Homicide Motives: What Research Finds About Why People Kill
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Homicide motives are the purposes, perceived needs, emotions, interpretations, and practical objectives that may contribute to a person killing another person. Research identifies recurring patterns involving disputes, retaliation, coercive control, material gain, concealment of crimes, and particular symptoms in a small subset of cases. There is no single psychological explanation for homicide. Motives differ across relationships, situations, cultures, and recorded populations, and more than one motive can operate in the same incident.
A major advance is the 2025 qualitative systematic review by Finley, Sen-Gupta, and Hanlon. The authors reviewed 77 studies containing 143 different motive descriptions, consolidated them into 21 specific themes, and proposed four broad families. This synthesis is an important research classification, but its authors caution that the scale requires further validation and should not currently be used to determine motive for the courtroom.
This article examines what is known about the psychological meanings of homicide, what official statistics actually measure, how motive hypotheses are investigated, and why motive must be separated from diagnosis, crime prediction, legal intent, and a legal finding of guilt.
What is a homicide motive?
A homicide motive is an explanation of why a person is believed to have undertaken a lethal act: what the person was trying to achieve, avoid, express, defend, punish, or control. It is a psychological and evidentiary inference about an actor's reasons. Motive can be articulated by an offender, reconstructed from contemporaneous records, or proposed as an interpretation of a documented sequence of conduct.
Homicide describes one person causing another person's death. Whether that death constitutes a criminal offense, and which offense it constitutes, depends on the jurisdiction and the proven circumstances. Murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, and other legal classifications are not universal psychological categories.
Motive is distinct from a precipitating circumstance. An argument recorded by a medical examiner or police agency may have preceded a death, but it does not automatically reveal why the person acted. Motive is also distinct from a risk factor, such as a history of threats, which is an observed correlate of an outcome rather than a complete explanation of an individual action. A clinical diagnosis is a separate kind of finding.
In the American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, forensic practitioners are directed to distinguish data, interpretations, and opinions, to consider the legal referral question, and to communicate the limitations of available information. These principles are especially important when the subject is an unobservable mental state.
Why motive, intent, emotion, and opportunity must be distinguished
Motive concerns an actor's alleged reason for acting. Emotion is a psychological state, such as anger, fear, shame, or excitement. Opportunity concerns the presence of conditions that make a particular act possible. Intent and related concepts have legal meanings that depend on the controlling law. These concepts overlap in real events but answer different questions.
For example, two hypothetical people might both experience intense anger after a confrontation. One leaves the situation and the other acts violently. The presence of anger does not by itself explain the divergence. Access to lethal means, interpretations of threat, preceding coercion, social expectations, and immediate choices may help explain how one specific event developed.
Likewise, an apparent financial motive does not mean a killing was carefully planned. A robbery can become lethal during an unexpected struggle, while an emotionally charged confrontation can involve decisions made in advance. A single expressive–instrumental label cannot resolve legal issues of premeditation, recklessness, or responsibility.
Motive may also shift during the event. A person might begin by attempting intimidation, escalate during resistance, and then act to evade identification. In that circumstance, a primary motive identified after the fact may obscure a sequence of changing objectives. The 2025 Homicide Offender Motive Scale research explicitly makes room for multiple motives.
What does the scientific literature identify as the major homicide motives?
Homicide studies repeatedly describe interpersonal disputes, perceived insults, revenge, intimate-partner conflicts and attempts at control, robberies, criminal-enterprise objectives, concealment of another offense, and other context-dependent motives. Specific research on sexual homicide, family homicide, and killings involving psychotic symptoms identifies additional patterns in narrower populations.
The Finley and colleagues systematic review offers four higher-level themes: Personal Motives; Cognitive-Practical or Instrumental Motives; Sex-Based Motives; and Psychotic Motives. They encompass 21 separately defined descriptions. These are categories for studying completed cases, not four diagnoses, four offender personalities, or four accurate ways to predict future homicide.
Personal themes include dispute, revenge, power and control, and circumstances involving an intimate relationship. Instrumental themes include robbery, property and insurance interests, drug-related or gang-related objectives, contract killing, and concealment of another crime. The sex-based category addresses particular sexually motivated homicides. The psychotic category refers to specific cases where documented hallucinations or delusional beliefs appear directly relevant to the action.
The framework is not a claim that each killing belongs cleanly to just one category, and it is not an authoritative national ranking. Its most useful contribution is to make terms sufficiently explicit that researchers can compare like with like.
Interpersonal disputes, escalation, humiliation, and perceived threats
Arguments and disputes form a prominent category in homicide descriptions. An argument can escalate when one or more participants interpret an act as an insult, affront, threat, betrayal, or intolerable challenge. The relevant psychological processes may include hostile attribution, acute anger, perceived danger, impulsive action, and expectations about status or retaliation.
The meaning of a provocation is contextual. A gesture interpreted as a minor insult by one person may be understood as a serious threat within another relationship or social situation. Researchers must investigate the actor's particular interpretation rather than treating the mere existence of a dispute as the underlying explanation.
Official US data illustrate how frequently disputes are recorded. The CDC National Violent Death Reporting System report for 2023 found a known precipitating circumstance in 73.7% of homicides. Among homicides with known circumstances, an argument or conflict was recorded for 39.4%. That is a surveillance classification of an incident, not a validated assessment of the offender's internal motive.
Escalation depends on the sequence of interaction, access to weapons, the possibility of disengagement, bystanders, prior threats, and other conditions. Studying these factors supports prevention and better case reconstruction. It does not establish that every argument-associated homicide was unplanned or that anger is a sufficient cause.
Revenge and retaliatory killings
Revenge refers to a perceived need to punish someone for an earlier wrong. The alleged injury may involve violence, humiliation, financial loss, infidelity, betrayal, damage to standing, or another grievance. Retaliation may be directed at the original source of the grievance or at someone viewed as associated with that person.
An important distinction is temporal. A spontaneously escalating dispute differs from retaliation after the original incident, although everyday language often describes both as revenge. The HOMS operational definitions distinguish an altercation or dispute from revenge involving a prior incident and a period between the grievance and the killing.
Psychologically, retaliatory violence may involve rumination, grievance maintenance, perceived social expectation, imagined restoration of control, or anticipated deterrence. Such processes are plausible mechanisms, not proof of the motive in a particular case. Interview statements made after arrest can be inaccurate, strategic, or altered by the circumstances of questioning.
A scientific account therefore asks which prior acts were documented, whether communications recorded a grievance, who was targeted, what alternatives explain the sequence, and whether the revenge interpretation rests on evidence independent of the alleged offender's later story.
Intimate-partner homicide: coercive control, separation, and relationship dynamics
Intimate-partner homicide must be examined within the relationship's history. Some incidents follow repeated threats, controlling behavior, stalking, prior assaults, or attempts to prevent a partner from leaving. Others have different sequences, and assumptions about an individual case require independent corroboration.
A popular explanation such as “jealousy” can obscure the behavior that is most relevant to protecting people. A partner's persistent threats, weapon access, nonfatal strangulation, coercive sexual behavior, and escalation around separation may be materially important. In their research review of intimate-partner homicide, Campbell and colleagues discuss documented risk factors, prevention, and the importance of situational context.
The CDC's 2023 surveillance analysis identified intimate-partner-violence-related circumstances for 16.5% of homicides with known circumstances. This category can include people killed during IPV-related episodes who were not themselves an intimate partner. Relationship-to-suspect data and IPV-related-incident data are different measurements.
Risk indicators and motive explanations should remain separate. A history of coercive control can inform a threat or safety assessment, while the specific reason for a completed homicide may remain contested. Prevention should focus on documented behavior and practical protection rather than presumed personality types. The CDC's prevention framework addresses risk and protective factors at multiple social levels.
Robbery, material gain, and property-related motives
Some homicides occur within an attempt to obtain property or financial advantage. The person's apparent objective may involve a robbery, insurance proceeds, inheritance, control of assets, or elimination of someone perceived to obstruct access to resources. These are often called instrumental motives because the violent act is understood as serving another objective.
The classification still requires care. Robbery can be a precipitating crime without being the killer's sole subjective motivation. A victim might resist unexpectedly, other people may become involved, and an encounter can develop in ways that were never anticipated. An investigation should distinguish the planned objective, the event's actual sequence, and the reasons inferred afterward.
The HOMS review specifies separate descriptions for robbery, property and insurance interests, contract killing, concealment, and other instrumental circumstances. These distinctions are useful when a research project needs to distinguish killings committed to obtain something from killings committed to avoid detection.
The CDC reports that another crime precipitated 21.7% of homicides with known circumstances in 2023. Those incidents included robbery, assault, drug trade, burglary, and other offenses. The original surveillance report provides the definitions and denominators; those percentages should not be repackaged as direct measures of desire for money.
Concealment, witness elimination, and crime facilitation
Another instrumental explanation is the attempt to conceal an earlier act, eliminate an obstacle, prevent identification, or facilitate the continuation of another crime. A homicide occurring in the course of a burglary or another offense can therefore have a different proposed motive from a killing based on an earlier personal grievance.
The key inferential question is whether the sequence supports the alleged objective. A statement, documented communication, financial record, or chronology may strengthen one hypothesis. Merely finding that a homicide happened near another criminal event is insufficient to determine why the lethal act occurred.
The 2025 systematic classification treats concealment as a specific motive and distinguishes it from other pragmatic goals. This precision helps avoid assigning every crime-associated death the same psychological explanation.
Gang-related homicide, criminal markets, and social affiliation
Certain killings are associated with competition over territory, illicit markets, organizational interests, perceived group betrayal, retaliation between groups, or internal conflict. These categories can overlap: a death may be recorded as gang-related and drug-related, yet the immediate actor's alleged reason may have involved a personal dispute or another purpose.
The classification of a homicide as gang-related must be supported by evidence about the incident. Demographic characteristics, neighborhood, style of dress, friendships, or identity labels do not establish gang participation or homicidal motive. Investigators should clarify whether group involvement was independently documented and which actions were linked to the alleged organizational purpose.
The HOMS classification separates gang, drug, and robbery motives to improve descriptive consistency. Local operational rules nevertheless affect recorded rates. A category in one police database may not be directly comparable with a similarly named category in another.
The broader psychology of group identification, conformity, and aggression belongs to neighboring scientific fields. Here the focus is the homicide-specific evidentiary question: what motive, if any, can reasonably be inferred from the particular criminal event?
Sexual motives and why rare cases distort public expectations
A subset of homicides includes evidence of a sexual objective. The literature discusses sexual violence associated with a killing, acts of degradation, and specific cases in which sexual gratification may have contributed to the offense. These categories require careful distinction from one another.
The existence of sexual assault, evidence of sexual contact, or unusual postmortem behavior does not by itself reveal an offender's internal motive. The relevant forensic findings, documented sequence, statements, and alternative hypotheses must be considered together. Inferred motive remains a conclusion whose certainty depends on the evidence.
The HOMS systematic review includes a sex-based superordinate category. In its selected sample, that theme appeared infrequently relative to the personal and instrumental themes; those proportions are not general population estimates.
Highly publicized sensational cases and serial-offender narratives can distort perceptions of ordinary homicide. Research on sexual homicide and serial murder has its own selection problems and belongs in more specific articles. The present article focuses on the classification of motives across heterogeneous lethal events.
Psychosis-related explanations require individual evidence
A small subset of homicides has been described as closely related to particular delusional beliefs or hallucinations. For example, a documented belief that someone posed an extraordinary threat could be relevant to understanding what a person thought was happening. But a psychiatric condition, a symptom, and an act of homicide are different facts, and their relationship must be evaluated individually.
The HOMS proposal includes specific categories for command hallucinations and delusional beliefs. These are research descriptions for selected cases; they are not claims that psychosis normally produces violence or that having a diagnosis supplies a motive.
The systematic review and meta-analysis by Fazel and colleagues found heterogeneity in violence associations involving schizophrenia and other psychoses, especially with co-occurring substance-use disorders. The majority of people experiencing psychosis do not commit serious violence. Group-level associations cannot identify an individual killer.
Even if a mental-state explanation is clinically supported, its legal significance depends on the jurisdiction. Criminal responsibility, fitness or competency to stand trial, and defenses based on mental state are separate legal questions. No psychological theme or diagnosis substitutes for the court's application of the governing standard.
The role of alcohol, drugs, and acute intoxication
Alcohol or drug use can change attention, inhibition, judgment, threat perception, and exposure to risky situations. It can also coincide with disputes, illicit transactions, interpersonal abuse, or other dangerous settings. None of this establishes alcohol or drugs as a single motive for killing.
A population association involving substance use is different from evidence that an individual was intoxicated, that intoxication affected an act, or that the person had a particular intention. Toxicology can inform exposure, but interpretation requires knowledge of timing, doses, behavior, medical factors, and uncertainty.
Research on alcohol and fatal injuries, including the systematic review and meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, provides evidence about population burden and attribution models. Such estimates cannot be converted into statements about the motives of specific defendants.
An expert opinion should carefully distinguish physiological effects, behavioral observations, reported purpose, and any governing legal rules about intoxication. These are different layers of analysis.
Expressive and instrumental homicide: useful research concepts with limitations
One older framework contrasts expressive violence, commonly linked to interpersonal conflict and emotion, with instrumental violence, in which force is used to obtain another goal. Researchers often find the contrast helpful for organizing hypotheses and comparing case characteristics.
But many cases combine emotional and practical elements. The Adjorlolo and Chan review of instrumental and expressive homicide crime-scene behaviors discusses both the utility and the conceptual difficulties of the distinction. The presence of particular crime-scene behaviors cannot give an infallible reading of a person's mental state.
Consider a hypothetical retaliatory killing in which the offender also seeks to intimidate witnesses. The behavior may involve both grievance and practical control. The most informative account is often a specific reconstruction of the sequence instead of a forced either–or label.
This distinction is descriptive and explanatory; it is not equivalent to the criminal-law distinction between different degrees of murder, and it does not itself establish planning or legal intent.
The Homicide Offender Motive Scale: what its 2025 evidence supports
Finley, Sen-Gupta, and Hanlon conducted a qualitative systematic review of peer-reviewed homicide motive studies published before February 2024. The team identified 77 included studies and 143 motive descriptions, created definitions for 21 descriptive themes, and organized them into four broader categories. The purpose was to improve consistency across a literature fragmented by overlapping terminology.
They then applied the proposed coding rules to 200 homicide-offender cases drawn from forensic neuropsychological referrals. Coders reached very high agreement in that exercise. In this particular sample, personal themes represented 49% of primary motive classifications, cognitive-practical or instrumental themes 38%, sex-based themes 6%, and psychotic themes 7%. These are sample-specific descriptive figures, not representative estimates for all homicides in the United States or the world.
The report also found that some cases required more than one motive description, demonstrating the practical value of distinguishing primary and secondary explanations. Clear definitions can improve interrater reliability, meaning that coders interpret the same available materials more consistently.
Reliability is not proof that an inferred motive is correct. The categories have not demonstrated prospective prediction of homicide, universal calibration across communities, or case-specific diagnostic accuracy. Their application may also differ when records are incomplete, incidents remain unsolved, or investigators disagree about evidence.
The authors explicitly state that HOMS should not currently be used to assess motive for the courtroom. Additional external validation, assessment of cultural fairness, and study of alternative interpretations are needed before stronger forensic applications could be justified.
What is the most common motive for homicide in the United States?
There is no single nationally representative dataset that directly measures every offender's internal psychological motive using a comprehensive validated instrument. The available sources answer narrower questions about incident circumstances, victim–suspect relationships, criminal contexts, or motives inferred from selected files.
The CDC's 2023 NVDRS surveillance report identifies an argument or conflict in 39.4% of homicides with known circumstances, another crime in 21.7%, and intimate-partner violence in 16.5%. Circumstances were known for 73.7% of homicides. These categories can overlap, so the percentages must not be added together as a mutually exclusive set.
By contrast, the 200-person HOMS referral sample gives a distribution across four inferred-motive themes. This sample is more detailed but selected for a forensic context, and its percentages cannot be projected onto all homicide offenders.
A valid answer to “the most common motive” must therefore identify the year, geographical coverage, data collection method, operational definition, population, denominator, and missingness. Headlines that strip away these details create misleading certainty.
Do homicide motives differ by relationship, age, gender, and place?
Homicide is heterogeneous. Recorded circumstances vary across domestic settings, acquaintances, strangers, organized criminal networks, and other relationships. Gendered patterns of intimate-partner violence may differ from patterns within public disputes or criminal markets. Youth-involved incidents can involve developmental and peer contexts that differ from those in adult samples.
The CDC NVDRS report distinguishes victim–suspect relationship data from circumstances and describes sex-specific differences. The fact that one type of incident is more often recorded in one subgroup does not establish an inherent motive for every member of that subgroup.
Cross-national comparisons face additional problems. Countries differ in criminal-law definitions, medical certification systems, investigative resources, weapon availability, organized-crime contexts, social protection, and how agencies code motive. Historical comparisons must account for changes in reporting quality and definitions.
Cultural explanations also require caution. A motive label like “honor,” “status,” or “jealousy” may be applied inconsistently and can reproduce investigators' assumptions. Sound comparative work specifies the underlying behavior and tests whether a category has similar meaning across settings.
Do people who kill share a distinctive psychological personality profile?
No common offender personality can explain the full diversity of homicide. The evidence describes different events and populations, including interpersonal disputes, intimate-partner violence, robbery, contract killings, other crime-related killings, and rarer specific motives.
Traits such as impulsivity, antagonism, anger, or callousness may be relevant in particular studies or assessments. None is synonymous with homicide motive. An individual may display a trait without committing violence, and a completed offense does not allow a scientist to reconstruct personality accurately from the outcome alone.
A criminal profile generated from a crime scene is an investigative hypothesis rather than a clinical examination. The validation of profiling, behavioral inference, and case linkage belongs to separate forensic literatures. Popular accounts of a single “killer mind” are unhelpful because they conceal heterogeneity and produce false confidence.
Research on general criminal involvement is explored in the English Hub's Why Do People Commit Crimes? What Psychology Actually Shows. The present discussion addresses the narrower issue of homicide-specific motives and what can be inferred from lethal events.
Can a homicide motive be identified from a crime scene?
Crime-scene evidence can support or weaken competing motive hypotheses. Investigators may examine documented relationships, timing, financial transfers, communications, threats, witness accounts, prior conflicts, other offenses, and physical evidence. Each item must be assessed for provenance, reliability, and its relationship to a proposed explanation.
The absence of stolen property could support a robbery hypothesis, but alternative explanations remain possible. A history of threats might strengthen an account involving coercive control, but it does not independently establish what happened on the day of the death. A symbolic-looking detail may be meaningful, accidental, staged, or misunderstood.
Motive classification is also vulnerable to investigator confirmation bias. Once a compelling story emerges, ambiguous evidence may be interpreted to fit it. The scientific response is to specify alternative hypotheses, seek disconfirming information, and document the limits of the available records.
Historical studies of homicide circumstance recording, including work indexed by the US National Institute of Justice, have highlighted classification difficulties when categories are ambiguous. A police code, a clinical impression, and a court finding do not possess interchangeable evidentiary meanings.
The APA forensic guidelines emphasize the use of multiple sources where feasible, attention to incomplete information, and appropriately qualified opinions. The investigator or expert should explain the path from observation to inference rather than presenting a motive label as direct evidence.
A structured approach to evaluating motive hypotheses
A defensible motive inquiry begins with a chronology, establishing what is known about events before, during, and after the death. Contemporary records are normally more informative about immediate circumstances than later public retellings, though any record can contain errors.
The next task is to separate observed facts from reported statements and interpretive claims. A direct quotation from a message, a witness's recollection, and an evaluator's interpretation are distinct pieces of information. Source independence matters: several accounts repeating the same unverified allegation do not amount to several independent confirmations.
Investigators then generate plausible competing explanations. Rather than assuming that a prior dispute necessarily establishes revenge, they examine evidence supporting retaliation and evidence supporting other contexts, including another crime, perceived threat, coercion, or unintended escalation. The assessment should record uncertainties and unresolved contradictions.
Finally, the report should make clear how the proposed explanation relates to the legal issue. A psychologist's account of a possible motive may inform a particular referral question, but the court determines which opinions are admissible and what legal conclusion is justified.
Homicide motive and criminal law: mens rea, murder, and responsibility
A psychological motive answers why someone may have acted. Mens rea concerns legally defined mental elements, and jurisdictions differ in how they define intention, recklessness, malice, premeditation, or other statutory requirements. The same subjective reason may coexist with different legal circumstances and outcomes.
A proposed motive can be relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding, but its relevance and admissibility depend on the particular issue, applicable rules, and complete evidentiary record. Finding a possible motive does not prove that the suspect committed the act, establish all elements of murder, or remove the requirement to prove the case under the applicable standard.
A diagnosis likewise does not establish or negate criminal responsibility. Competency to stand trial concerns a different legal question from mental state at the time of the act. Insanity defenses and related tests vary significantly by jurisdiction. A psychosis-related motive category, if supported, is not itself a legal defense or judicial finding.
Forensic evaluators should anchor their opinions to the actual jurisdiction's legal questions, expertise, and available data, consistent with the APA Specialty Guidelines. Research constructs and legal standards must remain separately identified.
Can knowing a homicide motive predict future violence?
An explanation of a completed homicide is not a validated prediction of future homicide. Retrospective motive categories were developed using cases in which a lethal outcome was already known. They cannot be used as if they were prospective screening tests.
Responsible risk assessment requires a defined population, outcome, time horizon, measurement protocol, and tests of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination concerns how well a tool distinguishes outcomes in a population; calibration concerns the correspondence between estimated and observed probabilities. False positives and false negatives must also be assessed, especially for rare outcomes.
Even a risk factor that is statistically associated with violence does not identify which individual will commit homicide. No motive category from HOMS should be treated as a risk score, a causal mechanism verified in an individual, or proof of criminal propensity.
This predictive-assessment literature is examined in the published English Hub article Violence Risk Assessment: What It Can Predict and Where It Fails. That page owns predictive validity, instruments, error rates, and fairness questions; this article owns the empirical classification and interpretation of motives.
What the research cannot yet establish
There is no universal set of homicide-motive base rates. Published studies include different jurisdictions, solved and unsolved cases, defendants, incarcerated groups, forensic referrals, and official incident records. Selection mechanisms alter the apparent distribution of motives.
Retrospective studies are vulnerable to missing records, institutional coding rules, and post-event narratives. A conviction sample excludes many unresolved or differently disposed cases. An interview with an offender provides one important account, but it can be incomplete, strategic, inaccurate, or influenced by legal incentives.
Interrater agreement shows that two coders reached comparable labels under particular rules; it does not validate the original psychological explanation. An assessment scheme may show high agreement within one homogeneous dataset while failing in another culture or under conditions with poorer documentation.
Studies also rarely establish motive with experimental causal methods. The researcher cannot randomly assign people to commit homicide, so observed factors must be interpreted alongside plausible confounding variables and competing explanations. Group differences do not necessarily establish why a particular individual acted.
Fairness requires attention to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, language, local policing patterns, disability, and mental-health stigma. A research category can become misleading if coders treat stereotypes as evidence of motive. Transparency about missing information and cultural context should be built into any forensic report.
Practical implications for investigations, courts, and prevention
For investigations, the useful goal is a set of testable explanations linked to evidence. Motive can help orient questions about relationships, communications, transactions, and event chronology, while investigators retain alternative hypotheses and avoid using motive as a substitute for identity evidence.
For expert testimony, usefulness depends on the referral question, methodological basis, scope of expertise, and reliability of underlying records. A well-supported statement may be narrow: the documented conduct is consistent with an alleged effort to prevent separation, for example, while the precise subjective motive remains uncertain.
For prevention, patterns draw attention to situations where protective measures and evidence-informed interventions may matter: repeated threats in an abusive relationship, escalating retaliatory conflict, or circumstances enabling lethal force. The effectiveness of a prevention strategy must be established independently; knowing a motive pattern does not prove that a particular program reduces deaths.
The CDC's intimate-partner violence prevention resources are an example of multilevel prevention guidance. Broader pathways of offending and change are covered in Criminal Careers: Onset, Persistence, and Desistance.
Myths and misconceptions about why people kill
“Everyone who kills is driven by hatred.”
Homicide involves a wide range of documented circumstances and inferred motives, including conflict, retaliation, acquisitive goals, control, and crime concealment. Hatred can be relevant in some cases, but it cannot serve as a universal explanation.
“Mental illness explains violent crime.”
A diagnosis is a clinical classification; its presence does not establish a motive or imply criminal behavior. Symptom-specific explanations require documented case evidence, and most people with mental disorders do not commit homicide.
“A shocking crime scene reveals the killer's personality.”
Observable behavior can inform investigative hypotheses, but it does not yield an infallible psychological portrait. The inference must be independently supported and its limitations reported.
“Once police find a motive, they have proved guilt.”
Motive may form part of an evidentiary account, but guilt, identity, the act, and applicable legal elements require proof under the governing jurisdiction's standards.
“The categories in a motive scale accurately predict murder.”
HOMS was proposed to classify previously described motives, not to forecast homicide. Its developers caution against current courtroom use as a motive assessment instrument.
“The percentage of argument-related deaths is the percentage caused by anger.”
The CDC's argument/conflict variable describes a documented precipitating circumstance and is limited to cases with such information. It does not measure a validated subjective anger motive.
Frequently asked questions
What are the most common motives for homicide?
The literature contains interpersonal disputes, retaliation, partner-related control and conflict, financial or property gain, other crime-related objectives, gang or drug-market contexts, and more specialized categories. A ranked frequency depends on the research population and the way motives are defined. In US incident surveillance, arguments and conflicts are particularly common recorded circumstances.
Why do people kill during arguments?
Some lethal conflicts involve rapid escalation, perceived threats or insults, angry interpretations, access to lethal means, and failures of disengagement. Each incident has its own sequence. Research can identify recurring processes without converting an argument into a deterministic explanation.
Is revenge a common motive for murder?
Revenge is a recurring descriptive theme in homicide research. The 2025 systematic review treats it as distinct from a spontaneous dispute. Its prevalence varies between datasets and legal contexts, so one general percentage would be misleading.
What is the difference between expressive and instrumental homicide?
An expressive interpretation emphasizes personal conflict or emotional meaning; an instrumental interpretation emphasizes achieving another objective. Both may be relevant to the same incident. Neither category alone establishes legal intent or premeditation.
What is the most common murder motive according to the CDC?
The CDC primarily records homicide circumstances, not comprehensive psychological motives. In its 2023 NVDRS report, an argument or conflict was recorded in 39.4% of homicides with known circumstances, with circumstance information available for 73.7% of homicides.
Does jealousy cause intimate-partner homicide?
Jealousy may be part of a reported narrative, while histories of threats, coercive control, abuse, separation-related danger, and access to weapons can be more informative for risk and safety work. A single emotional label is inadequate for assessing an individual case.
Can psychosis be a motive?
A particular delusion or hallucination may be relevant to understanding a small subset of documented cases. Diagnosis alone is insufficient to establish a motive, and most people with psychosis do not commit serious violence. Legal responsibility remains a distinct jurisdiction-specific question.
Can psychologists accurately infer motive from a crime scene?
They can evaluate evidence and formulate qualified explanations, but there is no universally validated procedure that can recover a perpetrator's subjective reasons from crime-scene details alone. Competing hypotheses, source reliability, and uncertainty must remain explicit.
Can a homicide motive help predict who will kill?
Retrospective motive classifications do not amount to prospective risk tools. Risk prediction demands separate validation, calibration, error measurement, and population-specific evaluation. Motive cannot be treated as an individual homicide probability.
Is proving motive required for a murder conviction?
That is a legal question governed by the applicable jurisdiction, statute, and elements of the charge. Motive and the legally defined mental element are different concepts, and forensic psychological findings cannot replace a court's findings.
Related articles
For the broader causes and contexts of crime, see Why Do People Commit Crimes? What Psychology Actually Shows. For evidence about the prediction of violence, see Violence Risk Assessment: What It Can Predict and Where It Fails. For developmental trajectories of offending and change over time, see Criminal Careers: Onset, Persistence, and Desistance.
The planned homicide psychology overview (EN58-125) and serial-murder research article (EN58-127) will be connected after their English URLs are published.
Related Articles
References
Adjorlolo, S., & Chan, H. C. O. (2017). The nature of instrumentality and expressiveness of homicide crime scene behaviors: A review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015596528
Alpert, H. R., et al. (2022). Alcohol consumption and 15 causes of fatal injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2022.03.025
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.html
Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838007303505
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Preventing intimate partner violence. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/prevention/index.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). Surveillance for violent deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/75/ss/ss7507a1.htm
Fazel, S., Gulati, G., Linsell, L., Geddes, J. R., & Grann, M. (2009). Schizophrenia and violence: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 6(8), e1000120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19668362/
Finley, J.-C. A., Sen-Gupta, N., & Hanlon, R. E. (2025). The Homicide Offender Motive Scale (HOMS): A classification system for homicide motives based on a qualitative systematic review. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 70(6), 2129–2142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70170
Loftin, C. (1986). Homicide related to crimes other than drug traffic. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/homicide-related-crimes-other-drug-traffic