Cognitive Explanations of Offending

Question 1

Who suggested Level of Moral Reasoning as an explanation of offending?

Answer 1

Kohlberg

Question 2

What are the 2 Cognitive Explanations of Offending?

Answer 2

• Level of Moral Reasoning
• Cognitive Distortions

Question 3

How does Level of Moral Reasoning explain offending behaviour?

Answer 3

It suggests the offenders have a lower level of moral reasoning, as according to the 3 levels and 6 stages of moral reasoning

Question 4

How many levels of Moral Reasoning did Kohlberg identify?

Answer 4

3

Question 5

In order, what are the 3 Levels of Moral Reasoning?

Answer 5

• Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality
• Level 2: Conventional Morality
• Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality

Question 6

How many stages of Moral Reasoning did Kohlberg identify?

Answer 6

6

Question 7

How many stages does each level of Moral Reasoning consist of?

Answer 7

2 stages

Question 8

Describe Level 1 of the Levels of Moral Reasoning

Answer 8

• Pre-Conventional Morality
• Stage 1: obey rules to avoid punishment
• Stage 2: obey rules for personal gain
• This level is based on self-interest

Question 9

Describe Level 2 of the Levels of Moral Reasoning

Answer 9

• Conventional Morality
• Stage 3: obey rules for approval (e.g. praise)
• Stage 4: obey rules to maintain social order

Question 10

Describe Level 3 of the Levels of Moral Reasoning

Answer 10

• Post-Conventional Morality
• Stage 5: challenge rules if they infringe the rights of others
• Stage 6: individuals possess their own set of moral principles

Question 11

What Level of Moral Reasoning are young children typically at?

Answer 11

Level 1, or Post-Conventional Morality

Question 12

What Level of Moral Reasoning did Kohlberg argue offenders were at, and how does this influence offending?

Answer 12

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)

Question 13

What supporting evidence is there for Level of Moral Reasoning as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

What can Level of Moral Reasoning as an Explanation of Offending explain that other explanations can’t?

Answer 14

Planned and non-violent crimes, such as fraud

Question 15

Why have Cognitive Explanations of Offending been criticised? (2 Points)

Answer 15

• Relies heavily on inferences, which can’t be falsified or objectively measured
• Difficulty establishing cause-and-effect, as much research is correlational

Question 16

Why has Levels of Moral Reasoning been criticised in terms of which crimes it can explain?

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

What taiwanese study supports Levels of Moral Reasoning as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

Why has Levels of Moral Reasoning been criticised as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

What are Cognitive Distortions?

Answer 19

Faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that cause perceptions to be inaccurate and typically negative

Question 20

How do Cognitive Distortions explain offending behaviour?

Answer 20

They have been linked to the way in which offender’s interpret other’s behaviour and then justify their own actions

Question 21

What are 2 Cognitive Distortions that have been linked to offending?

Answer 21

• Hostile Attribution Bias
• Minimalisation

Question 22

What is Hostile Attribution Bias?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

What is Minimisation?

Answer 23

A type of deception that involves downplaying the seriousness of an offence

Question 24

Where are the roots of Hostile Attribution Bias theorised to be?

Answer 24

In childhood

Question 25

When is Minimisation common?

Answer 25

When processing guilt

Question 26

What study supports Hostile Attribution Bias as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 26

• 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

Question 27

What study supports Minimisation as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 27

• 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

Question 28

What potential application is there for Cognitive Distortions as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 28

CBT as a method of treatment by identifying and challenging cognitive distortions

Question 29

Why has Cognitive Distortions been criticised as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 29

It’s not a fully formed explanation as it doesn’t explain why an individual has cognitive distortions, and is instead merely descriptive

Question 30

Why has Cognitive Distortions been criticised as an Explanation of Offending?

Answer 30

It’s not a fully formed explanation as it doesn’t explain why an individual has cognitive distortions, and is instead merely descriptive