Cognitive distortions

• Cognitive distortions – faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking mean that we perceive ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negatively.
• Hostile attribution bias – the tendency to judge ambiguous situations or the action of others as aggressive and/or threatening when in reality they may not be.
• Minimalisation (or minimisation) – a type of deception that involves downplaying the significance of an event or emotion. A common strategy when dealing with feelings of guilt.
• Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in peoples information processing system characterised by faulty thinking. We all occasionally exhibit faulty thinking when explaining our own behaviour (especially when it was unexpected/out of character) --> but research has shown this is a much more typical way for criminals to interpret their behaviour and justify their own actions. Two examples of cognitive distortions = hostile attribution bias & Minimalisation
• Hostile attribution bias – ambiguous situations judged as threatening

  Evidence suggests that a propensity for violence is often associated with a tendency to misinterpret the actions of other people – assume others are being confrontational when they’re not = hostile attribution bias. Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (e.g. being looked at) and this may trigger a disproportionate often violent response.
• Schonenberg + Jusyte 2014, presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with non-aggressive matched control group violent offenders were likely to perceive images as angry + hostile. The roots of this behaviour may be apparent in childhood, Dodge + Frame 1982 showed children a video clip of an ambiguous provocation (intention was neither clearly hostile or accidental). Children who had been identified as aggressive + rejected prior to the study interpreted the situation as more hostile than those classed as non-aggressive and accepted.
• Minimalisation – downplaying the significance of the crime

  This is an attempt to deny/downplay the seriousness of an offence and has elsewhere been referred to as the application of a ‘euphemistic label’ for behaviour (bandura 1973). E.g. burglars may describe themselves as ‘doing a job’ or ‘supporting my family’ as a way of minimising the seriousness of their offences.
• Minimalisation - This is particularly likely in sex offenders – Barbaree 1991 found among 26 incarcerates rapists 54% denied they have committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused the victim. Pollock and Hashmall 1991 found 35% of a sample of child molesters argued the crime they had committed weas non-sexual (e.g. being affectionate) and 36% stated the victim consented.
• One strength of cognitive distortions is its application to therapy.

  Cognitive behaviour therapy aims to challenge irrational thinking. In the case of offending behaviour, offenders are encouraged to ‘face up’ to what they have done and establish a less distorted view of their actions. Studies (e.g. Harkins et al 2010) suggest that reduced risk of reoffending (as acceptance of ones crimes is thought to an important aspect of rehabilitation). This suggests that the theory of cognitive distortions has practical value.
• Cognitive theories of offending are good at describing the criminal mind. They may also help in reducing reoffending in the long term as for instance understanding that offenders minimalise their crimes may be a useful starting point in therapy. à COUNTERPOINT à
• One limitation is the level of cognitive distortion depends on the type of offence.

  Howitt and Sheldon 2007 gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders. Contrary to what the researchers predicted, they found that non contact sexy offenders (accessed sexual images on the internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (had physically abused children). Those who had a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification. This suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.
• COUNTERPOINT However, cognitive theories do not help in predicting future offending behaviour – just because someone tends to have distorted thinking doesn’t inevitably mean they will become an offender.