individual - cognitive factors

• what is cognitive factors?

  the mind is like a computer, the brain is the hardware and the internal mental processes are the software, crime is therefore seen as a product of these processes going wrong
• what are two cognitive factors?

  1. levels of moral reasoning (Kohlberg)

  2. cognitive distortions
• who proposed levels of moral reasoning and why?

  - lawrence kohlberg

  
  

  - peoples decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning - higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning
• what are the 3 stages of levels of moral reasoning?

  1. pre-conventional morality - rules are obeyed to avoid punishment/personal gain

  
  

  2. conventional morality - rules are obeyed for approval/maintain social order

  
  

  3. post conventional - rules are challenged if they infringe the rights of others/others have a set of ethical principles
• what did kohlberg find?

  using his moral dilemmas he found a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral development than non violent youths - even after controlling for social background
• where do offenders sit on kohlbergs model?

  offenders are more liekly to be classified at the preconventional level, as they feel the need to avoid punishment and gain rewards - associated with less mature childlike reasoning.
• what did chandler suggest?

  offenders are more egocentric and display poorer social perspective taking skills than non offenders.

  
  

  individuals with higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non violence.
• what are two cognitive distortions?

  1. HAB (hostile attribution bias)

  2. minimalisation/maximalisation
• What is a HAB?

  assumes others are being confrontational when they are not

  
  

  offenders may misread non aggressive cues such as being looked at and this can trigger a disproportionate, violent response
• what did Schonenberg and Jusyte do and find?


  - presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions

  
  

  - when compared with a non-aggressive matched control group

  
  

  - the violent offenders were signifcantly more likely to percieve the images as angry and hostile
• what did Dodge and Frame do and find?


  roots of this behaviour may be aparent from childhood.

  
  

  - they showed children a video clip of an ambiguous provocation

  
  

  - children who had been identified as aggressive and rejected prior to the study interpreted the situation as more hostile than those classed as non-aggressive
• what is minimalisation/magnification?

  these refer to our consequences of the situation we find ourselves in

  
  

  these are cognitive errors that nearly all people experience in their day to day life
• what is an example of minimalisation?

  Burglars may describe themselves as doing a job or supporting my family as a was of minimalising the seriousness of their offences
• what did howard and barbaree find?


  among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim
• evaluation - evidence is mixed

  a strength - a link between level of moral reasoning and crime

  
  

  - palmer and hollin, compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the socio moral reflection measure (SM-FM) which contains 11 moral dilemmas related questions such as not taking things that belong to others

  
  

  - the other offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non offender group
• evaluation - evidence is mixed (reid)


  reid suggested that level of moral reasoning depends on the offence

  
  

  - he found that people who committed crimes for financial gain e.g. robbery were more likely to show pre-conventional (offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment) moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes e.g. assault

  
  

  - this suggests that kohlbergs theory may not apply to all forms of crime
• evaluation - cognitive disorders - real world application

  cognitive behaviour therapy aims to challenge irrational thinking, encouraged to face up to their actions.
• eval - Harkins study / real world application (cog distortions)


  harkins suggested that reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy is highly associated with a reduced risk of reoffending.

  
  

  suggests cog distortions has practical value.
• evaluation - cog distortions (type of offence)

  limitation of cog distortions depends on the type of offence.

  
  

  - howwitt and sheldon gathered questionnaire respondents from sexual offenders

  
  

  - they found that non-contact sex offenders used more cog distortions than contact sex offenders

  
  

  - those with previous history of offending were also more likely to use miminalisation as a justification.

  
  

  suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders
• Evaluation - Descriptive or explanatory

  - cog theories of criminality are good at describing the criminal mind and help reduce reoffending

  
  

  - however the theories don't help in predicting future offending behaviour