psychological explanations: cognitive

Question 1

what was kohlbergs view on moral reasoning?

Answer 1

Kohlberg proposed that people’s decisions and judgements about right and wrong can be identified in his stage theory of moral development → the higher the stage = the more sophisticated the reasoning

Question 2

how did kohlberg measure moral reasoning?

Answer 2

• moral dilemma technique (gave dilemma and asked various questions)
• criminal offenders = pre-conventional level of Kohlberg’s model,
• non-criminals tend to be at the conventional level

Question 3

Preconventional level is characterised by:

Answer 3

● A need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
● Less mature, childlike reasoning
- Crime is committed if they can get away with it or gain some kind of reward

Question 4

research

Answer 4

This is supported by research that shows that offenders are often egocentric and display poorer social perspective-taking skills
Individuals who reason at a higher level tend to sympathise more and exhibit behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence

Question 5

define cognitive distortions

Answer 5

faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negayively

Question 6

cognitive distortion: minimisation

Answer 6

• This is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence
• This reduces a person’s sense of guilt
• For example, burglars may describe themselves as ‘doing a job’ or ‘supporting my family’ as a way of minimising the seriousness of their actions
• This is particularly likely in sex offenders: Pollock and Hashmall (1991) found 35% of a sample of child molesters argued they had committed was non-sexual (e.g. ‘being affectionate’) and 36% stated the victim consented

Question 7

cognitive distortion; hostile attribution bias

Answer 7

• tendency to misinterpret the actions of other people (to assume others are being confrontational when they are not)
• Schonenberg et al found violent offenders were more likely than non-offenders to perceive ambiguous facial expressions as angry and hostile
• Offenders misread non-aggressive cues (e.g. being ‘looked at’) and this can trigger a disproportionate and violent response