Cognitive Explanations

Question 1

Level of moral reasoning: Moral development

Answer 1

Kohlberg proposed that as children get older their decisions and judgements about right and wrong become more sophisticated

A person’s level of reasoning affects their behaviour

Question 2

Level of moral reasoning: Offenders at lower level

Answer 2

Kohlberg et al. (1973) used a moral dilemma technique (eg. Heinz dilemma) and found offenders tend to be at the pre-conventional level, whereas non-offenders progress higher

Pre-conventional level is characterised by:

• A need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
• Less mature, childlike reasoning

Offenders may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards (e.g. money, respect)

Question 3

Level of moral reasoning: Offenders more egocentric and show less empathy

Answer 3

Research shows that offenders are often self-centred (egocentric) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills (Chandler 1973)

Individuals who reason at a higher level tend to empathise more and exhibit behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence

Question 4

Cognitive distortions: Faulty and biased thinking helps offenders justify behaviour

Answer 4

Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in information processing characterised by faulty thinking

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

Question 5

Cognitive distortions: Hostile attribution bias

Answer 5

When ambiguous situations are judged as threatening

Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) found violent offenders were more likely than non-offenders to perceive ambiguous facial expressions as angry and hostile

Offenders misread non-aggresive cues (e.g. being ‘looked at’) and this can trigger a disproportionate and violent response

Question 6

Cognitive distortions: Minimalisation

Answer 6

When the offender downplays they significance of the crime, reducing their sense of guilt

For example, burglars may use euphemisms, e.g. ‘doing a job’ or ‘supporting my family’ as a way of minimising the seriousness of their actions and their sense of guilt

This is particularly likely in sex offences - Barbaree (1991) found 54% rapists denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused the victim