cognitive explanation- psychological explanation

moral development- Kolhberg (1968)

• first researcher to apply concept of moral reasoning to offending behaviour

• proposed decisions and judgements on issues of right or wrong are based on a stage theory of moral reasoning, the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning

• as children get older their decisions become more sophisticated

moral development- Kohlberg et al. (1973)

• used a range of moral dilemmas eg Heinz dilemma, found that a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral development (pre-conventional level) than non violent youths

• even when controlling for social background

level of moral reasoning

the ways a person thinks about right and wrong, should then apply to moral behaviour, higher levels mean behaviour is driven by what is right, not by avoiding punishment

Kohlberg’s model of model development- level 1: pre conventional morality

• stage 1- punishment orientation, rules are obeyed to avoid punishment

• stage 2- instrumental orientation or personal gain, rules are obeyed for personal gain

Kohlberg’s model of model development- level 2: conventional morality

• stage 3- ‘good boy’ or ‘good girl’ orientation, rules are obeyed for approval

• stage 4- maintenance of the social order, rules are obeyed to maintain social order

Kohlberg’s model of model development- level 3: post conventional morality

• stage 5- morality of contract and individual rights, rules are challenged if they infringe on the rights of others

• stage 6- morality of conscience, individuals have a personal set of ethical principles

links with criminality- Heinz dilemma

• offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre conventional level of Kohlberg’s model (stages 1 + 2), response to moral dilemma

• non offenders have progressed to the conventional level and beyond

• pre conventional level is a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, less mature and childlike reasoning

• people reasoning at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards

links with criminality- Chandler (1973)

• offenders are more egocentric (self centred) and display poorer perspective taking skills

• individuals who reason at higher levels can empathise and sympathise more with right of others and exhibit more conventional behaviours eg honesty, generosity, non violence

cognitive distortions

• errors or biases in information processing characterised by faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, others and the world inaccurately or negatively

• we all occasionally exhibit faulty thinking, but research shows this is a much more typical way for offenders to interpret their and others behaviour and justify their actions

hostile attribution bias

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

• criminals could misread non aggressive cues and respond with a disproportionate, violent response

hostile attribution bias- Schonenberg + Just (2014)

• presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions, compared responses with a non aggressive matched control group

• violent offenders significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile

hostile attribution bias- causes

• Dodge + Frame (1982) showed children a video of ‘ambiguous provocation’, intention neither clearly hostile or accidental

• children identified as ‘aggressive’ or ‘rejected’ before study interpreted the situation as more hostile as those classed as ‘non aggressive’ and ‘accepted’

minimalisation

• type of deception involving downplaying the significance or seriousness of an offence, event or emotions, common coping strategy, reduces a persons sense of guilt

• Bandura (1973) referred to the bias as the application of a ‘euphemistic label’ for behaviour, burglars may describe themselves as ‘doing a job’ to minimise the seriousness of their crimes and their guilt

minimalisation- Barbaree (1991)

• interviewed 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they’d committed an offence at all, 40% minimised the harm they’d caused to the victim

• minimalisation particularly likely in sex offenders

strength- evidence supports the role of moral reasoning

• Palmer + Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning of 126 offenders and 332 non offenders on a SRM-SF scale of 11 moral dilemma questions

• offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non offenders group, eg not taking things that belong to someone else

• this is consistent with Kohlberg’s theory, and suggests his theory of criminality has validity

limitation- moral reasoning may depend on the type of offence

• Thornton + Reid (1982) found people who’s crimes were for financial gain, eg robbery, were more likely to show pre conventional level than an impulsive crime eg assault

• pre conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment

• suggests Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime

evaluation- thinking vs behaviour

• Kohlberg’s theory provides insight into the criminal mind, offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when making moral judgements

• however, moral reasoning isn’t the same as moral behaviour, moral reasoning may be used to explain behaviour but only afterwards

• suggests understanding moral behaviour may be more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them

strength- cognitive distortions have application to therapy

• in cognitive behaviour therapy, offenders are helped to ‘face up’ to what they have done and establish a less distorted view of their actions, challenges irrational thinking

• studies, eg Harkins et al. 2010, suggest reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy is associated with reduced risk of reoffending

• suggests the theory of cognitive distortions has practical value

limitation- cognitive distortions depend on the type of offence

• Howitt + Sheldon (2007) found non contact sex offenders (accessed sexual images online) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (physically abused children)

• those with a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification for their behaviour eg ‘its only pictures’

• suggests cognitive distortions aren’t used in the same way by all offenders

evaluation- descriptive or explanatory?

• cognitive theories of offending are good at describing the criminal mind and cognitive concepts, eg minimalisation, may be useful for therapy and reducing long term reoffending

• however, cognitive therapies don’t explain or help in predicting future offending behaviour, just because someone has distorted thinking doesnt mean they’ll reoffend

• suggests the cognitive explanations are probably not explanatory as they don’t predict future behaviour