Cognitive Explanations of Offending Flashcards
Who suggested Level of Moral Reasoning as an explanation of offending?
Kohlberg
What are the 2 Cognitive Explanations of Offending?
- Level of Moral Reasoning
- Cognitive Distortions
How does Level of Moral Reasoning explain offending behaviour?
It suggests the offenders have a lower level of moral reasoning, as according to the 3 levels and 6 stages of moral reasoning
How many levels of Moral Reasoning did Kohlberg identify?
3
In order, what are the 3 Levels of Moral Reasoning?
- Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality
- Level 2: Conventional Morality
- Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality
How many stages of Moral Reasoning did Kohlberg identify?
6
How many stages does each level of Moral Reasoning consist of?
2 stages
Describe Level 1 of the Levels of Moral Reasoning
- Pre-Conventional Morality
- Stage 1: obey rules to avoid punishment
- Stage 2: obey rules for personal gain
- This level is based on self-interest
Describe Level 2 of the Levels of Moral Reasoning
- Conventional Morality
- Stage 3: obey rules for approval (e.g. praise)
- Stage 4: obey rules to maintain social order
Describe Level 3 of the Levels of Moral Reasoning
- Post-Conventional Morality
- Stage 5: challenge rules if they infringe the rights of others
- Stage 6: individuals possess their own set of moral principles
What Level of Moral Reasoning are young children typically at?
Level 1, or Post-Conventional Morality
What Level of Moral Reasoning did Kohlberg argue offenders were at, and how does this influence offending?
The Pre-Conventional Level, or Level 1, meaning offenders don’t have sophisticated moral reasoning, and may break rules if they can avoid punishment or gain something (e.g. money, respect)
What supporting evidence is there for Level of Moral Reasoning as an Explanation of Offending?
- Kohlberg & Palmer et al, who measured the level of moral reasoning in 126 offenders using the Sociomoral Reflection Measure, which is an established moral dilemma related test
- Compared them to a control group of 300+ non-offenders
- Concluded that the offender group demonstrated less mature moral reasoning than the control group
What can Level of Moral Reasoning as an Explanation of Offending explain that other explanations can’t?
Planned and non-violent crimes, such as fraud
Why have Cognitive Explanations of Offending been criticised? (2 Points)
- Relies heavily on inferences, which can’t be falsified or objectively measured
- Difficulty establishing cause-and-effect, as much research is correlational
Why has Levels of Moral Reasoning been criticised in terms of which crimes it can explain?
Thornton & R.L Reid criticised levels of moral reasoning for disregarding impulsive crimes, arguing that in such cases reasoning did not occur at all (e.g. sexual and violent crime)
What taiwanese study supports Levels of Moral Reasoning as an Explanation of Offending?
- Howitt & Chen, who measured the level of moral reasoning in 330 offenders aged 12-18 in juvenile correctional institutions in Taiwan using the Sociomoral Reflection Measure
- Compared them to a control group of 114 non-offenders
- Found that the offender group demonstrated less mature moral reasoning than the control group
- Also found that age correlated to level of moral reasoning in the control group, but not in the offender group, suggesting offenders are stuck on the lower stages of moral reasoning
Why has Levels of Moral Reasoning been criticised as an Explanation of Offending?
It’s not a fully formed explanation as it doesn’t explain why an individual has a lower level of moral reasoning, and is instead merely descriptive
What are Cognitive Distortions?
Faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that cause perceptions to be inaccurate and typically negative
How do Cognitive Distortions explain offending behaviour?
They have been linked to the way in which offender’s interpret other’s behaviour and then justify their own actions
What are 2 Cognitive Distortions that have been linked to offending?
- Hostile Attribution Bias
- Minimalisation
What is Hostile Attribution Bias?
The tendency to judge ambiguous situations and the actions of others as aggressive when they may not be, often leading to a disproportionate, violent response
What is Minimisation?
A type of deception that involves downplaying the seriousness of an offence
Where are the roots of Hostile Attribution Bias theorised to be?
In childhood
When is Minimisation common?
When processing guilt
What study supports Hostile Attribution Bias as an Explanation of Offending?
- Schoënberg & Jusyte, who presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions
- Found that the offenders were significantly more likely to label the expressions as angry or hostile compared to a matched, non-violent control group
What study supports Minimisation as an Explanation of Offending?
- Barbaree, who studied 26 incarcerated rapists
- Found that 54% denied they had committed an offence, and that a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim
What potential application is there for Cognitive Distortions as an Explanation of Offending?
CBT as a method of treatment by identifying and challenging cognitive distortions
Why has Cognitive Distortions been criticised as an Explanation of Offending?
It’s not a fully formed explanation as it doesn’t explain why an individual has cognitive distortions, and is instead merely descriptive
Why has Cognitive Distortions been criticised as an Explanation of Offending?
It’s not a fully formed explanation as it doesn’t explain why an individual has cognitive distortions, and is instead merely descriptive
