cognitive (psychological explanations)

• cognitive distortions (CD)

  • faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negatively
  • CDs are errors or biases in information processing characterised by faulty thinking
  • research shows this is a much more typical way for offenders to interpret their behaviour and justify their actions
• egocentric bias (CD)

  • emphasis on your own needs than the needs of other people
  • only thinking of themselves
• causal attributions (CD)

  • blaming other people for your behaviour
  • not taking responsibility and having an external locus of control
• hostile attribution bias (CD)

  • assuming the worst => negative interpretations of someone's behaviour leads to more aggressive behaviour
  • Schonenburg and Justye = found violent offenders are more likely than non-offenders to perceive ambiguous facial expressions as angry and hostile
  • offenders misread non-aggressive cues (eg being 'looked at') and this can trigger a disproportionate and violent response
• minimalisation (CD)

  • minimalisation reduces a person's sense of guilt => downplaying the significance of the crime (the consequences of a situation are under-exaggerated)
  • eg = burglars may use euphemisms (eg 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family') as a way of minimising the seriousness of their actions and their sense of guilt
  • Barbaree = found its particularly likely in sex offenders
  • found 54% rapists denied they had committed an offence at all
  • a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim
• strength of CD = application to therapy

  • in cognitive behaviour therapy, offenders are helped to 'face up' to what they have done to and have a less distorted view of their actions
  • Harkin et al = suggest that reduced denial and minimalisation in therapy is associated with less reoffending
  • => theory of cognitive distortions has practical value
• limitation of CD = depends on type of offence

  • Howitt and Sheldon = found that non-contact sex offenders (accessed sexual images on the internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (physically abused children)
  • those who had a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification for their behaviour
  • => cognitive distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders
• extra evaluation for CD = descriptive or explanatory

  • cognitive theories of offending are good at describing the criminal mind and cognitive concepts (eg minimalisation) may be useful for therapy
  • BUT = cognitive theories do not explain or help in predicting future offending behaviour- just because someone has distorted thinking doesn't mean they will offend
  • => cognitive explanations are probably not explanatory because they don't predict future behaviour
• level of moral reasoning (LMR)

  • moral reasoning = the way a person thinks about right and wrong
  • the higher the level, the more that behaviour is driven by a sense of what is right and the less it is driven by just avoiding punishment or avoiding the disapproval of others
• Kholberg's levels of moral reasoning

  • level l = pre-conventional morality
  • punishment orientation (rules are obeyed to avoid punishment)
  • instrumental orientation/personal gain (//for personal gain)
  • level ll = conventional morality
  • 'good boy/girl' orientation (//for approval)
  • maintenance of social order (//to maintain social order)
  • level lll = post-conventional morality
  • morality of contact and individual rights
  • morality of conscience (//own rules in accordance with personal set of ethical principles)
• moral development

  • Kholberg proposed that as children get older their decisions and judgements about right and wrong become more sophisticated (levels of moral reasoning)
  • a person's level of reasoning (thinking) affects their behaviour
• offenders are more likely to be at lower level

  • Kohlberg et al = used a moral dilemma technique (eg Heinz dilemma = ill wife) and found offenders tend to be at the pre-conventional level, whereas non-offenders progress higher
  • pre-conventional level characterised by:
  • a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
  • less mature, childlike reasoning
  • offenders may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards (eg money / respect)
• offenders more egocentric + show less empathy

  • Chandler = research shows that offenders are often self-centred (egocentric) and displayed poorer social perspective-taking skills
  • individuals who reason at a higher level tend to empathise more and exhibit behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence
• strength of LMR = supporting evidence

  • Palmer and Hollin = compared moral reasoning of offenders and non-offenders on a SRM-SF scale (11 moral dilemmas)
  • offenders show less mature moral reasoning than the non-offenders group (eg taking things that belong to someone else)
  • this is consistent with Kohlberg's theory and suggests that his theory of criminality is valid
• limitation of LMR = it may depend on type of offence

  • Thornton and Reid = found that people whose crimes were for financial gain (eg robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional level than if impulsive crime (eg assault)
  • pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment
  • suggests Kohlberg's theory may not apply to all forms of crime
• extra evaluation LMR = thinking vs behaviour

  • Kohlberg's theory provides insight into the criminal mind
  • offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when making moral judgements
  • BUT = moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour
  • moral reasoning may be used to explain behaviour but only afterwards
  • => understanding moral behaviour may be more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them