psychological explanations:cognitive explanations for offending Flashcards
(9 cards)
Levels of moral reasoning
Lawrence Kohlberg (1968) was the first researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to offending behaviour. Kohlberg proposed that people’s decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning (see facing page) - the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning. Kohlberg based his theory on people’s responses to a series of moral dilemmas, such as the Heinz dilemma (also on facing page).
Many studies have suggested that offenders tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-offenders. Kohlberg et al. (1973), using his moral dilemmas, found that a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral development than non-violent youths - even after controlling for social background.
Link with criminality
Offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg’s model (stages 1 and 2), whereas non-offenders have generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond. The pre-conventional level is characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, and is associated with less mature, childlike reasoning. Thus, adults and adolescents who reason at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money, increased respect, etc.
This assumption is supported by studies which suggest that offenders are often more egocentric (self-centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills (see page 186) than non-offender peers (e.g. Chandler 1973). Individuals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence.
cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in people’s information processing system characterised by faulty thinking. We all occasionally show evidence of faulty thinking when explaining our own behaviour (especially if the behaviour was unexpected or out of character) but research has linked this to the way in which offenders interpret other people’s behaviour and justify their own actions.
Two examples of cognitive distortions are hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.
Hostile attribution bias
Evidence suggests that a propensity for violence is often associated with a tendency to misinterpret the actions of other people - in other words, to assume others are being confrontational when they are not. This is called a hostile attribution bias.
Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (such as being looked at’”) and this may trigger a disproportionate, often violent, response. Michael Schönenberg and Aiste Jusyte (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a non-aggressive matched control group, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile.
The roots of this behaviour may be apparent in childhood. Kenneth Dodge and Cynthia Frame (1982) showed children a video clip of an ‘ambiguous provocation’ (where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor clearly accidental). Children who had been identified as ‘aggressive and ‘rejected’ prior to the study interpreted the situation as more hostile than those classed as ‘non-aggressive and ‘accepted.
minimalisation
Minimalisation is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence and has elsewhere been referred to as the application of a ‘euphemistic label’ for behaviour (Bandura 1973). For instance, burglars may describe themselves as
‘doing a job’ or supporting my family’ as a way of minimising the seriousness of their offences. Studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation, Howard Barbaree (1991) found among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim.
s-moral reasoning-research support
One strength is evidence for the link between level of moral reasoning and crime.
Emma Palmer and Clive Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF) which contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions such as 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.
This is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.
l-moral reasoning-type of offence
One limitation is that the level of moral reasoning may depend on the offence.
David Thornton and R. L. Reid (1982) found that people who committed crimes for nancial gain (e.g. robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes (e.g. assault). Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment.
This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.
s-cognitive distortions-real world application
One strength of cognitive distortions is its application to therapy.
Cognitive behaviour therapy aims to challenge irrational 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 (as ‘acceptance of one’s crimes is thought to be an important aspect of rehabilitation).
This suggests that the theory of cognitive distortions has practical value.
l-cognitive distortions-type of offence
One limitation is the level of cognitive distortion depends on the type of offence.
Dennis Howitt and Kerry Sheldon (2007) gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders. Contrary to what the researchers predicted, they found that non-contact sex offenders (accessed sexual images on the internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (had physically abused children). Those who had a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification.
This suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.
