Forensics cognitive expl- Kohlberg's levels of moral reasoning

Question 1

DOUBLE WHOPPER, STRENGTH

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR LINK BETWEEN MORAL REASONING AND OFFENDING

Answer 1

There is evidence supporting a link between level of moral reasoning and offending.
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between 210 female non-offenders, 122 male non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure-Short Form.

The offending group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offending groups. This is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.

Blackburn (1993) suggests that offenders may show poor moral development due to a lack of role-playing opportunities in childhood, suggesting that such opportunities to develop moral reasoning should therefore be provided.

Question 2

Combo whopper, LIMITATION,

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES MAKE SENSE

Answer 2

There are alternative theories for moral reasoning.

Gibbs (1979) proposed a revised version of Kohlberg’s theory which included two levels of reasoning: mature and immature which are the equivalent to Kohlberg’s pre-conventional and conventional levels.

Gibbs removed the post-conventional level. This was because Gibbs argued that it was culturally biased towards Western cultures and not representative of a ‘natural’ maturational stage of development.

This is supported by Piaget’s theory of moral development, which suggests that child-like (criminal) reasoning is self-centred and egocentric which gives way to empathy and a concern for the needs of others as children get older

Question 3

Hamburger, LIMITATION

MOIRAL REASONING ONLY EXPLAINS CERTAIN CRIMES

Answer 3

The level of moral reasoning may depend on the type of offence.

Thornton and Reid (1982) found that individuals who committed crimes for financial gain such as robbery, were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes such as assault where reasoning of any kind tended not to be evident.

This suggests that level of moral reasoning may only explain certain crimes, for example those where offenders believe that they have a good chance of evading punishment.

Question 4

COMBO WHOPPER, LIMITATION

Contradicting evidence from LANGDON

Answer 4

Langdon et al (201) have suggested that intelligence may be a better predictor of criminality than moral reasoning.

This would explain the findings that groups of people with very low intelligence are actually less likely to commit crime; this is despite the fact that they show lower levels of moral reasoning.

This contradicts Kohlberg’s theory because it would suggest they should be more likely to commit crime if they were in the preconventional level.