Forensics - Psychological: Cognitive

Question 1

Levels of moral reasoning (LoMR)

Answer 1

Judgement of right/wrong based on stages presented by Kohlberg

Question 2

Pre-conventional level

Answer 2

• Up to age 9
• Before understanding of societal laws
  > Stage 1: Punishment & Obedience (right/wrong defined by punishment for wrong doings)
  > Stage 2: Self-interest (right/wrong determined by what rewarded for - motivated by selfishness)

Question 3

Conventional level

Answer 3

• Most adolescents & adults
• Understanding of laws & norms so governs their behaviours

Question 4

Post-conventional level

Answer 4

• 0-15% of over 20s
• Understanding of laws & norms but agree they can be too restrictive

Question 5

Kohlberg’s study on moral reasoning

Answer 5

• Longitudinal study of 75 male Americans at 10-16 and again at 22-28
• Comparison to males from Canada, UK, Mexico, Turkey & Taiwan
• Given moral dilemmas (i.e. Heinz dilemma)

Findings:
> Taiwan 1-13 - stage 2
> American 16 - rarely advanced to stage 6
> American 13 - did not use stage 3

Question 6

Offenders’ level of moral reasoning

Answer 6

Pre-conventional level - childlike reasoning, less mature & commit the crimes if they believe they will get away with it and reap the rewards

Question 7

Supporting research on offenders’ level of moral reasoning

Answer 7

+ Chandler - offenders were egocentric, had poorer social skills and poor perspective taking skills
+ Asher & Kenny - both sex offenders & non-sex offenders had low levels of morality with none having higher levels
+ Palmer & Hollin - 126 offenders had less mature moral reasoning on 11 dilemmas

Question 8

Strengths of LoMR

Answer 8

+ Research findings (support studies - consistent with predictions about offenders)
+ Target interventions (understanding of cognition of offenders provide a insight into mechanics & can target help)

Question 9

Limitations of LoMR

Answer 9

• Ungeneralisable (Thornton & Reid - financial gain criminals were more likely to show pre-conventional levels than impulsive criminals -> associations with good chance of evading punishment so is inaccurate application)
• Methodological issues (moral thinking ≠ moral behaviour - Kohlberg’s research was justifications for after a crime has happened)

Question 10

Cognitive distortions (CD)

Answer 10

Faulty thinking in criminals (may excuse their behaviour)

Question 11

Hostile attribution bias (HAB)

Answer 11

Interpretations of ambiguous behaviours being seen as aggressive (justifications/victim blame)

Question 12

Minimalisation

Answer 12

Downplaying the severity of the event (reduce offender guilt)

Question 13

Supporting research on HAB

Answer 13

+ Schonenberg & Jusyte - 55 violent offenders were more likely to perceive unclear facial expressions as angry
+ Dodge & Frame - children identified as aggressive were likely to interpret ambiguous provocation in a video as hostile

Question 14

Supporting research on minimalisation

Answer 14

+ Barbaree - 54% of 26 rapists denied their offence & 40% minimised the harm they have caused

Question 15

Strengths of CD

Answer 15

+ Practical application (Harkins et al - CBT reduced incidences of denial & minimalisation -> reduced recidivism risk)
+ Target interventions (effective in describing the criminal mind)

Question 16

Limitation of CD

Answer 16

• Ungeneralisable (Howitt & Sheldon - non-contact sex offenders used CD more than contact -> not used in the same way across offenders)
• Does not help for predicting (HAB lacks cause & effect nor explain premeditated crimes/original basis for offending - only explains reactive crimes)