Forensics: A Psychological Explanation Of Offending: Cognitive Distortions, Kohlberg

Front 1

What are Cognitive distortions?

Back 1

A form of irrational thinking that allows an offender to rationalise or justify their criminal behaviours. Their perceptions no longer represent an accurate reality of what they have actually done- even though it seems like the truth to them

Front 2

What is a hostile attribution bias? How does it lead to criminal behaviour?

Back 2

When a person always interprets something in a negative way, for example someone smiling may be seen as being laughed at. This tends to increase levels of aggression, leading to criminal acts

Front 3

What is minimalisation? How does it lead to criminal behaviour?

Back 3

A cognitive distortion that reduces the consequences of the actions of an individual after committing a crime. This helps the individual come to terms with and accept their crime as it reduces their negative emotions

Front 4

Evaluation of CD: hostile attribution bias

Back 4

Violent offenders were more likely to perceive emotionally ambiguous faces (happy, fearful and angry at varying intensities) as angry than a control group of non-offenders. The researchers suggested that these misinterpretations of non-verbal cues lead to aggressive and impulsive behaviour

Front 5

Evaluation of CD: minimalisation and sex offenders

Back 5

Kennedy and Gruben
Sex offenders tend to downplay their behaviours, suggesting their victims behaviour contributed to them committing their crime. Even going as far as rejecting the fact that a crime was committed at all.

Front 6

Evaluation of CD: application to real life

Back 6

Teaching criminal young men from inner city Chicago cognitive behavioural techniques to reduce errors in decision making and judgement lead to a 44% reduction in the arrest of the sample group, compared to a control group

Front 7

What is the basic outline of Kohlbergs theory of offender behaviour?

Back 7

As we age, we advance in our understanding of morals, meaning more consistent and morally mature decisions. He believed that there were 3 stages to moral reasoning and came to this conclusion by studying boys and men and asking them about the reasons for their morals

Front 8

What is the first level of Kohlberg's theory? At what age(s) does it roughly start?

Back 8

The pre-conventional level. Starts prior to school age
Individuals accept rules of authority figures without questioning. It's all to do with punishment and obedience- rules enforced by punishment.
At the next stage, what counts as "right" is defined by the individuals needs

Front 9

What is the second level of Kohlbergs theory? At what age(s) does this start?

Back 9

Conventional level.
Individuals conclude that conformity to social rules is desirable but not if it is out of self interest.
Good boy/girl attitudes- "right" is defined by expectations of others
The next stage is that of social order, defined by the roles and duties of each citizen within society

Front 10

What is the third level of Kohlbergs theory? At what age(s) does this occur?

Back 10

Post-conventional stage.
Individuals move beyond unquestioning compliance of societal norms and now define morality in terms of their own abstract moral principles that are universal to all cultures/situations.
Teens- social contract. Individual rights more important than the law
Adults- universal ethical principles

Front 11

What evidence is there to link levels of moral reasoning and offending behaviour?

Back 11

Hollin et al- criminals are more likely to be at the pre-conventional level , they believe the cost of brekaing the law outweighs the punishment

Front 12

What did Kohlberg find in his longitudinal study?

Back 12

10% of adults reach post-conventional level
20% of children at age 10 were at the pre-conventional stage
60% of children were at stage 2

Front 13

Evaluation of LMR: support for link to offending, Taiwan

Back 13

Chen and Howitt
330 male adolescent offenders (12-18) were assessed. Those with high levels of moral reasoning were less likely to be involved in violent crimes

Front 14

Evaluation of LMR: descriptive NOT explanatory

Back 14

Krebs and Denton
Moral principles are only one factor in moral reasoning, more practical factors (financial gans) may override moral reasoning. They found morla reasoning was used to justify behaviours AFTER they were performed

Front 15

Evaluation of LMR: issues and debates

Back 15

Gillian- only focused on the male perspective therefore it'c androcrnetric/beta biased
Ignored biological factors therefore reductionist as behaviours are reduced to one explanation
Has been generalised to the wider population and other cultures, therefore seen as universal.

Front 16

Evaluation of LMR: Blackburn support

Back 16

Poor moral development is linked to a lack of role playing oppertunities during childhood

Front 17

Evaluation of LMR: an alternative approach, Gibbs

Back 17

Only two levels of moral reasoning: immature and mature
Moral reasoning at the 1st level- avoidance of punishment
Moral reasoning at the 2nd level- empathy, social justice and conscience
Supported by Piaget

Front 18

Evaluation of LMR: Thronton and Reid investigation into types of crime

Back 18

Criminals commiting violent and impulsive crimes had little reasoning.
Criminals commiting crimes for financial gains were at the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning