PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS : COGNITIVE Flashcards
What are the 2 congitive explanations
levels of moral reasoning
cognitive distortions
kohlberg proposed people’s…
descisiona nd judegemnt on issues of righ tnad wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning
moral reasonign
process whihc indi draws upon own value system to determine whether actions are righ tor wrong
in terms of moral reasoning the higher the stage
the more sophisticaed the reasoning
kohlberg based his theory on
peoples responses to a series of moral dielmas such as heinz dilemma
many studies ssuggested offenders tend to show
lower level of moral reasoning than non offenders
what did kohlberg et al find using his moral dilemmas
a group of violent youths were at a significanlt y lower level of moral development than non violent youths - even after controlling for social background
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - Where are offenders more likely to be classified
preconnvential level of K model (stages 1&2)
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - whereas non offenders genrally progressed to
conventional level and beyond
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - preconvential level characterised by
need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - preconventional level associated with
less mature , childlike reasoning
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - knowing what preconvential level is charactersied by and associated with adults’adolesc who reason at this level may commit crime if
can get away with it or gain rewards in form of e.g money /increased respecgy
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - the assumption about adults and adolescents at preconventional level is supported by studies suggesting
offenders are often more egocentric (Self centered) and display poorer social perspective - taking skills than non offender peers
LINK WITH CRIMINALITY - indidviduals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more …
and exhibit more
sympathise more with the rights of others
exhibit more conventional behaviours e.g honesty generosity non violence
what are cognitive distortions
errors or biases in peoples info processing system charctersied by faulty thinking
we all occ show evi of faulty thinkin when explaining our won behaviour
especially if
behaviour unexpected or out of character
how have researchers linekd cognitive distortions to offenders
way which O interpreret other peoples behaviour and justify their own actions
two jey examples of congitive distortion
hostile attribution bias
minimalisation
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS -
propensity for violence is often associated with tendency to misinterpret actions of other people
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS - basic
assume others are being confrontational when tehyre not
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS - offenders amy misread non agressive cues such as
being looked at
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS - offenders misreading non sggressive cues may trigger
disproportionate often violent repsonse
outlien study for HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS -
55 vio O presented w images of emo ambigious facial xprssion
when comp with non aggresive matched control group
vio O sig more likely to percieve images as angry and hostile
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS - roots of this behaviour may be apparent in
childhood
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS - roots of behaviiour may be apparent in childhood outline a studgt
kids showed vid of ambiguos provoc - intention nearly clearly hostile/accidental
kids id’d as aggressive and rejected prior to study interpreted situation as more hostile
than those classed non aggressive and accepted
MINIMALISATION -
attempt to downplay seriousness of an offence
MINIMALISATION - eg.g
burglars describing themselves as ‘supporitng my famo’ as a way of minimising seriousness of their O
MINIMALISATION - studies suggest indi who commit sexual offences are ptclry prone to
minimalsiation
what is the first level of moral reasoning?
pre-conventional morality
what stages are in the first level of moral reasoning?
1 and 2
what does the first stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
rule obeyed to avoid punishemnts
what does the second stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
rules obeyed for personal gain
what is the second level of moral reasoning?
conventional morality
hat stages are in the second level of moral reasoning?
3&4
what does the third stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
rules are obeyed for approval
what does the fourth stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
what does the fourth stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
what is the third level of moral reasoning?
post-conventional morality
what stages are in the third level of moral reasoning?
stage 5 and 6
what does the fifth stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
rules are challenged if they infringe the right on others
what does the sixth stage suggest in the levels of moral reasoning?
individuals have a personal set of ethical principles
MINIMALISATION - outline study and finding for sexual offences
among 26 incarcerated rapists
54% denied committed an offence at all
40% minimised harm they ha dcaused victim
limitation - dont apply to all crimes
KOHLBERG THEORY
Research found that those who committed crimes for financial gains, such as robbery, were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes such as assault, where reasoning of any kind tended not to be evident
- limitation of explanation as it suggests it is not valid for all types of crime
- instead suggesting this will only explain crime where there is a cognitive element, where the offending is having to draw on their own moral system and not crimes that are committed in the heat of the moment
strength kohlberg - research support
one strength is evidence for link between level of moral reasoning and crime
Palmer and Hollin compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF) which contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions such as not taking others’ belongings
the offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group
this is consistent with Kohlberg’s position and make it a more reliable source
strength - COGNITIVE explanations are Less DETERMINISTIC
AS it involves reasoning/ processing of information before a criminal act is committed.
therefore shows people have a choice in what they do and therfore free will
- this is a strength as it means the criminal is more responsible for their actions and therefore aligns with the current criminals system, where a criminal can be punished for their actions
furthermore the fact that criminals are more responsible for their actions meas they can try and aim to change and improve their cognitive distortions - ask
lmitation -Cognitive distortions depend on type of offence
one limitation is the level of cognitive distortions depends on the type of offence
PSYCHOLOGISTS gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders
opposite to what the researchers predicted, they found that non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders
those who had previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification
suggests that distortions aren’t used in the same way by all offenders , ITS ALSO REDUCTIONIST CAUSE DOESNT CONSIDER VARIANCE
