Criminal Behaviours - Individual Differences Explanation: Cognitive Factors Flashcards
When describing this explanation, what are the 2 components to describe
- cognitive distortions
- level of moral reasoning
Describe cognitive distortions
- Cognitive distortions: how you think about reality becomes twisted so that what is perceived no longer represents what is actually true. It allows criminals to deny and rationalise their behaviours, making it seem appropriate when it’s not.
- There is two examples of cognitive distortions:
1) Hostile attribution bias
- ‘Attribution’ what we think when observing other’s actions, drawing an inference about what it means.
- ‘Bias’ a subjective opinion that makes you lean towards something else
- A hostile attribution bias is when someone has a leaning towards always thinking the worst.
- These negative interpretations leads to more aggressive behaviour
2) Minimalisation + magnification
- Minimalisation: you look at consequences of behaviour and under-exaggerate them
- Magnification: you look at consequences of behaviour and over-exaggerate them
- Criminals have minimalisation, explaining how offenders can reduce any negative interpretation of their behavior before or after a crime has been committed. This helps them to accept the consequences and any negative emotions (like guilt or worry) are reduced.
Describe level of moral reasoning
- Lawrence Kholberg’s (1969) theory of moral reasoning, the idea that the way you develop your morals is through a stage theory: Preconventional level: stage 1-2, Conventional level: stage 3-4, Post-conventional level: stage 5-6
- As you age, you work your way up the stages and up the levels, how well you do in each stage is determined by your environment. Each stage represents a more advanced level of moral reasoning
- In a longitudinal study, Kholberg found that about 10% of adults reach the postconventional level. This was researched further by Colby et al 1983. It was found that the most common level is conventional. They found that adults at the conventional level would break the law if they felt that it was justified (e.g. to maintain a relationship or society– such as protecting family members).
- Most criminals are likely to be at the preconventional level, as established by Hollin et al 2002. They believe that breaking the law is justified if the rewards outweigh the costs or if punishment can be avoided
- This fits with the idea of an ‘age of criminal responsibility’. In England and Wales children under 10 cannot be charged with a crime because it is believed that they don’t understand the idea of moral responsibility, i.e. they are thought to be at the preconventional level where they judge right and wrong only in terms of consequences rather than any principles of morality. In Kholberg’s longitudinal study just under 20% of the children at age 10 were at stage 1 and about 60% were at stage 2.
When evaluating this explanation, what do you talk about
:)
- supportive evidence
- useful application
:(
- limitations of Kholberg’s theory
Write a paragraph for the strength of having supportive evidence
P: A strength of the individual differences explanation is that it is supported by research evidence on hostile attribution bias. E: Schönenberg and Justye (2014) conducted a study involving 55 antisocial violent offenders and a control group of non-offenders. Participants were shown emotionally ambiguous faces depicting varying intensities of anger, happiness, or fear. The offenders were significantly more likely to interpret ambiguous expressions with traces of anger as aggressive. This misinterpretation of nonverbal cues suggests a cognitive bias toward perceiving hostility, which may partly explain impulsive-aggressive behavior in certain individuals.
T: This is therefore a strength because the findings highlight a measurable cognitive factor, hostile attribution bias, which can contribute to aggressive behaviors. The study provides clear evidence linking a specific cognitive processing style with antisocial outcomes, strengthening the validity of the individual differences explanation. Additionally, identifying such biases allows for targeted interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, to address maladaptive interpretations.
COUNTER: Lack of content validity as it doesn’t explain non-violent crime, like property fraudulent crime that don’t have a violent component
Write a paragraph for the strength of having useful application
P: A strength of the individual differences explanation is its practical application in informing treatments like anger management.
E: Taylor and Novaco (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of six studies evaluating anger management programs and reported a 75% improvement rate in reducing anger and related behaviors. These programs are based on identifying and addressing cognitive distortions such as hostile attribution bias, helping individuals reinterpret situations and regulate their responses to perceived aggression.
T: This is therefore a strength because it demonstrates how understanding cognitive factors, like hostile attribution bias, can lead to effective, evidence-based interventions. The success of anger management programs highlights the real-world benefits of applying the individual differences explanation, as it directly contributes to reducing recidivism and improving offenders’ emotional regulation. This not only benefits the offenders themselves by improving their quality of life but also has broader societal implications, such as reducing the likelihood of reoffending and promoting safer communities
Write a paragraph for the weakness of the limitations of Kholberg’s theory
P: A weakness of the individual differences explanation is that Kohlberg’s theory focuses on moral reasoning rather than behavior.
E: Krebs and Denton (2005) found that moral principles are often overridden by practical concerns, such as financial gain, and are sometimes used to justify actions after the fact. This suggests that moral reasoning may not be a reliable predictor of real-life behavior, including offending.
T: This is therefore a weakness because the theory fails to account for the complexity of decision-making in real-world situations. While moral reasoning may influence some actions, it is insufficient on its own to explain why individuals commit crimes. Other factors, such as situational pressures or emotional states, likely play a more significant role.
FURTHERMORE: Additionally, Kohlberg’s research is gender-biased, as it was based on male participants and emphasizes justice rather than care, potentially limiting its applicability to women (Gilligan, 1982)
