Cognitive Distortions for Offending

• Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in people's information processing system which are characterised by faulty thinking.
• Gibbs (1993) suggested that people use cognitive distortions to rationalise their behaviour.
• Cognitive distortions may blame other people and mislabel an offenders behaviour or actions.
• Researchers linked cognitive distortions to the way in which offenders interpret other people's behaviour and justify their own actions.
• Criminals make attributions for their crimes that allow them to reduce their feelings of guilt.
• Cognitive distortions can make some people more likely to commit crime because of the way they process information.
• There are two types of cognitive distortion; hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.
• Attribution bias is the tendency to explain a person's behaviour by referring to their character rather than any situational factor.
• Attribution bias can be internal or external.
• An internal attribution bias is when a person accepts responsibility for their own behaviour and see the cause as within themselves.
• An external attribution bias is when a person sees the cause of their behaviour as outside of them.
• Many offenders will adopt an external attribution bias, which allows them to blame someone or something in the environment, rather than take responsibility for their own actions.
• Offenders may use minimisation to justify their behaviour, such as saying that they didn’t mean it or that no one was hurt.
• Minimalisation is where people downplay the seriousness of their own behaviour.
• Gudjonsson & Bownes (1991) found that violent offenders had the highest external attribution compared to other offenders.
• Gudjonsson & Bownes (2002) examined the relationship between the type of offence and the attributions offenders made about their criminal behaviour. They concluded that violent criminals are more likely to make external attributions for their crimes.
• Hostile attribution bias is the tendency to interpret the behaviour of others as threatening, aggressive or both.
• People who exhibit the hostile attribution bias think that ambiguous behaviour from other people is hostile and directed at them personally.
• Offenders often respond to perceived hostility in a violent or aggressive manner.
• Dodge et al (1990) gave 128 boys in a young offenders institute a task to assess hostile attributions. They found a correlation between attributional biases and reactive angry aggression.
• Evidence suggests the propensity for violence is often associated with a tendency to misinterpret the actions of others and to assume that others are being confrontational when they are not. This is called a hostile attribution bias.
• Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues and this may trigger an often violent response
• Schonenberg & Jusyte (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared to a control group, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry or hostile.
• Cognitive distortions may begin in childhood and correlations have been made between aggressive children and those with hostile attribution biases.
• Cognitive distortions are one way of understanding the criminal mind, they help us see some of the reasoning behind the actions criminals make.
• Minimalisation is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence.
• The cognitive bias of minimalisation operates to minimise the actions of the offender, in order to reduce their feelings of guilt. They manage their own emotions by rationalising their actions in a way that fails to recognise the impact on other people.
• Kennedy & Grubin (1992) found that a majority, in a sample of sex offenders blamed their crime on the actions of the victim.
• Minimalisation is often used to excuse or protect the perpetrator from feeling guilt over their actions. For example, a shoplifter may claim that a large supermarket is making large profits and will not miss a few items.
• Bandura (1973) refers to minimalisation by applying a euphemistic label to behaviour. For example criminals may believe their actions are justified as they are doing it for the good of their family.
• A moral disengagement mechanism identified by Bandura (1973) is euphemistic labelling. This mechanism refers to the process of altering language in order to detract from the emotional intensity of the reality being referenced.
• Research studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation.
• Barbaree (1991) found among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm that they had caused to the victim.
• One strength of cognitive distortions as an explanation for offending is its application to therapy.
• Cognitive explanations for offending offer a potential treatment for crime, as changing cognitions should alter behaviour. This is often done through CBT or restorative justice programmes.
• Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) aims to challenge irrational thinking and encourages offenders to face up to what they have done and establish a less distorted view of their actions.
• Harkins et al (2010) suggest that reduced incidents of denial and minimalisation in therapy is highly associated with a reduced risk of reoffending, and accepting responsibility for their own crime is an important aspect of rehabilitation.
• Howitt & Sheldon (2007) gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders and found that non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. Those with a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification.
• Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson (1993) showed a potential link between hostile attribution bias and domestic violence.
• Gudjonsson & Bownes (2002) found that violent criminals and offenders showed a strong consistency in the way they attributed blame to their crimes.