forensics: psychological explanations of offending- cognitive Flashcards
how do cognitive explanations explain offending behaviour
suggests offending behaviour is either a result of faulty information processing or underdeveloped moral reasoning
what is moral reasoning and what level are criminals
process by which an individual uses their own value system to decide if an action is right or wrong - criminals have a lower level
what are kohlbergs stages of moral reasoning
- pre-conventional
- conventional
- post-conventional
what is the pre-conventional stage (offenders)
children don’t have a personal code of morality, and instead their moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of breaking or following their rules
what is the conventional stage (non- offenders)
accepting of social rules, we begin to internalise moral standards
what is the post-conventional state (non offenders)
understanding of universal ethical principles. abstract but may include: preservation of life at all costs and importance of human dignity
what stage did Kohlberg suggest criminals were stuck in? why
pre - conventional: need to avoid punishment and gain reward (immature - child like reasoning)
what research did Kohlberg et al 1973 conduct, what did they find
research : used moral dilemma technique
finding: found violent youths to be significantly lower in moral development than non-violent youths
- effects persisted even when controlled for social background
how did chandler et al (1973) support kohlbergs theory
found criminals more ego-centric and have poorer social perspective taking than non - offender peers
ao3: how did palmer +
Hollin (1998) support Kohlbergs moral reasoning?
- compared 126 offenders with 210 females and 122 male control on moral reasoning test , found offenders showed less mature moral reasoning
ao3: what other alternatives are there to Kohlberg’s moral reasoning theory? why is this a limitation?
Gibbs 1979 - suggested 2 levels of reasoning , mature and immature as he thought Kohlberg’s third stage was at a non-natural maturation stage and culturally biased towards western countries
how might individual differences be a limitation of this explanation of offending behaviour
level of moral reasoning may depend on the type of offence , Reid 1982 found people who offended for financial gain + people who thought they had a good chance of evading capture showed more pre-conventional reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes
what factor might be a better explanation of criminality than moral reasoning? why is this a limitation?
Langdon et al 2010 suggested intelligence a bigger predictor of criminality than moral reasoning. people with lower IQ also likely to have lower moral reasoning
define cognitive distortions and explain how it links to offending behaviour
cognitive distortions are errors, biases or irrational ways of thinking. they can lead to inaccurate and often negative self perception, perception of others and perception of the environment around us. It explains how offending behaviour links cognitive distortions
define hostile attribution bias. how does this explain criminality?
HAB= a tendency to misinterpret ambiguous situations, or the actions of others to be aggressive +/ threatening when in reality, this may not be.
offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (being looked at) as confrontational and this may trigger a violent response
what research did Schoenberg + Justye (2014) conduct? what did they conclude?
- presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions
- found when compared when compared to a non aggressive control group, violent offenders more likely to interpret images as angry and hostile
what evidence suggests that hostile attribution bias may be rooted in childhood?
- Dodge + Frame (1982)
- showed children a clip of an ‘ambiguous provocation’ (confrontation)
- found that children who identified as ‘aggressive’ and ‘rejected’ interpreted the situation as more hostile than control group
what is minimalisation? give an example
(or minimisation) is a type of cognitive distortion or deception that downplays the seriousness of an offence, event or emotion, commonly used to deal with effects of guilt.
- example : burglars say they are ‘just doing a job’ or ‘supporting their family’ to make their offences seem less serious
what type of offender is particularly prone to minimalisation? what research found this
Pollock + Hashmall (1991) found 35% of child molesters argues their crimes were non sexual (just affectionate) and 36% claimed the victims consented
what practical application has cognitive distortions got?
understanding cognitive distortions has lead to the development of CBT for criminal behaviour- most common way of treating sex offenders through challenging their distorted views of events
what does it mean by saying cognitive distortions are post-hoc? why is this a limitation of this explanation?
post hoc = taken evidence and created the explanation after an event, they describe what is going on in the criminal mind but fail to explain why it occurs, limitation as could mean cognitive distortions is a limited explanation of offending behaviour
what are the two factors causing offending behaviour?
- learned attitudes towards crime
- learning of specific criminal acts
