Cognitive explanations

• Kohlberg (1973) suggested that moral development occurs in stages, and criminals tend to have lower levels of moral reasoning than non-criminals, so they are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg's model.
• Kohlberg identified three levels:

  • Pre-conventional morality – Need to avoid punishment and gain reward (common in criminals).
  • Conventional morality – Following societal rules (most non-criminals).
  • Post-conventional morality – Following personal ethical principles (rare).
• Criminals are more likely to think in a self-serving way (e.g., "If I steal, I’ll benefit"), rather than considering the impact on others. They are more likely to commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards (respect, money etc.).
• Cognitive distortions are faulty, biased, irrational ways of thinking that mean that we perceive ourselves, other people or the world inaccurately and usually negatively. The two types are hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.
• Hostile attribution bias is the tendency to misinterpret others’ behaviour or ambiguous situations as aggressive when in reality they may not be. This may trigger disproportionate and unprovoked violence.
• Minimalisation is a type of deception that involves downplaying the severity of an offence to deal with feelings of guilt (e.g., a thief saying, "They can afford it" or a sex offender claiming, "It was just a joke").
• Schönenberg and Justye (2014) showed emotionally ambiguous faces to violent offenders and found they were more likely to perceive aggression compared to a non-offender control group.

  • This supports the idea that criminals may misinterpret neutral situations as hostile (hostile attribution bias), increasing the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.
• Barbaree (1991): Found that 54% of rapists in his sample denied committing an offence, and 40% minimised the harm caused to their victims. This demonstrates how offenders use cognitive distortions like minimalisation to justify their actions.
• Pollock and Hashmall (1991): Found that 35% of child molesters said their crime was non-sexual, and 36% claimed the victim had consented.

  • This demonstrates how offenders use cognitive distortions like minimalisation to justify their actions.
• A strength of Kohlberg’s theory is that research supports the link between low moral reasoning and offending behaviour. Palmer and Hollin (1998) found that young offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders, supporting the idea that criminals think in a more self-serving way. However, this is correlational, meaning it’s unclear whether low moral reasoning causes crime or if criminal behaviour stunts moral development.
• A further strength is that understanding cognitive distortions has led to practical applications in offender rehabilitation. CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) helps offenders challenge their faulty thinking. For example, anger management programs aim to correct hostile attribution bias, and sex offender treatment programs target minimalisation. Studies show that these interventions can reduce reoffending, highlighting the usefulness of cognitive explanations in tackling crime.
• A limitation of Kohlberg’s theory is that it may be culturally biased. His research was based on Western moral values, which emphasise justice and individual rights. In some cultures, morality may be based on group loyalty or honour, meaning the theory may not apply universally. This suggests that moral reasoning levels might vary across cultures, reducing the generalisability of the explanation.
• A limitation is that it ignores individual differences. Thornton and Reid found that people who commit financial crimes show higher levels of moral reasoning than those convicted of violent crimes, suggesting that moral reasoning varies by crime type. Similarly, Langdon et al. argued that low moral reasoning is not always linked to criminality, as some people with low intelligence also struggle with moral reasoning but do not engage in crime. This suggests that other factors, such as intelligence or personality, may influence criminal behaviour more than cognitive distortions alone.