Cognitive explanations Flashcards
What is level of moral reasoning?
Idea that offenders may be different to non-offenders in terms of their moral development.
Explain Kohlberg’s study on level of moral reasoning.
- 72 Chicago boys (7-16) were interviewed, some were followed up to 3-yearly intervals for 20 years
- Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the 10 dilemmas
- Kohlberg was mainly interested in the reasons for the decisions, and the reasons tended to change as the children got older
- The theory is that people can only pass through these levels in the order listed at a biologically appropriate time. Kohlberg believed not everyone would achieve all the stages
- Kohlberg found that criminals usually do no progress beyond pre-conventional morality. This explains why someone would offend because they will be motivated to offend for selfish reasons and with no thought for how others might be affected
What are the 3 levels of moral development?
Level 1 - pre-conventional morality
Level 2 - Conventional morality
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality
What is pre-conventional morality?
- Most 9-year-olds and younger
- Don’t have personal code of morality
- Moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and consequences of following or breaking rules
- Obedience and punishment: the child is good in order to avoid being punished
- Personal gain: children do what is right for personal reward
What is conventional morality?
- Most adolescents and adults
- We internalise moral standards of valued adult role models
- Authority is internalised but not questioned and reasoning is based on norms of the group
- Interpersonal relationships: the individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others
- Maintaining the Social Order: the individual becomes aware of wider rules of society so judgements concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and avoid guilt
What is post-conventional morality?
- Only 10-15% of people are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for this level
- Social rules vs personal rights: the individual becomes aware that while rules might exist for the good of society, there are times when they will work against the interest of the individual
- Universal ethical principles: people at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law eg. human rights, justice and equality
What are the strengths of levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending?
- Colby and Kohlberg found the sequence of stages to be universal in a review of 45 studies in 27 countries: this supports generalising
- Palmer and Hollin used the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure based on Kohlberg’s work, but using a scale rather than dilemmas, they compared offenders and non-offenders and offender group scored lower on moral reasoning: this supports Kohlberg’s theory that the moral reasoning of offenders is lower than non-offenders
- Offending Motivation Questionnaire with offenders, 38% stated they did not consider the consequences of their actions, 36% were confident they would not be caught, this shows pre-conventional morality
What is the limitation of levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending?
American feminist psychologist suggested the theory focuses on a male perspective of morality - one of justice rather than caring, meaning the research is androcentric. It is subjective that there is more to moral reasoning than an idea of law and justice.
What are the two cognitive distortions to explain offending behaviour?
- Hostile attribution bias
- Minimalisation
What is hostile attribution bias?
- A tendency to perceive other people’s neutral or ambiguous behaviours as being due to hostile intent
- They will assume that another person has an intention to harm them because normal behaviours are perceived as hostile and aggressive
- Hostile attribution bias may be associated with offending behaviour because they may behave aggressively in retaliation
What is minimalisation?
- Perceiving something as less than it is - in importance, impact, ect
- Minimalising the impact of their crime may in turn reduce guilt
- This will make offenders more likely to keep committing crimes
What are the strengths of hostile attribution bias as an explanation for offending behaviour?
- Schonenburg and Justyle studied 55 violent offenders matched with non-violent controls. They showed them a series of faces with ambiguous facial expressions. The violent offenders were significantly more likely than controls to perceive the images as angry and hostile. This supports the idea that offenders are more likely to show HAB.
- Other studies show that this bias starts in childhood: one study showed children video clips of ‘ambiguous provocation’ where the intent was neither clearly hostile nor accidental. Those children who had been identified as aggressive interpreted the intention as more hostile than controls. It shows an association between being aggressive and hostile attribution bias.
What are the strengths of minimalisation as an explanation for offending behaviour?
- Barbaree found that minimalisation was used particularly by sexual offenders; 54% denied offence, 40% minimised the harm they had done to the victim.
- CBT can be used to challenge the distorted thinking of offenders; Heller et al found 13 hours of CBT given to sex offenders reduced re-arrest by 44%.
