Cognitive explanations

• Identify the two cognitive explanations for offending

  behaviour.

  Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions.
• Outline Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour.


  Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning (the process by which an individual judges whether an action is morally right or wrong) can be summarized in stages – the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning.
• Outline Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour.


  Level 1: Pre-conventional level – individuals’ reasoning is selfish so is based on the rewards and punishments they may receive.

  Level 2: Conventional level – individuals’ reasoning considers society’s perceptions of what is right or wrong and considers the law (i.e. what is illegal).

  Level 3: Post-conventional level – individuals reasoning considers ethical principles so are largely driven by their conscience.
• Outline Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour.


  According to Kohlberg, those at the pre- conventional level are more likely to offend, especially when the rewards (e.g. money, respect) outweigh the punishments (risk of being caught).

  In contrast, those at the conventional level are less likely to offend as they consider it illegal and those at the post-conventional level are also less likely to offend as it would go against their ethics/conscience.
• Evaluate Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour: supporting evidence.

  Researchers have found that offenders only reason at the pre-conventional level towards the types of crimes they commit. E.g. sexual offenders reason at the pre-conventional level for sexual crimes but non-sexual offenders such as thieves will reason at a higher level when it comes to sexual crimes. This is a strength because it shows how reasoning at the pre-conventional level for a specific type of crime can make you more likely to commit it.
• Evaluate Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour: may not apply in the real world. 


  This is because the theory was developed by giving criminals and non-criminals a series of hypothetical moral dilemmas. This is a limitation because the way a participant responds in a questionnaire about hypothetical moral dilemmas may differ greatly from what they would do in real life.
• Evaluate Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour: may not apply to all crimes.


  This is because individuals who commit crimes for financial gain, such as theft, are more likely to show pre- conventional moral reasoning as it is a reward-based crime. However, it can be argued that no moral reasoning takes place in impulsive crimes such as assault, as there was no time to think/reason. This is a limitation as it suggests that not all offending behaviour is a result of pre-conventional moral reasoning.
• Evaluate Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending behaviour: lacks explanatory power. 


  This is because fails to explain why criminals show lower levels of moral reasoning. This is a limitation because it suggests that whilst the level of moral reasoning explanation is good at describing the criminal mind, it is less successful when it comes to explaining it.
• Outline cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour.


  Cognitive distortions refer to faulty thinking caused by biases people have.

  One example of a cognitive bias is hostile attribution bias whereby a person misinterprets other people’s actions as being confrontational.

  This can lead to offending behaviour as they will blame the victim, allowing them to justify and engage in their offending behaviour.
• Outline cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour.


  An example of a cognitive bias is minimalisation whereby an individual will attempt to deny or downplay their offence.

  This can lead to offending behaviour as they do not consider the seriousness of their crimes and so do not feel the guilt that would typically deter non-criminals.

  An example of hostile attribution bias can be seen when an offender impulsively attacks another person because they thought they looked at them aggressively.
• Evaluate cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour: supporting evidence. 


  Research has found that when presented with images of facial expressions where the emotion displayed is unclear, violent offenders are more likely to perceive the images as angry or hostile in comparison to a non-aggressive control group. This is a strength as it supports the proposal that criminals are more likely to perceive others as being confrontational i.e. show hostile attribution bias.
• Evaluate cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour: supporting evidence.


  Research has found that individuals who commit sexual crimes often deny having committed the crime. Alternatively, they may argue that they were just being affectionate (downplaying the crime). This is a strength as it supports the proposal that criminals are likely to deny or downplay their crimes i.e. show minimalisation.
• Evaluate cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour: lacks explanatory power.

  This is because it fails to explain why criminals tend to show hostile attribution bias or minimalisation. This is a limitation because it suggests that whilst the explanation is good at describing the criminal mind, it is rather less successful when it comes to explaining it.
• Evaluate cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending behaviour: practical applications when it comes to dealing with offending behaviour. 


  The main approach in the rehabilitation of sex offenders is CBT which encourages offenders to ‘face up’ to what they have done. Studies have found that this reduction in minimalisaton in therapy is highly correlated with a reduced risk of reoffending. This is a strength has it shows a link between minimalisation and offending behaviour and how reducing minimilsation can help reduce recidivism (reoffending rates).