Cognitive explanation of offending behaviour

Question 1

Kohlberg’s research

Answer 1

• interviewed boys about there moral reasoning every three years (longitudinal), analysed how their answers changed
• answers became more mature
• created a stage model with people at the lowest stage have the least developed moral reasoning and being more likely to commit crime

Question 2

Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Development

Answer 2

Level 1 - preconventional morality
- stage 1 (obedience and punishment orientation), doing what is right because of being scared of authority
- stage 2: (hedonistic orientation), doing what is right for personal gain

Level 2 - conventional morality
- stage 3 (interpersonal concordance orientation), doing what is right to be the same as others in society
- stage 4 (law and order orientation), doing what is right because it’s your duty in society

Level 3 - post conventional morality
- stage 5 (social contract or legalistic orientation), doing what is right even if it’s against the law
- stage 6 (universal ethical principles orientation), doing what is right because of our inner conscience

Question 3

Levels of moral reasoning explanation of criminals

Answer 3

• criminals are likely to be at the pre-conventional level, breaking the law is justified if it outweighs the punishment
• 10% adults reach post conventional morality, commit crimes to feel their behaviour was justified because it maintained relationships in society

Question 4

Research supports for cognitive explanation of offending

Answer 4

• found that male juvenile offenders did not consider the consequences of their actions suggesting they were at preconventional level
• found (in Taiwanese male adolescent offenders), that those with more
  advanced reasoning were less likely to be involved in violent crime

Question 5

Negative evaluation of cognitive explanation of offending

Answer 5

• theory based on moral reasoning as opposed to actual criminal behaviour
• found people are motivated by factors like financial gain and only use their moral principles to justify their behaviour afterwards
• research based on boys and men and can’t be generalised to women as well
• the moral dilemmas are artificial and hypothetical

Question 6

Cognitive distortions

Answer 6

Negative thinking patterns e.g. overthinking and jumping to conclusions
- reality has become twisted which can allow offender to rationalise

4 types
- hostiles attribution bias
- minimalisation
- egocentric bias (offenders needs over others needs)
- causal attributions (blaming other people - external locus of control)

Question 7

Hostile attribution bias

Answer 7

Assumption that other peoples actions are a negative reaction to the self, misperceive behavioural cues which could lead to outbursts of aggression

e.g. someone spilling a drink on you - punch them

Question 8

Research support of cognitive bias

Answer 8

Schonenberg and Aiste - showed emotionally ambiguous faces to 55 violent offenders in prison, offenders were more likely to interpret expression with aggression
Hutchinson (1993) - showed men convicted of domestic abuse and
a control group scenarios of difficult marital
situations, men who had been violent to their wives more likely to view wife as acting negatively towards the husband

Question 9

Positive evaluation of cognitive bias

Answer 9

• research support
• can lead to appropriate intervention such as CBT

Question 10

Negative evaluation of cognitive bias

Answer 10

• lacks validity (uses hypothetical situations)
• what people say they are likely to do is not what they necessarily would do in that situation
• reductionist (only focuses on one small cognitive element)

Question 11

Minimalisation

Answer 11

A form of self-deception where the offender
does not accept the full reality of the
situation and will attempt to rationalise what
they have done
e.g. downplaying the crime, blaming the victim

Question 12

Research support for minimalisation

Answer 12

Kennedy and Grubin (1992) - sex offenders downplayed their behaviour or even said victim contributed to the crime
Maruna and Mann (2006) - suggested this could be fairly normal as people often try to blame others as a way to protect themselves

Question 13

Limitations of minimalisation

Answer 13

• could be more of a coping strategy for after the crime has been committed and doesn’t explain why the crime was originally committed
• can depend on what crime was committed, strong relation with sex offenders but not other crimes