cognitive explanations for offending Flashcards
Intro
Cognitive explanations for crime look for the origins of offending in the mind of the individual.
• Kohlbergs theory suggests that criminals have a lower level of moral reasoning.
• Crime is related to judgements of right and wrong.
• Other theory’s suggest offending is the result of faulty information processing.
• Hostile attribution bias
• Minimalisation
Levels of moral reasoning
Moral reasoning - process by which an individual draws upon their own value system to determine whether an action is right or wrong
• Decisions and judgements of issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral development
• Based on a series of moral dilemmas
• The higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning
• Studies show that offenders show a lower level of moral reasoning.
• Kohlberg et al. (1973) found that a group of violent youths were significantly lower in moral development. Even after controlling for social background.
Link with criminality
Non-offenders generally operate in higher stages.
• Offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional stage in Kohlbergs model.
• Need to avoid punishment and gain reward
• Less mature and childlike reasoning.
Crime is committed if they can get away with it or gain some kind of reward (tangible or intangible)
This assumption is supported by studies showing that offenders are more egocentric and display less social perspective-taking
Skills (Chandler, 1973).
• Higher levels are associated with sympathising with the rights of others | Honesty | Generosity | Non-violence.
cognitive distortions
Faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negatively.
• Hostile Attribution Bias
• Minimalisation
Hostile Attribution Bias
- A tendency to judge ambiguous situations, or the actions of others, as aggressive and/or threatening when in reality they may not be.
• Schönenberg & Justye (2014) - 55 violent offenders were more likely to perceive an emotionally ambiguous face as angry and hostile.
Minimalisation
• A type of deception that involves downplaying the significance of an event or emotion. A common strategy when dealing with feelings of guilt.
• Denying or downplaying the seriousness of offences - applying a euphemistic label. (Bandura, 1973)
• Burglar may refer to “doing a job or supporting the family”
• Kennedy and Grubin (1992) found that sex offenders often downplay their behaviour e.g through denial or by claiming the victims behaviour in some way contributed to the crime.
S-moral reasoning
One strength is evidence for the link between levels of moral reasoning and crime.
Palmer and Hollin (1998)
• Moral reasoning in 332 male and female non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF)
• 11 moral dilemma related questions referring to things like not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a friend.
• The offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group.
S-real world application
One strength of cognitive distortions is it application to therapy.
• CBT aims to challenge a rational thinking.
• In the case of offending behaviour, offenders are encouraged to face up to what they have done and establish a less distorted view of their actions.
- Studies (E.g. Harkins et al. 2010) suggest that reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy is highly associated with a reduced risk of reoffending
• Acceptance (rather than denial or minimalisation) is thought to be an important aspect of rehabilitation.
This suggests that the theory of cognitive distortions has practical value.
L-types of offence
A limitation of both explanations is that they may depend on the type of crime.
1. Thorton and Reid (1982) - Crimes for financial gain were related to pre-conventional moral reasoning
• Impulsive crimes were not.
• Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of getting away with it.
Suggests that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime
- Howitt and Sheldon (2007) - non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders.
• Those with a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification.
Suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.
6 marker
Cognitive explanations for crime are ones that look to the mind of the offender to try to understand and explain their behaviour.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning suggests that crime is related to judgments of right and wrong. Kohlberg proposed three levels of moral reasoning (the higher the level, the more sophisticated), and that offenders are more likely to reason at a pre-conventional (the lowest) level, which is less mature and childlike, characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain reward. It means that adults and adolescents who reason at this level may commit a crime if they feel like they can get away with it or if they feel like they can gain rewards. Research has shown that offenders are often more egocentric and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offenders peers, who reason at a higher level and tend to sympathize more with the rights of others and exhibit more behaviors like honesty, generosity and non-violence.
Cognitive distortions on the other hand refer to faulty information processing. For example people with a hostile attribution bias tend to think the worst about what others are doing or thinking, which can result in a tendency to judge ambiguous situations as aggressive and/or threatening when in reality they may not be. This can then lead to more aggressive behaviour, as was investigated by Schönenberg & Justye (2014) who found that violent offenders were more likely to perceive an emotionally ambiguous face as angry and hostile.
