FORENSIC, a03 level of moral reasoning

Question 1

strength 1

Answer 1

• research support
• researcher compared moral reasoning with non offenders and convicted offenders using a moral reasoning questionnaire which contained multiple moral dilemmas, found there was links to level of moral reasoning and offender group had less mature moral reasoning
• support Kohlberg’s theory as it is consistent with his preconventional stage however, there are methodological issues with this as it used a questionnaire which is a self report technique, meaning it is susceptible to social desirability bias

Question 2

strength 2

Answer 2

• shows us thought processing behind people committing crimes
• strength as it can put in preventive measures in place to protect society
• however moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour, moral reasoning may be used to justify behaviour after the event has happened, limitation as moral reasoning describes it but does not explain why

Question 3

limitation

Answer 3

-culture bias, used western dilemmas to western kids, these dilemmas are artificial tasks and can lead to acquiescence bias, so the children will only say yes to it because they don’t understand the question, limitation as we can’t rely on this as it may be producing inaccurate data and it reductionist as it explains types of crime committed based on moral reasoning, therefore we should use more holistic approach such as a non structured interview