cognitive distortions, moral reasoning - cognitive explanations of offending

cognitive distortions

faulty information processing, which can lead to inaccurate and irrational perceptions of events, intentions, consequences and levels of responsibility

hostile attribution bias - cognitive distortion

misinterpretation of neutral or amiguous behaviour/intention as hostile/confrontational, link between hostile attribution bias and aggression, disproportionate responses to situations associated with high levels of aggression

schonenberg and justye - hostile attribution bias supporting research

55 violent offenders presented with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions, when compared to control, offenders more likely than non-violent ppts to perceive images as hostile

dodge and frame - hostile attribution bias supporting research

children shown an “ambiguous provocation” where intention was neither clearly hostile or accidental, prior to study, children who had been judged as aggressive more likely to perceive situation as hostile

minimisation - congitive distortion

minimisation or denial of harm, consequences or blame/responsibility, rationalise behaviour as something that ‘had to be done’

barbaree - research support for minimisation

amongst 26 convicted rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and 40% minimalised the harm that they had caused the victim

pollock and hashmall - research support for minimisation

35% of a sample of child molesters said the crime they committed was non-sexual, 36% said the victims had consented

real-world implications of congitive distortions - strength of explanation

application in CBT to challenge irrational thinking - practical value, offenders encouraged to own up to actions and establish a less distorted view of the crime they have committed, Harkins - reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy highly associated with reduced risk of reoffending

limited breadth of applicability of congitive distortion - limitation of explanation

may not be applicable to non-violent crime, depends on type of offence - Howitt and Sheldon gathered q.naire responses from sex offenders, found non-contact offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact offenders, also found that those who had a previous history of offending were more likely to use distortions as justification - distortions not used in the same way by all offenders (subjective)

issues with determinism in cognitive distortions - limitation of explanation

not helpful in predicting future offending behaviour as just because someone tends to have distorted thinking doesn’t inevitably mean they will become an offender, low predictive validity, issues with fatalism and determinism

issues with research support for cognitve distortions - limitation of explanation

although supporting evidence increases reliability and validity of explanation, research only looks at cognitive factors and the findings are correlational not causational so results may be caused by a third, non-cognitve factor e.g. genetics

kohlberg’s research into moral reasoning (way a person thinks about right and wrong)

used moral dilemmas, found that group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral reasoning than non-violent youths, even after controlling for social background

first level of moral development

pre-conventional morality, consists of punishment orientation (obeying rules to avoid punishment) and instrumental orientation (obeying rules for personal gain)

second level of moral development

conventional morality, consists of ‘good boy/girl’ orientation (obeying rules for approval) and maintenance of social order (obeying rules to maintain social order)

third level of moral development

post-conventional morality, consists of morality of contract and individual rights (challenging rules if they infringe on rights of others) and morality of conscience (personal set of ethical principles)

kohlberg’s link of moral development to criminality

criminal offenders more likely to be classified at pre-conventional level with less mature child-like reasoning, individuals at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it (avoid punishment) or gain rewards

research support for kohlberg’s moral reasoning - strength of explanation

palmer and hollin - compared moral reasoning between 210 female non-offenders, 122 male non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using 11 moral dilemma-related questions, delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning than non-delinquent group

gender bias in kohlberg’s moral reasoning - limitation of explanation

he used samples of men and boys but applied to universally (beta bias), when he studied women, he found that they were less morally developed than men by applying the same criteria so his beta bias caused him to exaggerate the differences between men and women (alpha bias), Gilligan - found that men favoured justice orientation whilst women favoured caring orientation so kohlberg’s theory cannot be considered an externally valid theory of offending behaviour as it may not apply to women in the same way as men

culture bias in kohlberg’s moral reasoning - limitation of explanation

gibbs - maintained that Kohlberg’s post-conventional stage should be abandoned since it demonstrates western cultural bias

dependence on type of crime committed in kohlberg’s moral reasoning - limitation of explanation

thornton and reid - pre-conventional moral reasoning associated with crimes such as robbery (where the offender thought they might have had a good chance at evading punishment), whereas impulsive crimes such as assault did not pertain to any type of reasoning