Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour Flashcards
(11 cards)
Identify the two cognitive explanations for offending behaviour.
The two cognitive explanations are:
1. Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning
2. Cognitive distortions
Outline Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour.
Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning develops in stages — the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning.
Level 1: Pre-conventional – Judgements are based on rewards and punishments. Offenders at this level may commit crimes if they think the reward outweighs the risk.
Level 2: Conventional – Individuals consider social rules and laws, so are less likely to offend.
Level 3: Post-conventional – Reasoning is based on ethical principles and conscience.
Give a strength of Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning.
A strength is that it has received supporting evidence. Studies have shown that offenders reason at the pre-conventional level, particularly for specific types of crime.
For example, sexual offenders reason at a lower level for sexual crimes, while even other criminals view such crimes as ethically wrong.
Give a limitation of Kohlberg’s theory: use of hypothetical dilemmas.
A limitation is that the theory is based on hypothetical moral dilemmas, not real-life decisions. This is a problem because people may respond differently in a questionnaire than they would in a real situation.
Give a limitation of Kohlberg’s theory: impulsive crimes.
Another limitation is that the theory does not apply to all crimes. For example, impulsive crimes such as assault may involve no moral reasoning at all.
Give a limitation of Kohlberg’s theory: lacks explanatory power.
A final limitation is that it lacks explanatory power. It describes how criminals reason, but not why they reason at lower levels.
Outline cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour.
Cognitive distortions refer to faulty or biased thinking that leads to crime. Two main examples are:
1. Hostile Attribution Bias – Misinterpreting others’ behaviour as aggressive or threatening, which can justify violent responses.
2. Minimalisation – Downplaying the seriousness of a crime or denying harm, which reduces guilt and makes offending more likely.
Give a strength of cognitive distortions: supporting evidence for hostile attribution bias.
A strength is that studies show violent offenders are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as angry or hostile.
Give a strength of cognitive distortions: supporting evidence for minimalisation.
Another strength is that sex offenders often deny their offences or reframe them as harmless or affectionate.
Give a limitation of cognitive distortions: lacks explanatory power.
A limitation is that while it describes the thinking patterns of offenders, it does not explain why these distortions occur.
Give a strength of cognitive distortions: practical applications.
A strength is that the theory has led to effective treatments, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for sex offenders. CBT helps offenders recognise and challenge their distorted thinking, which reduces reoffending rates.
