Psychological explanations: Cognitive Flashcards
what does cognitive explanation include?
level of moral reasoning
cognitive distortions
Level of moral reasoning
Kohlberg proposed that people’s decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning. The higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning. Many studies have suggested that offenders tend to have a lower level of moral reasoning than non-offenders. Kohlberg et al (1973) using his moral dilemmas found a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral development than non-violent youths.
Level of moral reasoning link to criminality
Offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional stage whereas non- offenders have generally progressed to the conventional stage and beyond.
Pre-conventional stage – a need to avoid punishment, childlike reasoning, egocentric, may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards (money, respect).
Evaluation of level of moral reasoning (brief)
strength - evidence, Palmer and Hollin
weakness - level may depend on the offence
strength of level of moral reasoning
there is evidence for the link between level of moral reasoning and crime. Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the SRM-SF which contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions such as not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a friend. The offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group. This result is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions which increases the validity of his theory.
weakness of level of moral reasoning
the level of moral reasoning may depend on the offence. Thornton and Reid (1982) found that people who committed crime for financial gain were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes. Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment. This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.
Cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in people’s information processing system characterised by faulty thinking. Two examples of cognitive distortions are hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.
Hostile attribution bias
the tendency to judge ambiguous situations or actions of others as aggressive when in reality they are not. This may trigger a disproportionate response. The roots of this behaviour may be apparent in childhood. Dodge and Frame (1982) showed children a clip of ‘ambiguous provocation’. Children who had been identified as aggressive prior to the study interpreted the situation as more hostile than those classed as non-aggressive.
Minimalisation
a type of deception that involves denying or downplaying the seriousness of an offence. Barbaree (1991) found that among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused the victim.
Evaluation of cognitive distortions (brief)
strength - real world application, CBT
weakness - depends on type of offence
strength of cognitive distortions
real world application. CBT aims to challenge irrational thinking. In the case of offending behaviour, offenders are encouraged to face up to what they have done and establish a less distorted view of their actions. Studies suggest that reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy is highly associated with a reduced risk of reoffending. Acceptance of one’s crimes is thought to be an important aspect of rehabilitation. This suggests that the theory of cognitive distortions has practical value.
weakness of cognitive distortions
the level of cognitive distortion depends on the type of offence. Howitt and Sheldon (2007) gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders. Contrary to what the researchers predicted, they found that non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. Those who had a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification. This suggests that distortions aren’t used in the same way by all offenders.
