Cognitive Explanation To Offending Flashcards
Cognitive distortions
- These are faulty, irrational ways of thinking which can cause individuals to perceive themselves, others or the world inaccurately, and usually negatively
- With criminal behaviour, such distortions allow an offender to deny or rationalise their behaviour
What are the 2 examples of cognition distortions
- Hostile attribution bias
- Minimalisation
Hostile attribution bias
- What we think when we observe someone’s actions and inferring what these actions mean
- Violence is caused by the perception that other people’s acts are aggressive
- People may be perceived as being confrontational when they are not, which may trigger a disproportionate violent response
- In the case of offenders, such negative interpretations can be linked to their aggressive or violent behaviour
Wegrzyn et al (2017)- research support for hostile attribution bias
- 62 males (45 criminals and 17 control) were shown 20 ambiguous faces (10 male and 10 female) and asked to rate fear and anger
- They found that the violent criminals rated the faces as angry more often than the control group
Minimalisation
- Downplaying the seriousness of an offence
- Some criminals will underplay their offences
- It helps the individual to accept the consequences of their behaviour
- Research suggests that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation
Barbaree (1991)- research support for minimalisation
- Among 26 imprisoned rapists, 54% denied they have committed an offence at all and 40% minimised the harm they had caused the victim
Moral reasoning
- Kohlberg was the first researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to criminal behaviour
- There are a number of stages of moral reasoning, whereby the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning
Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning (how do they explain criminal behaviour)
- There are 3 levels of moral reasoning, and each stage represents more advanced form of moral understanding
- Kohlberg used his levels to explain criminal behaviour
- He claimed that criminals’ idea of right and wrong would be developed in childhood, however he suggested criminal’s level of moral reasoning is lower than non-criminals
Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning (what are they)
Level 1: Pre-Morality
stage 1- Doing what is right because of fear of punishment
stage 2- Doing what is right for personal gain, perhaps a reward
Level 2: Conventional Morality
stage 3- Doing what is right according to the majority to be a good person
stage 4- Doing what is right because it is your duty and helps society
Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality
stage 5- Doing what is right even if it is against the law because the law is too restrictive
stage 6- Doing what is right because of inner conscience which has absorbed the principles of justice and sacredness of life
Levels of moral reasoning (why people at each stage might commit a crime)
- People at pre-conventional level think breaking the law is justified if the rewards outweigh the costs or if punishment can be avoided
- People at conventional level think breaking the law is justified if it helps maintain relationships (e.g family)
- People at post-conventional level think breaking the law is justified if the law violates an individual’s rights
Palmer and Hollin (1998)- research support for moral reasoning
- They compared moral reasoning between 250 non-offenders and 125 convicted offenders using the socio-moral reflection measure-short form (SRM-SF)
- The delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent group, which is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions
Evaluation of cognitive explanation to offending
- Application of research: this is in the form of treatment of criminal behaviour. The dominant approach is CBT which encourages offenders to ‘face up’ to what they have done and establish a less distorted view of their actions. Research has shown that reduced denial and minimalisation in therapy is highly correlated with reduced recidivism rates
