Psychological explanations- Cognitive Flashcards
(40 cards)
Definition of level of moral reasoning.
The way a person thinks about right and wrong. Presumed it applies to moral behvaiour.
Higher level-more behaviour driven by sense of what’s right and wrong.
Lower level- driven by avoiding punishment/ avoiding disapproval of others.
What did Kohlberg do?
First researcher to apply concept of moral reasoning to offending.
Based his theory on moral dilemmas, Heinz dilemma.
Studies suggest offenders show lower lvl moral reasoning than non-offenders.
Used moral dilemmas- found group violent youths significantly lower lvl moral development than non-violent youths, despite social background.
Describe Kohlberg’s model.
Lvl 1 preconventional (6 under)- obey rules avoid punishment, conform to get rewards.
Lvl 2 conventional (7-11)- conform to avoid disapproval by others and censure by authority.
Lvl 3 postconventional (11+)- conform to maintain communities, individual principles of conscience.
In terms of Kohlberg’s model, what are offenders and non-offenders likely to be classified as?
Offenders likely classified as pre-conventional
Non-offenders progress to conventional lvl and beyond.
How is this assumption (offenders are pre-conventional) supported by studies?
Suggest offenders more egocentric, poorer social perspective.
Give a strength of moral reasoning, in terms of evidence for a link between lvl moral reasoning and crime.
Palmer and Hollin- compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using SRM-SF, contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions (keeping promises).
*Offender group show less mature moral reasoning than non-offender group.
Consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.
Give a limitation of moral reasoning, in terms of the lvl of moral reasoning dependent on the offence.
Thornton and Reid- found pp committed crimes for financial gain likely show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes.
Pre-conventional moral reasoning associated with crimes which offenders believe good chance of evading punishment.
Suggests Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.
Definition of cognitive distortions.
faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking mean we perceive ourselves, other pp and the world inaccurately, usually negatively, due to errors in info processing system.
Give examples of cognitive distortions.
Hostile attribution bias and minimalisation
Definition of hostile attribution bias.
tendency to judge ambiguous situations/ others actions, as aggressive and/or threatening when they may not be.
Describe Schonenberg and Jusyte’s study which shows that offenders may misread non-aggressive cues, which may trigger a disproportionate response.
presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions.
Compared with non- aggressive matched control group
Violent offenders more likely perceive images as angry and hostile.
Roots of criminal behvaiour are suggested to be apparent in childhood, Describe how Dodge and Frame’s study proves this.
showed kids video of ‘ambiguous provocation (intention neither clearly hostile nor clearly accidental).
Kids identified as aggressive and rejected prior to study interpreted situation as hostile than those classed as non-aggressive and accepted.
Definition of minimalisation.
type of deception involves downplaying significance of event/ emotion.
Common when dealing with feelings of guilt.
Give an example of minimalisation.
E.g., burglars may describe themselves as doing job/ supporting fam to minimise seriousness of offences.
Studies suggest that individuals who commit sex offences are prone to minimalisation, describe a study that proves this.
Barbaree- found among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied committed offence, 40% minimised harm caused to victim.
How do criminals act/feel?
- need to avoid punishment + gain rewards
- balance potential rewards with severity of punishment
- caused by lack of cognitive development of moral reasoning
Evaluation points - Kohlberg
sup. ev. - found convicted offenders = less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders in response to moral dilemma related qs. less mature = contributes to cim. behaviour BUT low validity - use of self-report data - demand characteristics + social desirability bias are liekly esp. when people fell judged on morals
doesn’t explain why criminals remain at pre-conventional level of morality - describes not explains - lacks explanatory power
only accounts for some types of crime e.g. burglary but not impulsive crimes due to provocation - incomplete explanation.
alt. explanations. - found that moral reasoning isn’t the issue but intelligence that predicts criminal behaviour better. less intelligent = more likely to commit crimes - incomplete explanation.
Evaluation points - cognitive distortions
sup. ev. - found violent offenders = more likely to perceive ambiguous facial expressions as angry compared to non-aggressive control. Suggests criminals have HAB + misread non-violent cues - adds cred. to explan.
sup. ev. - found 54% rapists denied they committed any offence + 40% minimised harm caused. Suggests minimalisation of crimes by convicts - adds cred. to explan.
RLA - CBT + AM - accept cognitive distortion impacts + working on less distorted views. Reduction of minimisation correlated to reduction in recidivism.
How is there gender bias in Kohlberg’s theory?
His research was based on a male sample only, and so is based on a male perspective of justice.
What type of crime is hostile attribution bias most linked to?
Aggressive crimes.
What are the pre-conventional levels more concerned with?
Trying to avoid punishment and gain rewards. It is associated with less mature and childish reasoning. Those at this level will commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards.
What is the assumption of pre conventional level reasoning supported by?
Studied which suggest that offenders are often more egocentric (self centred) & display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non offenders peers (eg Chandler 1973).
What did Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) do?
They presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambitious facial expressions.
What did Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) find?
When compared with a non aggressive matched control group, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the image as angry & hostile
