Forensics - Cognitive explanations Flashcards
What did Kohlberg suggest about moral reasoning?
Kohlberg suggested that individuals have different levels of moral reasoning (determining whether an action is right or wrong).
At a basic level, rules are seen as to be obeyed just because they involve punishment if broken, for example.
At a more sophisticated level, there are considerations of factors such as human rights, which make up a personal set of ethical principles.
Kohlberg argued that offenders have a lower level of moral reasoning, finding in a 1973 study that violent youths were much lower in their moral development than non-violent youths.
What level of moral reasoning are criminals stuck at according to Kohlberg?
Criminals are more likely to be classed at a basic stage of moral development- the ‘pre-conventional model’.
Non-criminals tend to be at a higher stage- the ‘conventional level’ or the ‘postconventional level’. The pre-conventional level is characterised by a simple need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, and as such is a more childlike level of reasoning.
Crime may be committed if the criminal thinks they will get away with it, or if it brings a significant enough reward. It also means offenders are more likely to be egocentric (self-centred) and less concerned with the rights of others.
Evaluate the moral reasoning explanation of offending behaviour - intelligence
Langdon et al (2010) argues that intelligence may be a better predictor of criminal behaviour than moral reasoning. People with very low intelligence, and also therefore low levels of moral reasoning, are actually less likely to commit crime. Kohlberg’s theory would struggle to explain this.
Evaluate the moral reasoning explanation of offending behaviour - research evidence
Kohlberg et al (1973) – found that violent youths have significantly lower moral reasoning than non-violent youths, even after controlling for social background – supports idea that lower moral reasoning leads to criminal behaviour
Evaluate the moral reasoning explanation of offending behaviour - individual differences
individuals who committed crimes for financial gain were more likely to show preconventional reasoning than those committing impulsive crimes, such as assault, where reasoning of any kind tended to not be evident – suggest that theory is simplistic as it does not account for different types of crime, and may also lack validity in being applied to certain types of crime.
What are cognitive distortions?
These are errors in the way an individual thinks, which can be used to explain how criminals justify their behaviour.
Outline what is meant by ‘hostile attribution bias’
A tendency to misinterpret the actions of others, seeing them as hostile or confrontational when they are not.
This serves as a trigger for possible aggressive behaviour.
Schonenberg and Justye (2014) showed 55 violent offenders emotionally ambiguous faces, finding that the participants were more likely to perceive the expressions as angry and hostile, compared to a matched control group. Such interpretations may have been learned in childhood.
Outline what is meant by ‘minimalisation’
Denying or downplaying the seriousness of an offence. This may involve using euphemisms (‘job’ rather than ‘robbery’).
Study found that among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied committing offence and 40% minimised harm caused to victim – evidence for offenders minimising impact of crime
Evaluate cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour - real-life application
The theory of cognitive distortions has proved useful in treating criminal behaviour. Through CBT, offenders can be encouraged to confront the seriousness of their actions, and research has found that successfully overcoming denial is correlated with lower rates of re-offending. This gives the cognitive explanation a useful real-world application.
Evaluate cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour - research studies
Study found that among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied committing offence and 40% minimised harm caused to victim – evidence for offenders minimising impact of crime
Schonenberg and Justye (2014) showed 55 violent offenders emotionally ambiguous faces, finding that the participants were more likely to perceive the expressions as angry and hostile, compared to a matched control group - evidence for offenders showing hostile attribution bias.
