Individual difference- Cognitive factors Flashcards
The 2 factors?
Moral reasoning
Cognitive distortions
What is moral reasoning?
The study of how people think about right and wrong and how they acquire and apply moral reasoning
MR- what stage are most criminals in?
Level 1 tnd 2
Break law if the reward outweighs the cost
MR- will people in post convection commit crimes?
Less likely as theres a strong moral compass that doesn’t fit criminal behaviour
MR- pre conventional view on crime?
Breaking the law is justified if punishment is avoided as the rewards outweigh the cost
MR- pre conventional crime they could commit?
Burglary, theft, fraud and rape
MR- conventional view on crime?
Breaking law justified if it helps maintain relationships in society
MR- conventional crimes they would commit?
Steeling for a family member, self defence, speeding to get to a hospital
MR- post conventional view on crime?
Breaking the law is justified if it helps maintain human rights and further social justice
MR- post conventional crime they would commit?
Protest
Breaking into a lab to release animal test subjects
MR- what is the age of criminal responsibility in the UK?
10
MR- Kohlberg’s study and age and levels they were in?
20% of 10 yrs olds in stage 1
60% in stage 2
There’s no set stage for morality as everyone has different moral compases
Most 10 yr olds in stage 1 more likely to commit crime
MR- who are our supporting research?
Chen and Howitt 2007
MR- Chen and Howitt 2007 research support?
-Male offenders in 6 youth correctional institutions in Taiwan and control from one junior and two senior high schools in study
-Self report criminal histories classified them into characteristic offence type
-Morality development stages were significantly less mature in offenders than in controls despite the offenders mean age being higher those who showed more moral reasonings less likely to commit crimes
How does Chen and Howitt 2007 research explain behaviour?
Committing crimes can be based on maturity levels
In Cognitive distortions what are our two functions?
Hostile attribution bias
Minimisation
CD- what is hostile attribution bias?
Attributions refers to when they see someone’s actions and make an inference on what this means
-So patterns of thinking that don’t reflect reality
CD- example of HAD?
Serving someone at work and saying have a nice day but really thinking that they are annoying
CD- what can HAD say about behaviour?
If we see someone we trust steal we make an inference this is okay
-We may say that commiting crimes are bad but think they are justified and have already done it
CD- what are magnification and minimisation?
Mag and Min refer our perception of the consequences of the situation in which we find ourself
-Cognitive errors that everyone experiences
CD- Min and Mag example story?
A person has parked their car and accidentally hit a parked car and is deciding whether to leave their phone number
CD- to this example how would a minimilation react?
Nobody’s seen me so nothing will happen
It’s an expensive car so they can pay for the damage
-Won’t notice only a small dent
CD- to this example how would a maximisation react?
-If i leave i will be arrested
-Cause pain and suffering to the owner if i drive of, a big mark so bound to notice
CD- why are criminals more likely to be minimalization?
Underplay the consequences of actions so criminal behaviour can be engaged in with minimal guilt or other negative emotions
Evaluation- supporting evidence?
Schonenberg and Justye
Evaluation- supporting evidence Schonenberg and Justye?
55 violent offenders were shown images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. They were more likely to perceived the images as angry and hostile compared to a non aggressive matched control groups
Evaluation- supporting evidence SEEW para?
S-
E- Schonenberg and Justye, 55 violent offenders were shown images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. They were more likely to perceived the images as angry and hostile compared to a non aggressive matched control groups
E- This shows there is a link between HAB and criminal behaviour as they perceive things as being more violent and aggressive
W- Therefore cog explanation of criminal behaviour is supported by research making it more valid
Other supporting evidence evaluation?
Pollock and Hashmall 1991
Supporting evidence- Pollock and Hashmall 1991?
35% of a sample of child molesters said that the crime they committed was non sexual
36% said that he victims had consented
Supporting evidence- Pollock and Hashmall 1991- SEEW?
S- Another strength is that there is research support for minimalization as a cog distortion is criminals
E- Pollock and Hashmall 1991 35% of a sample of child molesters said that the crime they committed was non sexual
36% said that he victims had consented
E- This shows to us minimalization as these criminals are trying to justify there crimes and makes it seem theirs no consequence your actions due to there cog dysfunction, if minimising crime and guilt
W- Therefore provides us with a strength as it supports minimalization in cog dysfunction
W- Therefore provides us with a strength as it supports minimisation in cog dysfunction
Eval- Practical application SEEW?
S- one strength of the oral reasoning explanation is that we could develop programmes for children that could prevent criminal behaviour later in life
E- If we know that people who have pre conventional levels of moral reasoning are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, educating children in preconventional to develop their moral reasoning to push them up to the next level
E- Kohlberg suggests that grouping children into democratic groups where they were involved in making moral decisions facilitates their moral development
W- This is a strength because it shows how this theory can benefit society in order to prevent crimes for taking place
Limitations of Kohlberg’s reasech- SEEW?
S- One weakness of moral reasoning explanation is the way in which moral reasoning is measured
E- Kohlberg used hypothetical scenarios weren’t real
E- Showing these scenarios may not be an accurate representation of how moral reasoning influenced criminal behaviour as they aren’t real situations that the person has experience and may not even be linked to crime
W- Therefore does this really explain moral reasoning in the real world or just hypothetically
Evaluation, does not explain criminal behaviour SEEW?
S- One issue with this explanation is that it merely describes the faulty cognitions of criminals but does not explain why behaviour originates
E- Showing cog approach is descriptive rather than unexplanatory. This discription tends to come after the fact and although useful when predicting reoffending e.g. deterministic ro a degree) they don’t tell us why a criminal commits its not cause and effect
E- For example if someone commits a crime they can say its HAB
W- Therefor showing a criticism
Conclusion?
In conclusion, cog explanation of crime is limited in ability to explain crime as it fails to explore where faulty cognition arises from. Can described experience its difficult to establish a cause and effect as we cant be sure on what led to faulty cognition development. Moreover evidence to support is flawed impacting validity. In all there’s faulty vog work in behaviour but it could be a remiss
