A01: Cognitive - Psychological Explanations

• Cognitive Explanation Summary?


  Level of Moral Reasoning

  • Kohlberg's 6 Stages of Moral Development
  • Offenders at a lower level
  • Offenders show less empathy & more egocentric

  Cognitive Distortions

  • Cognitive Distortions
  • Hostile attribution bias
  • Minimalization
• Kohlberg's 6 Stages of Moral Development

  Kohlberg proposed that as kids get older their decisions & judgements about right & wrong become more sophisticated. A persons levels of reasoning (thinking) affects their behaviour

  • 6 Stages of Moral Development / moral reasoning
• Kohlberg's 6 Stages of Moral Development/ moral reasoning

  Level I: Pre-Conventional Morality (Self thinking/young kids)

  • Punishment orientation (Obedience/punishment)
  • Instrument/personal gain (self interest)

  Level II: Conventional Morality (what society deems is right)

  • Conformity and Interpersonal Accord (Good body/girl orientation)
  • Maintenance of social order (Authority & social order)

  Level III: Post-Conventional Morality (not everyone reaches this level)

  • Social Contract (Individual rights)
  • Universal Principles (Morality of Conscience)
• Punishment orientation (Obedience/punishment):

  • Level I: Pre-Conventional Morality
  • Age Range: Infancy
  • No difference between doing the right thing & avoiding punishment

  Desire to obey rules to avoid punishment. Action perceived morally wrong because perpetrator is punished.

  • Worse punishment = Worse act seen to be
• Instrument/personal gain (self interest):

  • Level I: Pre-Conventional Morality
  • Age Range: Pre-School
  • Interest shifts to rewards rather than punishment - effort is made to secure greatest benefit for oneself.

  Right behaviour defined by whatever person believes to be in there interest.

  Limited interest the needs of others partly to further the individuals own interests. Obedience to rules is motivated by 'personal gain' 'what's in it for me'.
• Conformity and Interpersonal Accord (Good body/girl orientation)

  • Level II: Conventional Morality
  • Age Range: School-Age
  • The 'good boy/girl' level. Effort is made to secure approval and maintain friendly relations with others.

  Kids want approval of others & act to avoid disapproval. Emphasis placed on good behaviour and people being 'nice' to others.
• Maintenance of social order (Authority & social order)

  • Level II: Conventional Morality
  • Age Range: School-Age
  • Orientation towards fixed rules. The purpose of morality is maintaining the social order. Interpersonal accord is expanded to include the entire society.

  Kid blindly accepts rules and convention of their importance in morality
• Social Contract (Individual rights)


  • Level III: Post-Conventional Morality
  • Age Range: Teenagers
  • Mutual benefit, reciprocity. Morally right & legally right are not always the same. Utilitarian rules that make if better for everyone

  Everyone's opinions should be respected as social contracts rather than rigid edicts.
• Universal Principles (Morality of Conscience)

  • Level III: Post-Conventional Morality
  • Age Range: Adulthood
  • Morality is based on principles that transcend mutual benefit

  Moral reasoning based on equality, dignity & respect.
• How can pre-conventional stage link to offender behaviour:

  • Offenders at lower level

  Kohlberg et al (1973) used a moral dilemma technique (e.g. Heinz dilemma) and found offenders tend to be classified at the pre-conventional level, whereas non-offenders progress high.

  Pre-conventional level is characterised by:

  • A need to avoid punishment & gain rewards
  • Less mature, childlike reasoning
  • Egocentric

  Offenders may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards (e.g. money, respect)
• Offenders are egocentric & show less empathy:

  Research shows that offenders are often self-centred (egocentric) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills (Chandler 1973)

  • Individuals who reason a higher level tend to empathise more & exhibit behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence.
• Cognitive Distortions

  Cognitive Distortions = Faulty & Biased ways of thinking which may be used to rationalise or justify offending behaviour (errors or biases in people's information processing system is characterised by faulty thinking)

  • We all occasionally exhibit faulty thinking, but research shows this is a much more typical way for offenders to interpret their behaviour and justify their actions
  • Hostile Attribution Bias
  • Minimalisation
• Hostile Attribution Bias


  Ambiguous situations judged as threatening - the extent to which an individual interprets an ambiguous situation or the actions of others as being hostile.

  • Misinterpret the actions of others - offenders misread non-aggressive cues (e.g. being 'looked at')
  • Judging situations as aggressive and/or threatening when in reality it might not be.
  • Such individuals with this cognitive distortion are more inclined to become aggressive increasing their changes of engaging in criminal behaviour.
  • Triggers a disproportionate (& often violent) response
• Hostile Attribution Bias- Studies

  Schonenberg & Jusyte (2014)

  Dodge & Frame (1982)
• Schonenberg & Jusyte (2014):

  Schonenberg & Jusyte (2014):

  • 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions.
  • When compared with a non aggressive matched control group, the violent offenders more likely than non-offenders to perceive ambiguous facial expressions/images as angry and hostile.
  • Hostile Attribution Bias
• Dodge & Frame (1982)

  • Roots of behaviour lie in childhood. D&F show kids video clip of a 'ambiguous provocation' (where intention clearly hostile not accidental).
  • Kids who been identified as 'aggressive' &'rejected' prior to study interpreted as more hostile than those classed as 'non aggressive' & 'accepted'.
  • Hostile Attribution Bias
• Minimalisation


  Downplaying the significance of the crime/event/emotion as means of dealing with guilt

  • Minimalization reduces a person's sense if guilt
  • For example, burglars may use euphemisms e.g. 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family' as a way of minimising the seriousness of their actions & their sense of guilt
• Minimalisation - Studies

  • Barbaree (1991)
  • Pollock & Hashmall (1991)
• Minimalisation explain the studies:

  Barbaree (1991):

  • This particularly like in sex offenders.
  • Found among 24 incarcerated rapists: 54% denied they committed an offence at all & further 40% minimised harm they caused to the victim.

  Pollock & Hashmall (1991):

  • reported 35% of sample of child molesters argued that crime they committed was non sexual (they 'just being affectionate') & 36% stated victim had consented