Cognitive Explnanation

Question 1

Moral reasoning: Name the 3 levels of moral reasoning

Answer 1

Pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional

Question 2

Moral reasoning: Pre-conventional

Answer 2

Punishment orientation (need to avoid it), selfish, childlike, personal gain.
- these offenders commit crimes if they can get away with it and/or gain a reward (not always money, e.g respect).

Question 3

Moral reasoning: Kohlberg’s use (1973)

Answer 3

Kohlberg used moral dilemma technique and found that offenders tend to be at the pre-conventional level and non-offenders tend to have higher levels of moral-reasoning.

Question 4

Moral reasoning: Offenders are egocentric

Answer 4

A study found that shows that offenders are often self-centred (egocentric) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills

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

Question 5

Moral reasoning: Conventional

Answer 5

Good boy/girl oreintation, maintenance of social order.
- know difference between right and wrong (age of criminal responsibility is 10).

Question 6

Moral reasoning: Post-conventional

Answer 6

Individual rights, morality conscious.

Question 7

Cognitive distortions: Hostile attribution bias (and study)

Answer 7

When someone always think the worst in terms of criminal behaviour. Likely linked to increased levels of aggression. They blame other factors for their behaviour e.g blaming the victim. This is based on faulty thinking and information processes.

• offenders misread non-aggressive cues and this can trigger a disproportionate and violent response.

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

Question 8

Cognitive distortions: minimalisation

Answer 8

The consequence of a situation is under exaggerated. This can explain how an offender may reduce negative interpretations of the crime they committed.

They minimise their actions to justify them e.g a burglars stealing from the rich means nothing because they have so much money so they think it has little affect on their lives.

Question 9

AO3 STRENGTHS - MORAL REASONING

Answer 9

+ (Palmer) A study compared moral reasoning of offenders and non-offenders on an SRM-SF scale. Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders. This backs up kohlberg’s theory, therefore increases its validity.

Question 10

AO3 WEAKNESSES - MORAL REASONING

Answer 10

• Thornton (1982) found that people whose crimes were for financial gain were more likely to show pre-conventional level than if their crimes were impulsive. Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe that they have a good chance of not being punished. This demonstrates that Kohlberg’s theory cannot explain all crimes and is therefore a limited, incomplete explanation of offending behaviour.
• kohlberg does provide insight into the criminal way of thinking BUT moral thinking is not moral behaviour. Moral reasoning may be used to explain this behaviour after it has happened. This implies that understanding moral behaviour would be more beneficial as people have thoughts but not always act on them.

Question 11

AO3 STRENGTHS - COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

Answer 11

+ In CBT offenders face up to what they have done and have a less distorted view of their actions. Studies suggest that lower denial and minimisation in therapy is associated with less offending. This demonstrates that the cognitive distortions theory is valid and invaluable as it has led to treatment methods for offending behaviour.

Question 12

AO3 WEAKNESSES - COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

Answer 12

• Cognitive theories describe the criminal mind and cognitive concepts BUT they do not explain or help in predicting future offender behaviour. This implies that the explanation is not explanatory as they don’t predict future behaviour (criminal behaviour in this case).
• Howitt and Sheldon (2007) found that non-contact sex-offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. Those who had a previous history of offending were a lot more likely to use distortions to justify behaviour.This demonstrates that cognitive distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders, therefore it depends of the type of offence, another limitation of the cognitive approach to explaining offender behaviour.

Question 13

What is a cognitive distortion?

Answer 13

• faulty and biased thinking that allows offenders to justify their criminal behaviour.
• characterised by biases in information processing and faulty thinking. We all shows this but it is more common in offenders