Forensics - Cognitive Explanations Flashcards
Define level of moral reasoning in the context of cognitive explanations.
Moral reasoning refers to the process by which an individual draws upon their own value system to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Kohlberg attempted to objectify this process by identifying different levels of reasoning based on people’s answers to moral dilemmas.
Define cognitive distortions in the context of cognitive explanations.
Faulty, biased, and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people, and the world inaccurately and usually negatively.
What is 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 minimisation in the context of cognitive explanations.
A type of deception that involves downplaying the significance of an event or emotion. A common strategy when dealing with feelings of guilt.
What are the three levels of moral reasoning according to Kohlberg?
Pre-conventional level: A stage where children accept rules of authority figures and judge actions by their consequences. Actions that lead to punishment are bad, and those that bring rewards are good. Offenders are more likely to be classified at this level.
Conventional level: Behaviour is guided by social rules and laws, which are upheld for their own sake.
Post-conventional level: Individuals define morality based on personal principles that may conflict with accepted laws.
How do cognitive distortions explain offending behaviour?
Cognitive distortions, such as hostile attribution bias and minimisation, can skew the perception of others’ behaviour or reduce guilt. For example, Schönenberg and Justye (2014) found that violent offenders were significantly more likely than non-offenders to perceive emotionally ambiguous facial expressions (such as anger or fear) as aggressive. Minimisation may also allow offenders to rationalise their actions, reducing the guilt associated with them.
What is one evaluation point for the level of moral reasoning?
Emma Palmer and Clive 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 (SRM-SF). Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders, consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions. Palmer and Hollin (1998) suggest that offenders may show poor moral development due to a lack of role-playing opportunities in childhood. This highlights the link between moral reasoning and offending behaviour.
What is one alternative explanation for moral reasoning?
John Gibbs (1979) proposed a revised version of Kohlberg’s theory, arguing that post-conventional reasoning is culturally biased and doesn’t represent a natural stage of moral development. Instead, Gibbs proposed two levels:
Immature reasoning: Characterised by a focus on punishment and personal gain.
Mature reasoning: Guided by empathy and social justice.
This view is supported by Piaget’s theory of moral development, which suggests that criminal reasoning is associated with lower empathy and concern for others’ welfare. This demonstrates the importance of cultural considerations in understanding offending behaviour.
What is one application of research into cognitive explanations?
Research into cognitive distortions has informed treatment for offenders. For example, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) encourages offenders to ‘face up’ to their actions and establish a less distorted view of their conduct. Studies have shown that reduced incidences of minimisation in therapy are linked to a reduced risk of reoffending, as acceptance of responsibility is crucial for anger management programs. This shows the practical value of cognitive explanations in rehabilitating offenders.
