and (iv) Aggression Questionnaire (AQ-M). All
formally educated.
the items of these instruments were answered
using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
Design and procedure
(not at all like me) to 5 (completely like me).
The present study was a cross-sectional study
The following subsections briefly explain the
that was carried out in 11 Malaysian prisons.
contents and psychometric properties of each
The quantitative research method was applied
psychometric instrument.
as it was felt as the most ideal approach to

219
Malaysian J Pathol December 2017

i- ZKPQ-M-40-CC: This instrument was the Analyses

simplified original version of ZKPQ-50-CC The responses from collected PMQ were compiled
which consisted of 50 items18 measuring into a set of systematic and computerized data.
Alternative Five Factor Model (AFFM) The analysis was performed using IBM Statistical
personality traits. However, only 40 items Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
were included in the Malay version of ZKPQ 21.0. Descriptive statistics were employed to
as the outcome of the validation study.19 summarize the socio-demographic information
The ZKPQ-M-40-CC assesses five types of of the respondents and murder weapon profile.
personality traits: Activity (Act), Sociability In order to achieve the aim of this study,
(Sy), Aggressiveness-Hostility (Agg-Host), several parametric and non-parametric statistical
Impulsive Sensation Seeking (ImpSS), and tests were employed. The determination of
Neuroticism-Anxiety (N-Anx). The overall either parametric or non-parametric was based
internal consistency of ZKPQ-M-40-CC was on the normality of data. The normality of data
0.75.19 was screened using measures of skewness and
ii- SCS-M: SCS-M is a Malay version of the kurtosis. In addition, Kolmogrov-Smirnov tests
Self-Control Scale which was originally were also employed to reaffirm the normality of
developed by Grasmick et al.20 The SCS was data.
developed to operationalize low self-control Corresponding to the normality of data and
elements based on the General Theory of number of groups, independent sample T-tests
Crime by Gottfredson and Hirschi.21 In were conducted to identify the mean difference of
this study, SCS-M was administered as a psychological scores between respondents who
unidimensional scale which consisted of 18 used single and multiple weapons. Following
items. The scale was reverse coded so that this, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to identify
high scores indicate low self-control. The the median differences of the psychological
internal consistency of SCS-M was 0.80.22 scores across specific types of weapon. One-
iii- AQ-12-M: AQ-12 is the short version of way ANOVA was employed to establish the
the Aggression Questionnaire by Buss and mean difference of psychological scores for
Perry.23 The AQ-12 consisted of 12 items24 sources of weapon. If one-way ANOVA detected
which measures the self-perceived levels statistically significant differences, post-hoc
of aggression among respondents. This analyses were carried out. Independent sample
instrument consisted of four scales: physical T-tests and one-way ANOVA were carried out
aggression (physical expression of anger), when there were no apparent violations of the
verbal aggression (argumentative and hostile normality assumptions.
language), anger (agitation and sense of
control), and hostility (resentment, social RESULTS
isolation and paranoia). Each subscale has
Murder weapon profile
three items. The internal consistency of
Nearly 90.1% of the respondents used a single
AQ-12-M among the Malaysian criminal
weapon and the rest used multiple weapons.
population was 0.80.25
Knives (26.8%) seemed to be the most preferred
iv- HIT-M: HIT-M is a Malay version of “How
weapon. Usage of blunt weapons and machetes
I Think: HIT” Questionnaire by Mohammad
were noted among 14 (19.7%) and 13 (18.3%)
Rahim Kamaluddin et al.26 The original
respondents respectively. Usage of other weapons
HIT was developed by Barriga et al27 and
such as firearms, ligatures, or fire was uncommon.
designed specifically to measure levels of
In the majority (45.1%), of murder cases,
self-serving cognitive distortion as they
weapons were brought along by the respondents
relate to a wide range of externalizing
to a crime scene. This compares to 42.3% of
behaviours including serious offenses
murderers who obtained a weapon that was
like murder. In this current study, HIT-M
readily available at the scene of crime. Table 1
consisted of items which measure four
depicts the murder weapon profile of the
subscales of self-serving cognitive distortion
respondents.
(SSCD): self-centered, blaming others,
minimizing/mislabeling, and assuming
Associated psychological markers
the worst. Each subscale had six items
The potential psychological markers that underlie
respectively. The internal consistency of
the murderer’s decision in choosing a single
HIT-M was 0.90 among a sample of violent
or multiple weapons were analysed using an
offenders.26

220
 Psychology of Murder Weapon Profile

TABLE 1: Murder weapon profile of Malaysian male murderers (n = 71)

Variables n (%)
Number of weapons
Single 64 (90.1)
Multiple 7 (9.9)

Type of weapons
Knives 19 (26.8)
Machetes 13 (18.3)
Sharp weapon 4 (5.6)
Blunt weapon 14 (19.7)
Firearms 3 (4.2)
Ligatures 3 (4.2)
Physical strength 6 (8.5)
Fire 2 (2.8)
Multiple 7 (9.9)

Availability of weapons
Crime scene 30 (42.3)
From offender 32 (45.1)
From victim 3 (8.5)
Physical strength 6 (8.5)

independent sample t-test. The independent p = 0.036. Based on the statistically significant
sample t-test resulted in several statistically result, it can be safely concluded that the median
significant results: Agg-Host (t(69) = -2.57, p of multiple types of weapons (11.00, IqR 3.00)
= 0.01), overall aggression (t(69) = -2.67, p = and firearms (11.00) is higher than other types
0.01), physical aggression (t(69) = -3.11, p = of weapon.
0.03), verbal aggression (t(69) = -3.17, p = 0.02), Following this, a one-way ANOVA was
overall self-serving cognitive distortion (t(69) = performed to examine the mean differences
-2.32, p = 0.02), self-centered (t(69) = -2.32, p in psychological markers among the groups
= 0.020), and blaming others (t(69) = -1.19, p = of weapon availability. Based on the output, it
0.02). Significant differences in mean score for can be concluded that a statistically significant
other psychological measures were not observed. difference was observed for only physical
Findings are displayed in Table 2 below. aggression on the sources of weapon at the level
Next, the distributions of psychological of p = 0.004. The summary of one way ANOVA
markers across specific types of weapons were is presented in Table 5.
tested using a non-parametric analysis. For Due to this initial statistically significant
this, the Kruskal-Wallis test was employed. finding on physical aggression, Scheffe’s multiple
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed statistically comparison was performed. As displayed in
significant difference in physical aggression Table 6, it was found that the mean score for
across categories of types of weapons used. weapon originally brought to the crime scene by
Otherwise, no other statistically significant the offender (M = 9.09, SD = 3.42, n = 32) is
differences were observed for any psychological significantly higher compared to the weapon that
variables. The output of the Kruskal-Wallis test was readily available at the crime scene itself
is presented in Table 3 below. (M = 6.33, SD = 3.51, n = 30). Otherwise, no
In order to compare the median of physical statistically significant differences were noted
aggression across nine groups of types of for any other pairs.
weapons, the descriptive statistics was used.
Based on Table 4, the Kruskal-Wallis test for DISCUSSION
comparison of physical aggression indicates that
there is a statistically significant difference in the The use of weapons in a murder scene reflects
distribution of types of weapons, χ2 (8) = 16.50, the ‘intent’ of the murderer as it authorises a

221
Malaysian J Pathol December 2017

TABLE 2: Comparison of psychological mean scores between single and multiple murder
weapon usage

Measure Mean (SD) Mean difference (95% CI) t-statistica (df) p-value

Activity 29. 20 (5.75)1 -1.51 (-6.02, 3.00) -0.67 (69) 0.510

30.71 (4.86)2
Sociability 26.52 (4.66)1 -0.20 (-4.26, 3.87) -0.10 (69) 0.920
26.71 (8.60)2
Agg-Host 20.09 (7.16)1 -7.19 (-12.78, -1.61) -2.57 (69) 0.010*
27.29 (5.44)2
ImpSS 21.39 (6.67)1 -2.61 (-7.75, 2.54) -1.01 (69) 0.320
24.00 (3.96)2
N-Anx 17.97 (5.62)1 0.11 (-4.29, 4.52) 0.05 (69) 0.960
17.86 (4.74)2
Self-control 49.09 (8.03)1 -1.91 (-8.24, 4.43) -0.60 (69) 0.550
51.00 (7.44)2
Overall aggression 28.69 (8.14)1 -8.74 (-15.28, -2.20) -2.67 (69) 0.010*
37.43 (9.14)2
Physical aggression 7.41 (3.08)1 -3.74 (-6.13, -1.34) -3.11 (69) 0.030*
11.14 (2.19)2
Verbal aggression 5.95 (2.24)1 -2.90 (-4.73, -1.08) -3.17 (69) 0.020*
8.86 (2.85)2
Anger 8.05 (2.95)1 -0.52 (-2.86, 1.81) -0.45 (69) 0.660
8.57 (2.88)2
Hostility 7.28 (2.85)1 -1.58 (-3.88, 0.73) -1.37 (69) 0.180
8.86 (3.39)2
Overall SSCD 52.00 (15.70)1 -14.57 (-26.67, -2.47) -2.40 (69) 0.020*
66.57 (9.03)2
Self-centered 12.09 (5.36)1 -4.91 (-9.12, -0.69) -2.32 (69) 0.020*
17.00 (4.76)2
Blaming others 14.30 (5.78)1 -2.70 (-7.25, 1.81) -1.19 (69) 0.020*
17.00 (5.07)2
Minimisations 13.77 (5.09)1 -3.95 (-7.91, 0.01) -1.99 (69) 0.050
17.71 (3.68)2
Assuming worst 11.84 (4.57)1 -3.01 (-6.72. 0.70) -1.62 (69) 0.110
14.86 (5.61)2
Note: aIndependent t-test was applied, 1Single murder weapon, 2Multiple murder weapon, Number of subjects
for single murder weapon = 64, multiple murder weapons = 7, *Statistically significant variable

permissive inference regarding the intent to studies by Bhupinder et al10 and Kumar et al28
cause harm and kill the victim. Indeed a weapon and are in line with the findings of other studies
that was used in murder would be one of the in India29,30 and Hong Kong31. As pointed out
first evidence examined by forensic scientists earlier, the prevalence of sharp weapons as
and investigating officers as it helps to predict murder weapons in Malaysia can be explained
and direct the murder investigation. Moreover, by the easy availability of such instruments. In
a murder weapon tends to provide many clues countries with more restrictive gun ownership,
associated with murder viz. apparent motive, such as Malaysia, knives showed prominent
degree of intent, murderous relations, degree dominance compared to firearms as the tool of
and modus operandi of murder. violence.32
Based on the murder weapon profile that In regards to the number of weapons, it was
emerged in this study, killing using knives noted that the majority of murderers used a
and machetes seemed to be the most preferred single weapon in order to kill their respective
weapon among the murderers in Malaysia. The victim. The number of weapons that was used
present findings are similar to previous national by murderers may reflect the ‘planned’ element

222
 Psychology of Murder Weapon Profile

TABLE 3: Distribution of psychological variables across types of weapons used (n = 71)

Null hypothesis (H0) p-value

1 The distribution of Activity is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.251
2 The distribution of Sociability is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.573
3 The distribution of Agg-Host is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.119
4 The distribution of ImpSS is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.405
5 The distribution of N-Anx is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.306
6 The distribution of low self-control is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.296
7 The distribution of overall Aggression is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.093
8 The distribution of physical aggression is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.036*
9 The distribution of verbal aggression is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.110
10 The distribution of anger is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.346
11 The distribution of hostility is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.320
12 The distribution of overall SSCD is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.291
13 The distribution of self-centered is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.264
14 The distribution of blaming others is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.975
15 The distribution of minimisations is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.115
16 The distribution of assuming the worst is the same across categories of types of weapons used 0.534
Note: *Statistically significant at p < 0.05 (null hypothesis is rejected)

TABLE 4: Median comparison of physical aggression among types of weapons used

Groups n Median (IqR) χ2- statisticsa (df) p-value

Knives 19 7.00 (6.00)

Parang 13 9.00 (5.00)
Sharp object 4 4.50 (5.25)
Blunt object 14 7.00 (4.75)
16.50 (8) 0.036
Firearms 3 11.00 (-)
Ligature 3 3.00 (-)
Fire 2 6.00 (-)
Physical strength 6 9.00 (2.50)
Multiple weapons 7 11.00 (3.00)
Note: aKruskal-Wallis test

TABLE 5: One-way ANOVA of psychological measures for sources of weapon

Psychological variables Mean square F p-value

Activity 33.80 1.06 0.373

Sociability 23.61 0.91 0.442
Agg-Host 108.90 2.14 0.103
ImpSS 42.62 1.02 0.391
N-Anx 54.90 1.88 0.142
Self-control 55.82 0.88 0.456
Overall aggression 126.90 1.78 0.160
Physical aggression 43.00 4.91 0.004*
Verbal aggression 5.86 0.98 0.408
Anger 8.01 0.93 0.430
Hostility 11.15 1.33 0.272

Note: *Significant at level p < 0.05

223
Malaysian J Pathol December 2017

TABLE 6: Comparison of physical aggression’s mean score among four types of weapon sources

Comparison Mean difference (95% CI) p-value

Crime scene vs from offender -2.72 (-4.92, -0.60) 0.006*
Crime scene vs from victim 0.00 (-5.14, 5.14) 1.000
Crime scene vs physical strength -2.33 (-6.13, 1.46) 0.383
From offender vs from victim 1.79 (-2.37, 7.89) 0.501
From offender vs physical strength 0.43 (-3.35, 4.20) 0.991
From victim vs physical strength -2.33 (-8.34, 3.67) 0.743
Note: One-way ANOVA test was applied followed by post-hoc multiple comparison test Scheffe’ procedures,
F(df) = 4.91 (3), p = 0.004

of murder. Most notably, the usage of multiple aggression and antisocial behaviour, which may
weapons is highly associated with premeditated lead a person to be involved in violent activities,
murder. This is in order to facilitate and ensure including murder. Based on the current findings,
that the murder is successful. Combinations of it can be concluded that murderers who used
sharp and blunt weapons were often used. multiple murder weapons are more aggressive
The above finding contradicts when planned than those who used a single murder weapon.
murder is committed with a firearm in which The current findings further support the general
there was no other weapon selected. In addition, characterization of aggressive individuals who
the usage of a single weapon, especially a have been described as violent in nature and
firearm; can also be observed in instrumental exhibit antisocial behaviour.35,36
murder which is performed for some form of Besides aggression, self-serving cognitive
benefit like financial gain. In terms of sources distortion is also another psychological
of weapon, the weapon from the murderers trait that showed a statistically significant
indicates a strong element of premeditation. In difference between murderers who used a
contrast, weapon from the crime scene indicates single and multiple weapons. In general, self-
a spontaneous action of murderers due to its serving cognitive distortion can be defined as
immediate availability at a particular moment biased thinking or error in thinking.26,27 The
of time. Common weapons that were obtained criminological literature have extensively
from crime scenes include blunt objects such as reported that cognitive distortion contribute to
sticks, wood, and iron rods. In a small number problematic emotional and behavioural responses
of cases, some weapons were actually from which eventually lead to criminal and deviant
the victims themselves, which likely reflect behaviour.
the ‘provocation’ element shown by the victim Theoretically, individuals with higher level
toward his or her murderer. of cognitive distortion are able to block moral
In terms of differences among respondents who judgments when performing an act.27 This
used a single murder weapon and multiple murder indicates higher level of cognitive distortion
weapons, there were statistically significant allow a person to use multiple weapons in order
differences in Agg-Host, overall aggression, to cause maximum harm (death) to the victim.
physical aggression, verbal aggression, overall Besides that, cognitive distortion traits such as
self-serving cognitive distortion, self-centered, self-centeredness and blaming others may act
and blaming others (Table 2). Deliberating on as catalysts for a wide range of externalizing
these findings, the existence of high aggression behaviour such as aggressive and antisocial
levels among respondents plays important roles behaviour.27,37
in selecting more than one weapon to kill their The two traits under cognitive distortion
respective victim as the aggression levels were that significantly differ between murderers who
found to be higher for those respondents who used a single and multiple weapons are self-
chose multiple weapons. centered and blaming others. Self-centeredness
In general, aggression can be described as is a primary form of cognitive distortion which
an overt behaviour carried out intentionally is reinforced by secondary cognitive distortion
to harm another person who is motivated to such as blaming others trait. Secondary cognitive
avoid the harm.33,34 A study by Warren et al35 distortion such as blaming others is perceived
established a significant relationship between as pre or post-transgression rationalizations that

224
 Psychology of Murder Weapon Profile

neutralize conscience, reduce stress, empathy, may influence the usage and number of weapons.
and guilty feelings.26,27,38 Thus, higher level of Despite these limitations, the present study
cognitive distortion like blaming others reduce successfully provided some statistical input on
empathy and guilty feelings which eventually the influence of psychological markers towards
allow the murderers to use multiple weapons weapon profile among murderers.
when committing a murder.
The findings of this present study also suggest Conclusion
that there is a statistically significant difference In conclusion, the present study achieved the
in physical aggression across specific types of aim of reporting several psychological markers
weapons used in murder (Table 3). Respondents that are likely to influence the number and type
who used firearm and multiple weapons are more of weapons used by murderers. Most notably,
physically aggressive than respondents who used individuals with high aggression markers tend to
other types of weapons. In contrast, respondents use multiple weapons, and ‘physical aggression’
who used a ligature as a weapon tend to be the seemed to be most associated psychological
least physically aggressive. According to Buss marker that influences the respondents to carry
and Perry,23 physical aggression represents the weapon to the murder scene. Hence, the
instrumental or the motor component of behavior findings derived in this study may be useful in the
which involves harming and hurting others. psychological profiling of unknown murderers.
Furthermore, this instrumental component This research adds substantial knowledge
of aggression may influence the respondents to the field of criminology and investigative
in terms of carrying a weapon to kill their psychology.
respective victim. Some evidence of this is
supported in the present findings in which ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
respondents who brought a weapon to kill
The authors would like to express their sincerest
the victim is characterized as being more
gratitude and thanks to Universiti Sains Malaysia
physically aggressive compared to respondents
and the USM Vice Chancellor Award Programme
who obtained the weapon from the crime scene
for supporting this study. Authors would also
itself (Table 6). Elaborating more on this, those
like to acknowledge Universiti Sains Malaysia
with physically aggressive traits are likely to
(USM Short Term Grant 304/PPSK/61312121)
involve in “premeditated” murder by carrying
and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (GGPM
the weapon to confront the victim compared to
2016-071) for the financial support to conduct
those who reached for an available weapon at
this research. Appreciation is also extended to the
the crime scene which reflects the “passion and
Malaysian Department of Prisons for allowing the
spontaneous” element of murder.
researchers to conduct this study. The authors
also thank KP Dato’ Alzafry Mohamed Alnassif
Limitations
bin Mohamed Adahan and TKP Supri Hashim
The present study is the first of its kind
for their valuable support and encouragement.
in Malaysia as it explores the underlying
Authors also thank Ms. Siti Nur-Farliza for her
psychological markers of murder weapon profile
statistical assistance, Muaz Haqim Shaharum for
among Malaysian male murderers. A similar
his technical assistance and all the respondents
study was conducted by Mohammad Rahim
for their participation and cooperation in making
Kamaluddin et al38 which shed some information
this study successful.
on the influences of psychological traits on
different killing methods among Malaysian
REFERENCES
male murderers. In this current study, a number
of limitations need to be acknowledged. First 1. Brennan IR, Moore SC. Weapons and violence:
is the number of samples which were recruited A review of theory and research. Aggress Violent
in a non-probability sampling manner. Limited Behav. 2009; 14: 215-25.
2. Polis Diraja Malaysia. Statistik Kes Bunuh di
sample size with purposive sampling limit Malaysia 2001-2012. 2012.
the generalizability of current findings to the 3. Smith TW. National gun policy survey of the
entire population of murderers. The second National Opinion Research Center: Research
limitation that needs to be highlighted in this findings. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research
current study is the influences of other external Center, University of Chicago; 2000.
factors i.e., the failed outcome (death) of first 4. Hepburn LM, Hemenway DA. Firearm availability
and homicide: a review of the literature. Aggress
weapon, availability of number of weapons,
Violent Behav. 2004; 9: 417-40.
familiarization of weapon and many more; that

225
Malaysian J Pathol December 2017

5. Gruenewald JA, Pridemore WA. Stability and within Malaysian settings. Educ Med J. 2013; 5: 60-6.
change in homicide victim, offender, and event 23. Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire.
characteristics in Chicago, 1900 and 2000. Homicide J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992; 63: 452-9.
Stud. 2009; 13: 355-84. 24. Bryant FB, Smith BD. Refining the architecture of
6. Lo M, Vuletic JC, Koelmeyer TD. Homicide in aggression: a measurement model for the Buss-Perry
Auckland, New Zealand. A 14-year study. Am J Aggression Questionnaire. J Res Pers. 2001; 35:
Forensic Med Pathol. 1992; 13: 44-9. 138-67.
7. Kivivouri J. Homicide–suicide in Finland, 2002– 25. Zaihairul Idrus, Nor Hafizah NH, Geshina Ayu MS.
2006. European Society of Criminology, Bologna; Aggression among Malaysians: implications for
2007. the community and environment. Paper presented
8. Wahlsten P, Koiranen V, Saukko P. Survey of medico- at: International Conference on Environment and
legal investigation of homicides in the city of Turku, Health; 2012 June 5-7; Vistana Hotel, Penang,
Finland. J Forensic Leg Med. 2007; 14: 243-52. Malaysia.
9. Mohammad Rahim K, Nadiah Syariani MS, Geshina 26. Mohammad Rahim K, Nadiah Syariani MS, Azizah
Ayu MS. Epidemiological profiles of murders and O, Geshina Ayu MS. Factorial validation of “How
murder victims in Peninsular Malaysia from 2007 to I Think” questionnaire among male inmates in
2011 as reported by a newspaper. IOSR J Humanities Malaysia. Malays J Psychiatry. 2013; 22: 19-31.
Soc Sci. 2014; 19: 73-81. 27. Barriga AQ, Gibbs JC, Potter GB, Liau AK. How
10. Bhupinder S, Kumara TK, Syed AM. Pattern of I Think (HIT) Questionnaire manual. Champaign,
homicidal deaths autopsied at Penang Hospital, IL: Research Press. 2001.
Malaysia, 2007-2009: a preliminary study. Malays 28. Kumar V, Li AK, Zainal AZ, Lee DA, Salleh SA. A
J Pathol. 2010; 32: 81-6. study of homicidal death in medico-legal autopsies
11. Salfati CG. Offender interaction with victims at UMMC, Kuala Lumpur. J Clin Forensic Med.
in homicide: a multidimensional analysis of 2005; 12: 254-7.
frequencies in crime scene behaviours. J Interpers 29. Ghangale AL, Dhawane SG, Mukherjee AA. Study
Violence. 2003; 18: 490-512. of homicidal deaths at Indira Gandhi Medical
12. Drawdy SM, Myers WC. Homicide victim/offender College, Nagpur. J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2003;
relationship in Florida Medical Examiner District 20: 47-51.
8. J Forensic Sci. 2004; 49: 150-4. 30. Vij A, Menon A, Menezes RG, Kanchan T, Rastogi
13. Rogde S, Hougen HP, Poulsen K. Homicide by P. A retrospective review of homicides in Mangalore,
sharp force in two Scandinavian capitals. Forensic South India. J Forensic Leg Med. 2010; 17: 312-5.
Sci Int. 2000; 109: 135-45. 31. Au KI, Beh SL. Injury patterns of sharp instrument
14. Catanesi R, Carabellese F, Troccoli G, et al. homicides in Hong Kong. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;
Psychopathology and weapon choice: a study of 204: 201-4.
103 perpetrators of homicide or attempted homicide. 32. Kershaw C, Nicholas S, Walker A. Crime in England
Forensic Sci Int. 2011; 209: 149-53. and Wales 2007/08: findings from the British Crime
15. Vougiouklakis T, Tsiligianni C. Forensic and Survey and police recorded crime. London: Home
criminologic aspects of murder in North-West (Epirus) Office; 2008.
Greece. J Clin Forensic Med. 2006; 13: 316-20. 33. Bushman BJ, Huesmann LR. Aggression. In: Fiske
16. Michie C, Cooke DJ. The structure of violent ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of
behavior: a hierarchical model. Crim Justice Behav. social psychology. 5th ed. New York: John Wiley &
2006; 3: 706-37. Sons; 2010. p. 833-63.
17. Häkkänen H, Laajasalo T. Homicide crime scene 34. Mohammad Rahim K, Azizah O, Khaidzir I,
behaviors in a Finnish sample of mentally ill Geshina Ayu MS. Aggression profiles of incarcerated
offender. Homicide Stud. 2006; 10: 33-54. Malaysian male murderers. Akademika. 2016; 86:
18. Aluja A, Rossier J, Garcia LF, Angleitner A, 137-47.
Kuhlman M, Zuckerman M. A cross-cultural 35. Warren JI, Hurt S, Loper AB, Bale R, Friend
shortened form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC) R, Chauhan P. Psychiatric symptoms, history
adapted to English, French, German, and Spanish of victimization, and violent behavior among
languages. Personal Individ Differ. 2006; 41: 619-28. incarcerated female felons: an American perspective.
19. Mohammad Rahim K, Nadiah Syariani MS, Geshina Int J Law Psychiatry. 2002; 25: 129-49.
Ayu MS. A validity study of Malay translated 36. Reyna C, Ivacevich MGL, Sanchez A, Brussino S.
Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire: construct
Cross-Cultural 50 Items (ZKPQ-50-CC). Health validity and gender invariance among Argentinean
Environ J. 2013; 4: 37-52. adolescents. Int J Psychol Res. 2011; 4: 30-7.
20. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, Arneklev 37. Mohammad Rahim K, Nadiah Syariani MS,
BJ. Testing the core empirical implications of Azizah O, Khaidzir I, Geshina Ayu MS. Linking
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. psychological traits with criminal behaviour: a
J Res Crime Delinq. 1993; 30: 5-29. review. ASEAN J Psychiatry. 2015; 16: 135-47.
21. Gottfredson MR, Hirshi T. A general theory of 38. Mohammad Rahim K, Nadiah Syariani MS, Nur-
crime. 1st ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Farliza S, Azizah O, Khaidzir I, Geshina Ayu MS.
Press; 1990. Psychological traits underlying different killing
22. Mohammad Rahim K, Nadiah Syariani MS, Geshina methods among Malaysian male murderers. Malays
Ayu MS. A unidimensional scale for self-control J Pathol. 2014; 36: 41-50.

226