Psychological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Cognitive Explanations

Question 1

Level of moral reasoning definition

Answer 1

Moral reasoning refers to the process by which an individual draws upon their value system to determine whether an action is right or wrong.

Kohlberg attempted to objectify this process by identifying different levels of reasoning based on people’s answers to moral dilemmas

Question 2

Cognitive distortions definition

Answer 2

Faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that we perceive ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negatively

Question 3

Hostile attribution bias definiton

Answer 3

the tendency to judge ambiguous situations, or the actions of others, as aggressive and/ or threatening when in reality they may not be

Question 4

minimization definition

Answer 4

a type of deception that involves downplaying the significance of an event or emotion. A common strategy when dealing with feelings of guilt

Question 5

When and where was Lawrence Kohlberg born?

Answer 5

October 1927, American psychologist.

Question 6

What is Kohlberg best known for?

Answer 6

His theory of stages of moral development.

Question 7

Which two universities was Kohlberg affiliated with?

Answer 7

University of Chicago and Harvard University.

Question 8

What psychologist’s work did Kohlberg extend?

Answer 8

Jean Piaget’s work on children’s moral development.

Question 9

When did Kohlberg die?

Answer 9

January 19, 1987.

Question 10

What is moral reasoning according to Kohlberg?

Answer 10

The cognitive process of reasoning about moral decisions.

Question 11

How did Kohlberg study moral development?

Answer 11

By analysing responses to moral dilemmas (e.g., the Heinz dilemma).

Question 12

What did Kohlberg propose about moral reasoning and criminal behaviour?

Answer 12

Criminals tend to show lower levels of moral reasoning than non-criminals.

Question 13

What did Kohlberg et al. (1973) find about violent youths?

Answer 13

They were significantly lower in moral development than non-violent youths, even controlling for social background.

Question 14

At what level of moral reasoning are most criminal offenders classified?

Answer 14

Pre-conventional level (stages 1-2).

Question 15

At what level do non-criminals typically reason?

Answer 15

Conventional level (stage 3).

Question 16

What characterises the pre-conventional level?

Answer 16

Avoiding punishment and gaining rewards, immature reasoning.

Question 17

Why might adults/adolescents at pre-conventional levels commit crimes?

Answer 17

To avoid punishment or gain rewards like money or respect.

Question 18

What did Chandler (1973) find about offenders

Answer 18

Offenders tend to be more egocentric with poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offenders.

Question 19

What traits are associated with higher moral reasoning levels?

Answer 19

Sympathy for others’ rights, honesty, generosity, non-violence.

Question 20

What are cognitive distortions?

Answer 20

Errors or faulty thinking in processing information, especially to justify one’s own behaviour.

Question 21

Name two examples of cognitive distortions in offenders.

Answer 21

Hostile attribution bias and minimalization.

Question 22

What is hostile attribution bias?

Answer 22

Tendency to misinterpret others’ actions as hostile, triggering violent responses.

Question 23

What did Schonenberg and Justye (2014) find about violent offenders?

Answer 23

Violent offenders perceived ambiguous facial expressions as angry and hostile, unlike non-aggressive controls.

Question 24

What is minimalization in the context of offending?

Answer 24

Denying or downplaying the seriousness of the offence.

Question 25

How might burglars use minimalization?

Answer 25

By calling their crimes ‘just a job’ or ‘supporting my family’.

Question 26

Which offenders are especially prone to minimalization?

Answer 26

Sexual offenders.

Question 27

What did Barbaree (1991) find about incarcerated rapists?

Answer 27

54% denied committing an offence; 40% minimized harm caused.

Question 28

What did Pollock and Hashmall (1991) find about child molesters?

Answer 28

35% claimed their crime was non-sexual (‘just affectionate’), 36% claimed victim consent.

Question 29

AO3 (1) cognitive explanations

Answer 29

- One strength is the evidence supporting levels of moral reasoning - For example, Palmer and Hollin (1998) used a scale of 11 moral dilemma-related questions. - This is a strengths because offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than a non-offending control group which is in line with Kohlberg’s prediction therefore increasing his reliability. - However, Blackburn (1993) argues delinquents may show poor moral development due to a lack of role playing in childhood, this suggests that role playing opportunities should be provided in order to develop moral reasoning - Despite this, Palmer and Hollins provide evidential support for Kohlberg’s theory - Thus increasing the validity of Kohlberg’s theory

Question 30

AO3 (2) cognitive explanations

Answer 30

- Another strength is application of cognitive distortion research - For example, understanding cognitive distortions helps treat criminal behaviour (e.g. CBT helps offenders to ‘face up’ to their behaviour with a less distorted view of their actions) - This is a strength because studies suggest reducing denial and minimalization in therapy is correlated with reduced re-offending risk. Acceptance of one’s crimes is a key feature of anger management. - However, some criminals may have accepted their crime and the effects of the crime but still commit crimes after and continue offending - Despite this, cognitive explanation is therefore supported by the evidence that is linked to effective rehabilitation techniques and therefore increases the usefulness of cognitive distortion research for real-life application - Thus increasing the external validity of cognitive distortions research

Question 31

AO3 (3) cognitive explanations

Answer 31

- One limitation is that there may be better theories of moral reasoning - For example, Gibb’s (1979) revised version of Kohlberg’s theory has mature (guided by conscience) and immature (guided by reward and avoidance of punishment) reasoning – similar to Kohlberg’s pre-conventional and conventional stages - This is a weakness as Gibbs argued that Kohlberg’s post-conventional level should be abandoned because it was culturally biased (towards Western culture) and did not represent a ‘natural’ maturational stage of cognitive development - However, he began the process of moving away from religious based morality towards a more ‘scientific’ viewpoint of morality. - Despite this, Gibb’s research helped to created a more revised edition of moral reasoning as time went on. - Thus reducing the temporal validity of Gibb’s theory

Question 32

AO3 (4) cognitive explanations

Answer 32

- Another limitation is cognitive explanations are descriptive, not explanatory - For example, while the cognitive approach may be good at describing the criminal mind, it is rather less successful when it comes to explaining it - This is a weakness because cognitive explanations are ‘after the fact’ theories – useful when predicting offending but they give us little insight into why the offender committed the crime in the first place therefore reducing their usefulness - However, it can be argued that cognitive explanations create explanations for offending behaviour as… - > preconventional - > Socialisation - > Never go to past that phase as a child - Despite this, predictive ability for offender behaviour, but offenders rarely share their motive

Question 33

AO3 (5) cognitive explanations

Answer 33

- A further limitation related to individual differences in levels of moral reasoning - For example Thornton and Reid (1982) found those committing crimes for financial gain (robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional reasoning than those committing impulsive crimes (e.g. assault). Offenders show less mature reasoning than non-offenders - Pre-conventional reasoning was also associated with offenders who believed they could evade punishment - CA – questionnaire, less likely to be truthful so we don’t know where they are on the scale because they’re changing their responses