DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE REASONS FOR OFFENDING
There are many reasons why people offend but the three main ones are: moral reasoning,
hostile attribution bias and minimalization. Moral reasoning was theorised by Kohlberg who
proposed three levels of morality. The first level is pre-conventional which is where children
listen, and judge actions based on the consequences. The second level is conventional which
is where people conform because its socially desirable. The third kevel is where people start
to apply abstract moral principles to their own beliefs. Hostile attribution bias is where a
person misinterprets other’s actions or behaviours as having hostile or violent intent when
they don’t. For example, if someone smiled, this person would assume it to be a sinister grin
which explains the violent outbursts in some offences. Minimalization is where a person
‘downplays’ their crime and often victim blame because they genuinely don’t see it as bad
as it is. For example, two friends are underage drinking and one of them goes a bit too far
and the other starts to worry about getting caught so tells them to slow down. This other
friend doesn’t think the crime is that bad and so they tell their friend to stop being so boring
and stop worrying.
One piece of evidence to support moral reasoning comes from Kohlberg and Colby who
found that the sequence of moral development was universal, but offenders were often
stuck at the preconventional stage suggesting that they offend due to a lack or moral
development. However, the sample they used was all male and so the findings cannot be
extrapolated to half of the population which causes issues with validity.
One piece of evidence to support minimalization is that sex offenders, when asked,
downplayed their crimes and blamed their victims as they felt no remorse about what
they’d done which explains why they offend. However, this theory doesn’t take a holistic
approach as some offenders weigh up the costs and benefits and still believe their crime is
acceptable. For example, stealing medicine they can’t afford to save a loved one making the
crime selfless and not for personal gain. This reductionist view makes the theory less reliable
perhaps a better alternative to this would be to consider genetics as well as this theory.
One piece of evidence to support hostile attribution bias is that when violent offenders were
shown photos of people showing anger, they misinterpreted it as aggression suggesting this
mistake is why violent offenders commit crimes. However, this theory ignores all other
factors like environment. These environments like where the offenders grew up and their
family situation could have a huge role in explaining why people offend but it doesn’t take
this into account.
There are many reasons why people offend but the three main ones are: moral reasoning,
hostile attribution bias and minimalization. Moral reasoning was theorised by Kohlberg who
proposed three levels of morality. The first level is pre-conventional which is where children
listen, and judge actions based on the consequences. The second level is conventional which
is where people conform because its socially desirable. The third kevel is where people start
to apply abstract moral principles to their own beliefs. Hostile attribution bias is where a
person misinterprets other’s actions or behaviours as having hostile or violent intent when
they don’t. For example, if someone smiled, this person would assume it to be a sinister grin
which explains the violent outbursts in some offences. Minimalization is where a person
‘downplays’ their crime and often victim blame because they genuinely don’t see it as bad
as it is. For example, two friends are underage drinking and one of them goes a bit too far
and the other starts to worry about getting caught so tells them to slow down. This other
friend doesn’t think the crime is that bad and so they tell their friend to stop being so boring
and stop worrying.
One piece of evidence to support moral reasoning comes from Kohlberg and Colby who
found that the sequence of moral development was universal, but offenders were often
stuck at the preconventional stage suggesting that they offend due to a lack or moral
development. However, the sample they used was all male and so the findings cannot be
extrapolated to half of the population which causes issues with validity.
One piece of evidence to support minimalization is that sex offenders, when asked,
downplayed their crimes and blamed their victims as they felt no remorse about what
they’d done which explains why they offend. However, this theory doesn’t take a holistic
approach as some offenders weigh up the costs and benefits and still believe their crime is
acceptable. For example, stealing medicine they can’t afford to save a loved one making the
crime selfless and not for personal gain. This reductionist view makes the theory less reliable
perhaps a better alternative to this would be to consider genetics as well as this theory.
One piece of evidence to support hostile attribution bias is that when violent offenders were
shown photos of people showing anger, they misinterpreted it as aggression suggesting this
mistake is why violent offenders commit crimes. However, this theory ignores all other
factors like environment. These environments like where the offenders grew up and their
family situation could have a huge role in explaining why people offend but it doesn’t take
this into account.
