Cognitive explanations
Level of moral reasoning
Lawrence Kohlberg was the first researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to criminal behaviour.
Kohlberg proposed that people's decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised
in a stage theory of moral development (see facing page) - the higher the stage, the more
sophisticated the reasoning. Kohlberg based his theory on people's responses to a series of moral dilemmas,
such as the Heinz dilemma (also on facing page).
Many studies have suggested that criminals tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-
criminals. Kohlberg et al. (1973), using his moral dilemma technique (see facing page), found that a group of
violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youths - even after
controlling for social background.
Kohlberg's model and criminality
Criminal offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg's model (stages 1
and 2), whereas non-criminals have generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond. The pre-
conventional level is characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, and is associated
with less mature, childlike reasoning. Thus, adults and adolescents who reason at this level may commit
crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money, increased respect, etc.
This assumption is supported by studies which suggest that offenders are often more egocentric (self-
centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offender peers (e.g., Chandler 1973).
Individuals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more
conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity, and non-violence.
, Cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in people's information processing system characterised by faulty
thinking. We all occasionally show evidence of faulty thinking when explaining our own behaviour (especially
if the behaviour was unexpected or out of character) but research has linked this to the way in which
criminals interpret other people's behaviour and justify their own actions.
Two examples of cognitive distortions are:
Hostile attribution bias Evidence suggests that a propensity for violence is often associated with a tendency
to misinterpret the actions of other people - in other words, to assume others are being confrontational
when they are not. Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (such as being 'looked at') and this may
trigger a disproportionate, often violent, response. Michael Schönenberg and Aiste Justye (2014) presented
55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a non-
aggressive matched control group, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images
as angry and hostile.
The roots of this behaviour may lie in childhood. Kenneth Dodge and Cynthia Frame (1982) showed children
a video clip of an 'ambiguous provocation' (where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor clearly
accidental). 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' and 'accepted'.
Minimalisation is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence and has elsewhere been
referred to as the application of a 'euphemistic label' for behaviour (Bandura 1973). For instance, burglars
may describe themselves as 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family' as a way of minimising the seriousness of
their offences. Studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to
minimalisation. Howard Barbaree (1991) found 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. Similarly,
Nathan Pollock and Judith Hashmall (1991) reported that 35% of a sample of child
molesters argued that the crime they had committed was non-sexual (they were 'just being affectionate*)
and 36% stated that the victim had consented.
Level of moral reasoning
Lawrence Kohlberg was the first researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to criminal behaviour.
Kohlberg proposed that people's decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised
in a stage theory of moral development (see facing page) - the higher the stage, the more
sophisticated the reasoning. Kohlberg based his theory on people's responses to a series of moral dilemmas,
such as the Heinz dilemma (also on facing page).
Many studies have suggested that criminals tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-
criminals. Kohlberg et al. (1973), using his moral dilemma technique (see facing page), found that a group of
violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youths - even after
controlling for social background.
Kohlberg's model and criminality
Criminal offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg's model (stages 1
and 2), whereas non-criminals have generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond. The pre-
conventional level is characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, and is associated
with less mature, childlike reasoning. Thus, adults and adolescents who reason at this level may commit
crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money, increased respect, etc.
This assumption is supported by studies which suggest that offenders are often more egocentric (self-
centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offender peers (e.g., Chandler 1973).
Individuals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more
conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity, and non-violence.
, Cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in people's information processing system characterised by faulty
thinking. We all occasionally show evidence of faulty thinking when explaining our own behaviour (especially
if the behaviour was unexpected or out of character) but research has linked this to the way in which
criminals interpret other people's behaviour and justify their own actions.
Two examples of cognitive distortions are:
Hostile attribution bias Evidence suggests that a propensity for violence is often associated with a tendency
to misinterpret the actions of other people - in other words, to assume others are being confrontational
when they are not. Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (such as being 'looked at') and this may
trigger a disproportionate, often violent, response. Michael Schönenberg and Aiste Justye (2014) presented
55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a non-
aggressive matched control group, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images
as angry and hostile.
The roots of this behaviour may lie in childhood. Kenneth Dodge and Cynthia Frame (1982) showed children
a video clip of an 'ambiguous provocation' (where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor clearly
accidental). 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' and 'accepted'.
Minimalisation is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence and has elsewhere been
referred to as the application of a 'euphemistic label' for behaviour (Bandura 1973). For instance, burglars
may describe themselves as 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family' as a way of minimising the seriousness of
their offences. Studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to
minimalisation. Howard Barbaree (1991) found 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. Similarly,
Nathan Pollock and Judith Hashmall (1991) reported that 35% of a sample of child
molesters argued that the crime they had committed was non-sexual (they were 'just being affectionate*)
and 36% stated that the victim had consented.
