forensic: psychological explanations: cognitive Flashcards
what are the two cognitive theories
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
offender behaviour is due to faulty info processing
explain moral resaoning
Kohlberg > he propsed that peoples decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning
the more sophisticated the stage, the higher the reasoning
outline kohlberg’s research on moral reasoning
they found that a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower levle of moral development than non-violent youths
even after controlling for social background
what are the three levels of moral reasoning
level 1 : pre-conventional morality
level 2 : conventional morality
level 3 : post-conventional morality
outline pre-conventional morality
stage 1 > punishment orientation: rules are obeyed to avoid punishment
stage 2 > instrumental orientation/personal gain: rules are obeyed for personal gain
outline conventional morality
stage 3 > ‘good boy/girl’ orientation: rules are obeyed for approval
stage 4 > maintenance of social order: rules are obeyed for social order
outline post-conventional morality
stage 5 > morality of contract and individual rights: rules are challenged if they infringe on the rights of others
stage 6 > morality of conscience: individuals have a personal set of ethical principles
which level of moral resaoning are offenders in
levels 1 and 2
1 is associated with less mature, childlike reasoning
adults who commit crime at this level may do so if they can get away with it or gain rewards like money or respect
which level of moral resaoning will non-offenders be
level 2 and 3
those who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise with more rights of others and are more honest, generous and non-violent
AO3: research to support moral reasoning
evidence for link between moral reasoning and crime
Palmer and Hollin compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the** socio moral reflection measure short form (SRM-SF)** > this contains 11 moral dilemma related questions
eg: not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise
the offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offenders
STRENGTH as it is consistent with kohlberg’s predictions that offenders have less mature moral reasoning
AO3: limited application
not applicable to all offences
Thornton and Reid found that people who committed crimes for financial gain were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes (assault) > pre-conventional reasoning is associated with offenders who believe they have a good change of evading punishment
LIMITATION as it suggests the theory may not apply to all forms of crime > limits our understanding of morality and crime
define cognitive distortions
faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we percieve ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negatively
two examples of cognitive distortions
hostile attribution bias
minimalisation
define hostile attribution bias
The tendency to judge ambiguous situations, or the actions of others, as aggressive and/or threatening when in reality they may not be
define minimalisation
A type of deception that involves downplaying the significance of an event or emotion.
A common strategy when dealing with feelings of guilt
explain hostile attribution bias
offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (being looked at) and this can trigger a violent response
outline the facial expression study on hostile attribution bias
Schononberg and Justye presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions
When compared with non-aggressive matched control group, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry or hostile
The violent offenders displayed HAB as they perceived the ambiguous facial expressions as more angry/hostile in comparison to the
non-violent offenders
outline the video study on HAB
Dodge and Frame (1982) showed children a video clip of an ‘ambiguous provocation’ (where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor clearly accidental). Children who had been identified as ‘aggressive’ and ‘rejected’ prior to the study interpreted the situation as more hostile than those classed as
‘non aggressive’ and ‘accepted’
This suggests that the roots of this behaviour may be apparent in childhood
explain minimalisation
an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence and has elsewhere been referred to as the application of a ‘euphemistic label’ for behaviour (Bandura, 1973)
E.G. burglars may describe themselves as ‘doing a job’ or ‘supporting my family’ as a way of minimising the seriousness of their offences
outline study on minimalisation
Studies suggest individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to Minimalisation. Barbaree (1991)
found among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim
more than half the rapists denied committing the crime and others minimised harm
94% showed cognitive distortions
AO3: real life app
cognitive distortions can be applied to therapy
CBT aims to challenge irrational thinking > offenders are encouraged to face up to what they’ve done and establish a less distorted view
Harkins et al suggests reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy is associated with reduced risk of relapse (acceptance is important for rehabilitaion)
STRENGTH theory has value as it aims to reform offenders and makes society safer
AO3: limited application
level of cognitive distortion depends on the offence
Howitt and Sheldon (2007) gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders > they found that non-contact sex offenders (accessed sexual images on the internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (had physically abused children). Those who had a previous
history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification
LIMITATION of the cognitive distortions theory because it suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all
offenders
AO3: theory lacks explanatory power
eg: theories of offending describe criminal minds and help reduce reoffending > eg: understanding that offenders minimalise their crimes is a useful starting point in therapy
LIMITATION as cognitive theories don’t help predict future behaviour > having cog distortions doesn’t mean you will definitely commit crime > cog theories fail to highlight this issue
