psychological explanations of offending behaviour: cognitive explanations Flashcards
what are the two cognitive explanations?
- level of moral reasoning
- cognitive distortions
what is kholbergs levels of moral reasoning
pre-conventional > follow rules to avoid punishment or personal gain
conventional > follow rules for approval or to maintain social order
post-conventional > follow rules is they are fair or in accordance of their own ethical principle
what did kohlberg do
- applied moral reasoning to explain criminal behaviour i.e. -people’s decisions and judgements on what is right and wrong
- based his theory on peoples responses to a series of moral dilemmas i.e. Heinz dilemma
- group of violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youth even after controlling for social background
what type of moral reasoning do criminals have?
- Criminals have a lower level of moral reasoning than others
- do not progress from the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning – they seek to avoid punishment and gain rewards and have child-like reasoning
- Non-criminals tend to reason at higher levels and sympathise with the rights of others, exhibiting honesty, generosity and non-violence (post-conventional moral reasoning)
what is kohlberg’s model of criminality?
- criminal offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level (stage 1 and 2)
- pre-conventional level - need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, associated with less mature and childlike reasoning
- adults who may commit crime at that level believe can get away with it/gain rewards
- non criminals generally progressed to conventional level + beyond
evaluate level of moral reasoning
-
how is research support a strength of kholbergs moral reasoning theory?
research support
chandler (1973) found offenders are egocentric and display poorer social perspective-talking skills than non-offender peers
supports kholberg as offenders are said to be child-like and poor social perspective is similar to infants
how is being dependent on the type of offence a limitation of the moral reasoning theory?
- level of MR dependent on offence?
- thornton + reid found people who committed crimes for financial gain more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes
- pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be assoc with crimes where offenders believe = good chance of evading punishment
- may not apply all forms of crime
how is thinking vs behaviour a limitation of moral reasning?
- useful insight into the though process of an offender where offenders will commit on punishment and reward rather then morals and the effect of their actions
- moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour - moral dilemma technique poor predictor
- heinz dilemma hypothetical + may not reflect moral decisions someone exercise real life
- low in external validity
- moral reasoning is better at justifying behaviour after
what are the two psychological cognitive explanations
level of moral reasoning
cognitive distortions
what is the cognitive distortion explanation of offending
criminals have errors in their information processing systems that lead to faulty thinking where their interpretation of other peoples behaviour is twisted so that they can justify their behaviour
what are two types of cognitive distortions
hostile attribution bias
minimalisation
what are two types of cognitive distortions
hostile attribution bias
minimalisation
what are two types of cognitive distortions
hostile attribution bias - justifies actions
minimalisation - reduces guilt
what are two types of cognitive distortions
hostile attribution bias
minimalisation
