cognitive explanations for offending behaviour Flashcards
Kohlberg suggested that there are 3 universal levels of moral reasoning , each chatcteristed by a certain logic these include
the pre conventional level - punishment orientation
the conventional level - maintance of the social order
the post conventional level - morality of contract and indvidual rights
Kohlberg proposed that criminals have a childlike , immature sense of reasoning , and so reason at the pre conventional level , whilst non criminals
will reason at the conventional or post-conventional levels
thus being able to display more civilised and empathetic behaviours as suggested by Chandler
cognitive distortions are a major feature of cognitive explanations for offending behaviour . these distortions are examples of
dysfunctional thought processing where we show errors in our logic.
the two main types of cognitive dysfunctions attributed to criminality are
hostile attribution bias (HAB)
and minimisation
hostile attribution bias is the tendency for offenders to
view emotionally ambiguous or non threatening situations as hostile and threatening , and so is an automatic reaction to novel situations as suggested by Schoenberg and Justye
when 55 violent offenders were exposed to pictures of facial expression which were neither clearly hostile nor cleat neutral the overwhelmingly majority views the images as
agressive or hostile
this may be the result of being a ‘ rejected ‘ and ‘ agressive ‘ child , according to Dodge and Frame
minimisation is particularly common amongst sex offender and us used as a coping mechanism for guilt or regret where offenders will
under exaggerate the significance of their crimes and the emotional consequences suffered by their victims , as suggested by Pollock and Hasmall 1991
in Pollock and Hasmall’s sample an astounding 35% of child moelsters attempted to justify their crimes as non malicious and simply being a way of showing their affection whilst
36% did not accept committing a crime at all as they perceived the child as consenting
- cognitive theories may not be able to explain all examples of offending behaviour and specifically not all types of crimes , for example
impulsive crimes appear to be carried out by offenders with no reasoning whatsoever, whilst middle-class financially-driven crimes are more frequently carried out by offender who display pre-conventional reasoning, as suggested by Thornton and R.L.Reid (1982). As suggested by Langdon (2010), intelligence may be a more important factor in determining the likelihood of an individual committing a crime, and is a more quantifiable and objective characteristic compared to levels of moral reasoning. Therefore, cognitive explanations are only suited towards explaining specific types of crime.
- although Kohlberg’s three stages of moral reasoning are comprehensive , other researchers have suggested a diffrent method of organising and naming these stages for example
Gibbs (1979). His ideas of mature and immature reasoning are very similar to Kohlberg’s levels, with immature reasoning being represented by the pre-conventional level and mature reasoning being represented by the conventional level, whilst the ‘culturally biased’ post-conventional level was removed. Therefore, this suggests that the theoretical basis of Kohlberg’s ideas were sound, but a modern update on the organisation of his theory increases the validity.
+ an improved understanding of cognitive biases and their relationship to specific crimes and criminals has a real life practical application , particularly in the case of sex offenders , since
such offenders are especially susceptible to using minimalisation to justify their crimes, cognitive therapies such as CBT may specifically tackle this problem and result in reduced recidivism rates. This offers a refreshing alternative or addition to the traditional morality solution to criminality, which would be lengthy incarceration with few opportunities for learning and rehabilitation.
