A03: Cognitive - Psychological Explanations

• Evaluation 


  d
• Supporting Evidence - A03: Cognitive


  There is ample amounts of supporting evidence.

  Blackburn

  • Palmer & Hollin (1998) - supports level of moral reasoning
  • Crick & Dodge (1994) - gave hypothetical situation to children & adults based on aggression - support links between hostile attributions bias & offender behaviour.
• A03: Cognitive

  Gibbs (1979) revised Kohlberg's levels, with immature reasoning being representing the pre-conventional level & mature reasoning representing the conventional level.

  • He removed the 'culturally bias' post-conventional level. This suggesting Kohlberg's theoretical basis was sound, but, a modern update was needed to increase its validity.
  • Although Kohlberg's 3 stages of moral reasoning are comprehensive, other researchers suggest a different method organising & harming these stages.
• A03: Cognitive

  Application of cognitive distortion

  • May help to inform interventions and treatment programmes e.g CBT & anger-management.

  Cartwright & Craig (2022) found that sex offenders with lo empathy were more likely to use cognitive distortions; therefore any empathy-targeted programmes could be used to reframe their thinking & get them to 'face up' to their actions to reduce offending.
• Individual differences: A03: Cognitive

  Individual differences challenges Kohlberg.

  • The level of moral reasoning may depend on the type of offence.

  Thornton & Reid (1982)

  • Those who commit crimes for financial crime like robbery more likely to show pre conventional moral reasoning.

  Langdon et al (2010)

  • Intelligence better predictor of criminality than moral reasoning
• +Cognitive: Supports the role of moral reasoning A03

  Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning of offenders and non-offenders on a SRM-SF scale (11 moral dilemmas).

  • Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offenders group (e.g not taking things that belong to someone else).

  This is consistent with Kohlberg's theory, and suggests his theory of criminality has validity.
• -Cognitive: Moral reasoning may depend on the type of offence A03

  Thornton and Reid (1982) found that people whose crimes were for financial gain (e.g robbery) were more likely to show preconventional level than if impulsive crime (e.g assault).

  • Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crime sin 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: Thinking vs behaviour: Moral reasoning A03

  Kohlberg's theory provided insight into the criminal mind - offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when making moral judgements.

  • However, moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour. Moral reasoning may be used to explain behaviour but only afterwards.

  This suggests that understanding moral behaviour may be more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them.
• +Cognitive: Application to therapy A03

  In cognitive behaviour therapy, offenders are helped to 'face up' to what they have done and have a less distorted view of their actions.

  • Studies (e.g Harkins er al 2010) suggest that reduced denial and minimalization in therapy is associated with less reoffending.

  This suggests that the theory of cognitive distortions has practical value.
• -Cognitive: Cognitive distortions depend on the type of offence A03

  Howitt and Sheldon (2007) 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 has a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification for their behaviour.

  This suggests that cognitive distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.
• -Cognitive: Descriptive or explanatory A03

  Cognitive theories of offending are good at describing the criminal mind and cognitive concepts (e.g minimalization) may be useful for therapy.

  • However, cognitive theories do not explain or help in predicting future offending behaviour - just because someone has distorted thinking does not mean they will offend.

  This suggests that the cognitive explanations are probably not explanatory because they don't predict future behaviour.