cognitive explanation of offending behaviour

Question 1

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development was created by

Answer 1

sample of 72 Chicago boys aged 10-16, 58 were followed up at 3 yearly intervals for 20 years

each boy given 2 hour interview based on 10 dilemmas
Kohlberg mainly interested in the boys judgement of the consequential action as right or wrong

found their reasoning changed as the boys got older

Question 2

Level 1 - Pre conventional morality

stage 1

Answer 2

obedience and punishment orientation– child wants to avoid punishment
belief that punishments means something wrong

Question 3

level 1

stage 2

Answer 3

individualism and exchange– gaining own opinions and values
different individuals have different viewpoint

Question 4

level 2- Conventional morality

stage 3

Answer 4

good interpersonal relationships – individual wants to be seen as a good person
Kohlberg’s dilemmas relate to approval of others

Question 5

level 2

stage 4

Answer 5

maintaining social order– aware of wider rules in society

so judgements revolve around obeying rules to avoid feeling guilt

Question 6

level 3- post conventional morality

stage 5

Answer 6

social construct and individual rights–becomes aware of laws
different perceptions in society

Question 7

level 3

stage 6

Answer 7

universal principles– people have developed their own set of moral guidelines

Question 8

what stage are criminal offenders most likely to be classified as

Answer 8

pre conventional level

Question 9

non criminals are classified as

Answer 9

conventional level and more

Question 10

strength- Colby

Answer 10

tested 58 male participants from the original Kohlberg study 6 times in 27 years and support for his conclusion

Question 11

strength- Palmer and Hollin (1982)

Answer 11

compared moral reasoning between female and male non offenders and 126 convicted offenders
they found the delinquent group had less mature moral reasoning
this is consistent in Kohlberg predictions

Question 12

limitation- Rest 1979 found

Answer 12

1 in 14 actually slipped back wards

concluded individuals do not always progress through the stages

Question 13

limitation- Thornton and Reid 1982

Answer 13

found individuals who committed different crimes had different levels of moral reasoning , whereas those who committed impulsive crimes skipped pre conventional level and had no moral reasoning