Evaluation

• Strength: evidence supporting levels of moral reasoning

  Palmer and Collin used a scale of 11 moral dilemma-related questions- offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than a non-offending control group. This finding is in line with Kohlberg's prediction. Blackburn argues delinquents may show poor moral development due to a lack of role playing in childhood. This suggests that role playing opportunities should be provided in order to develop moral reasoning
• Strength: applications of cognition distortions research

  Understanding cognitive distortions helps treat criminal behaviour (e.g. CBT helps offenders to 'face up' to their behaviour with a less distorted view of their actions). Studies suggest reducing denial and minimisation in therapy is correlated with reduced reoffending risk. Acceptance of one's crimes is a key feature of anger management. This cognitive explanation is therefore supported by the evidence that it is linked to effective rehabilitation techniques
• Limitation: individual differences in levels of moral reasoning

  Thornton and Reid found those committing crimes for financial gain (robbery) were more likely to show pre conventional reasoning than those committing impulsive crimes (e.g. assault). Preconventional reasoning was also associated with offenders who believed they could evade punishment. This suggests that the emphasis placed on moral reasoning as an explanation of criminality may be misplaced
• Limitation: cognitive explanations are descriptive, not explanatory

  While the cognitive approach may be good at describing the criminal mind, it is rather less successful when it comes to explaining it. Cognitive explanations are 'after the fact' theories- useful when predicting offending but they give us little insight into why the offender committed the crime in the first place. This questions whether cognitive explanations provide us with the underlying cause of criminal behaviour