Forensics - Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour Flashcards
Supporting evidence for Level of Moral Reasoning
Palmer and Hollin
Compared moral reasoning, 332 non offenders and 126 offenders. Used Socio Moral Reflection measure (11 moral dilemma - related questions). Offender group shows less mature moral reasoning. Findings consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.
Moral reasoning is dependant upon type of offence
Thornton and Reid
People who commit crimes for financial gain more likely to display pre-conventional moral reasoning compared to those who commit impulsive crimes like assault. Crimes were people think they can evade punishment are associated with pre-conventional moral reasoning.
Level of moral reasoning only considers the thoughts of an ‘offender’
Unmoral reasoning does not necessarily mean unmoral behaviour and vice versa
Real world application of cognitive distortions
Applied during CBT. Aims to reduce irrational thoughts by making offenders ‘face’ their actions. Establish a less distorted view of their actions.
Harkins et al
Reduces denial and minimalization in therapy is associated with a reduced risk of reoffending. Accepting hat they have done can be rehabilitating. Practical value of cognitive distortions.
Level of cognitive distortion is dependant on type of offence.
Howitt and Sheldon
Questionnaire’s for sex offenders. Non contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. History of offending more likely to use distortions as a justification. All offenders do not use distortions similarly
Cognitive tools can only help us learn about the thought process of offenders
Predicting future offending behaviour using cognitive explanations is not possible.