Cognitive theories

• elaborate on kohlbergs theory as an explanation for offending?

  Kohlberg proposed 6 stages of moral reasoning that explain what we believe right and wrong is determined by.

  Kohlberg measured which stage subjects were in based on responses to moral dilemma scenarios such as the Heinz dilemma, and found that offenders are usually at a lower level of moral reasoning than the rest of society. He suggested this was because they are more self centred and fail to see the greater picture within society. The only consequence is punishment so if the offence offers greater reward they will do it. 
• what are kohlbergs stages of moral reasoning?

  pre conventional moral reasoning (5-12) consisting of punishment-avoidance (punishment) and instrumental (what’s best for the individual)

  then conventional moral reasoning (12- adulthood) consisting of good child (approval of others) and maintenance of social order (laws, rules, and regulations).

  Finally the post conventional stage is reached which consists of social contract (rules but also individual needs) and universal ethical principles (right and wrong is self chosen and determined by the sanctity and respect for human rights). 
• what are the strengths of kohlbergs cognitive explanations for offending?

  operationalisation of the method increases internal reliability which allows it to be easily replicated.

  palmer and hollin 1998 gave a series of moral dilemma related questions (SRM) to 322 non offenders and 126 convicted offenders aged 13-22. they found non offenders showed a higher level of moral reasoning.

  This increases the external validity of the theory and provides practical applications as this knowledge can be used to introduce role play into prisons in attempts to develop moral reasoning. 
• weaknesses for kohlbergs cognitive explanations for offending?

  Thornton and Reid found pre-conventional moral reasoning is usually associated with robbery, as the offender might have had a good chance at evading punishment,

  but impulsive crimes such as assault doesnt fit into to any type of moral reasoning.

  Carol Gilligan (1982) suggested males and females differ in their moral reasoning development.

  women focus more on staying connected and maintaining interpersonal relationships, and men emphasise justice and individual rights.

  Shaffer (2002) says the theory ignores emotions.
• Outline cognitive distortions as explanations for offending?

  Cognitive explanations explain behaviour through faulty mental processes called cognitive distortions. There are two examples of cognitive distortions associated with offending behaviour; hostile attribution bias (when neutral behaviour is interpreted as threatening or dangerous) and minimisation (downplaying the offence as a way to reduce guilt, shame, and responsibility through self deception). 
• strengths of cognitive distortions?

  Schönenberg + Justye (2014) found when 55 violent offenders were shown emotionally ambiguous faces the majority viewed them as aggressive or hostile. Dodge + Frame (1982) suggested they were a ‘rejected’ and ‘aggressive’ child. 

  Pollock + hasmall (1991) 35% of child molesters justified the offence as non-malicious, and 36% deny it as a crime on the base of consent. 

  practical applications - cognitie gives patients a less distorted view by confronting their crime. Studies found patients showed less denial + minimisation in therapy
• what are the weaknesses of cognitive distortions?

  CBT in prisons in time consuming, expensive, and requires motivation. prisoners wont want to appear weak in fear of repercussions from other inmates. Offenders may also feel discouraged with the justice system.

  doesnt explain why offenders have cognitive distortions or why some don’t develop post conventional moral reasoning.

  even if there was use to the theory, quantifying and measuring cognitive distortions is difficult as thoughts are subjective and open to interpretation and using self-report methods can hold bias