cognitive explanations for offending

• cognitive distortions

  • one suggestion is that we experience cognitive distortion
  • this is where reality becomes so twisted to what is perceived, no longer represents the truth
  • this may then offer the offender a rational justification for their own behaviour, or denial of it completely
  • there are two types- hostile attribution bias and minimalization
• hostile attribution bias

  • attribution- what we think about what someone’s actions mean- we draw inferences
  • e.g. if someone smiles at you, you might infer they like you
  • a constant leaning towards the worst interpretations
  • e.g. someone smiles at you; you think they are having negative thoughts about you. This may lead to more aggressive behaviour
• minimalisation

  • where outcomes can be underexaggerated
  • minimalisation can be an explanation for offending behaviour, whereby the offender reduces the negative interpretations of their behaviour before or after the crime has been committed
  • this minimises the emotional strain on the offender, making it more likely that they offend again
• level of moral reasoning

  • interviewed boys and men about the reasons for their moral decisions and constructed a stage theory of moral development
  • each level is divided into two stages. People progress when mature enough to do so and have gad the opportunities to discuss and develop their understanding

  Colby et al (1983):

  • referencing Kohlberg, Colby found that the most common level is the conventional level of moral reasoning
  • this would mean that those who broke the law, might justify their behaviour because it helps maintain relationships and society
  • they might break the law in order to protect their family/those around them
• Hollin et al

  • suggested that criminals are more likely to be in the pre-conventional level
  • breaking the law is justified due to the rewards outweighing the costs of the punishments
  • this stage is reached around the age of 10
  • Kohlberg’s study- just under 20% of the children aged 10 were at stage 1 and about 60% were at stage 2
• research support for hostile attribution bias

  • 55 violent offenders were shown emotionally ambiguous faces, and their responses were compared to the responses for a matched control group “normal participants”
  • the faces showed angry, happy, sad or fearful emotions in varying levels of intensity
  • offenders were more likely to interpret aggression from expressions of anger.
  • this shows that there is some misinterpretation of nonverbal cues (facial expressions)
  • this may explain offending behaviour/violence/physical abuse
• research support for minimalisation

  • sex offenders accounts of their crimes often downplayed their behaviour
  • often suggesting that the victim’s behaviour contributed to the crime in some way
  • some even denied the crime had been committed
  • many researchers would suggest this is quite typical of offending accounts
  • blaming external sources as a way to protect themselves, to portray less deviant nature
• real world application of cognitive distortions

  • knowledge of cognitive distortion cannot necessarily aid us in identifying or predicting criminals, but it can be used in treatment
  • Heller et al (2013)
  • worked with a group of disadvantages men from Chicago. Using cognitive behaviour techniques, they were able to reduces judgement and decision-making errors
  • those who attended the sessions (13, one hour long) had a 44% reduction in arrests compared to a control group
• moral reasoning

  • Colby and Kohlberg (1987) reported that the sequence of stages appears to be universal, though post-conventional was less common in rural communities
  • Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2007)
  • 128 juvenile male offenders- offending motivation questionnaire
  • 38% did not consider the consequences of what they were doing
  • 36% were confident they would not be caught, suggesting they were at the pre-conventional stage of moral reasoning
  • Supporting the link between moral reasoning and offending behaviour
• limitations - Kohlberg's theory

  • concerns moral thinking rather than behaviour
  • Krebs and Denton (2005)
  • suggest that moral principles are only one factor in behaviour, and this can be overridden by more practical factors such as financial gains, or personal gains
• real world application

  • Kohlberg observed that children raised on Israeli kibbutzim were morally more advanced than those who were not
  • this led him to suggest that children raised in a democratic group making moral decisions/judgements facilitated moral development