Cognitive explanations

• Kohlberg proposed the level of moral reasoning which is a stage theory where the higher the stage the more sophisticated the moral reasoning.

  It’s based on response to moral dilemmas which leads to a lower level of moral reasoning which is where you’re more likely to commit a crime.
• Pre conventional is the punishment and award stage where if a punishment is not definite they may commit a crime and if there’s a good outcome to the crime then they may commit a crime.
• Conventional morality is where the boy / girl stage comes into play where if someone sees others as criminal they’re likely to commit a crime.

  Theres also the law and order stage where if the law has implications no crime will occur.
• Post conventional morality contains the stage of social contract where if they believe the law is not applicable to them, they will break it.

  There is also the ethical principle where if they deem the law unjust then a crime will be committed.
• AO3

  :)

  Reseatch to support the level of moral reasoning comes from Kohlberg et al.

  They showed that criminals tend to have a lower level of moral reasoning.

  Kohlberg found that a group of non violent youths were significantly lower in moral development than non violent ones even after controlling for social backgrounds.

  Therefore this shows evidence to

  support levels of moral reasoning and increases the validity.
• AO3

  :)

  Further research to support this comes from Palmer and Hollín who compared the moral reasoning for offenders and non offenders.

  They found the delinquent group were less mature in their moral reasoning.

  This is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions and therefore increases the validity.
• Another cognitive explanation for offending is hostile attribution bias which is where offenders have the tendency to misinterpret and assume confrontation.

  They often blame external factors for their behaviour and tend to be aggressive and violent.
• Minimalisation is where the offender downplays and denies the seriousness and effects of the crime.

  They rationalise or trivialise the acts they have committed.
• AO3

  :)

  Research to support this comes from Schonenberg and Justye and they found violent offenders are more likely to perceive images of faces as angry or hostile.

  They found this by comparing 55 violent offenders to non violent ones and showed them ambiguous facial expressions.

  This therefore provides evidence to support hostile attribution bias and thus increases validity.
• AO3

  :)

  Research to support comes from Dodge and Frame who showed children ambiguous provocations.

  They found children who were deemed aggressive were more likely to perceive it as hostile.

  This therefore provides evidence and increases the validity.
• AO3

  :)

  Research to support comes from Barbaree who interviewed 26 convicted rapists.

  They found that 54 % of them denied committing rape and 40 % minimised the harm they’d caused.

  This therefore shows evidence to support cognitive explanations and therefore increases the validity.
• AO3

  :)

  Further research to support comes from Pollock and Hashmall who interviewed child molesters.

  They found that 35 % of them stated that the act was non sexual and 36 % said the victim had consented despite them being children.

  This therefore shows evidence to support cognitive explanations of minimalisation and increases the validity.