Level of Moral Reasoning and Cognitive Distortions

Types of Cognitive Distortions

Cognitive distortions are abnormal behaviours or thoughts that alter a person's perception of reality. Naturally, this can directly affect behaviour and how people interpret situations. Cognitive distortions are irrational thoughts that cause you to perceive reality negatively, even though reality does not reflect this.

John Gibbs et al. (1995) established four types of cognitive distortions common in criminals:

• Self-centredness.
• Blaming others.
• Minimising issues.
• Hostile attribution bias (assuming the worst).

Cognitive distortions go hand in hand with moral reasoning, especially concerning criminal behaviour, as they cause potentially abnormal thought processes and behaviours.Jean Piaget studied the cognitive abilities children develop to make moral judgments. Later, Kohlberg and James Rest continued to study moral reasoning abilities in adults. Kohlberg was the first researcher to apply moral judgement to criminal behaviour.

Examples of Cognitive Distortions

Cognitive distortions may explain the moral reasoning behind some offences. Gibbs et al. (1995) identified cognitive distortions of particular importance in offending behaviours. These irrational distortions are problematic because they affect thoughts and behaviour because the distorted view of reality leads to abnormal behaviour.

Let's explore the different types of cognitive distortions further.

Hostile Attribution Bias

In the context of criminal behaviour, the hostile attribution of bias is related to the offender’s misinterpretation of other people’s attitudes by typically assuming the worst. It is assumed that others will behave aggressively and confrontationally toward the perpetrator when this is not the case. This assumption often leads to disproportionate and aggressive responses.

Kenneth Dodge and Cynthia Frame (1982) believed that the origin of these cognitive biases might stem from childhood. They conducted a study showing children a video clip of ambiguous, provocative situations in which the behaviour was neither hostile nor random. Before the study, the children who were classified as aggressive perceived the video clip as more aggressive overall than those who were classified as nonaggressive.

Minimalisation

Research shows that sex offenders try to minimise their guilt and sometimes even shift the blame to the victims.

Kennedy and Grubin (1992) found most convicted sex offenders tend to blame the victim for the crime. Another quarter believed that it had ended positively for the victim. Some thought no harm was done to the victim (especially the case of offenders who had sexually assaulted children).

Howard Barbaree (1991) found that of 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% completely denied the crime. The other 40% justified the harm they inflicted on victims by downplaying it.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development: Ages

Kohlberg agreed with Piaget’s initial interpretation of children’s moral development and wanted to expand on these points. This led to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, detailing three levels of reasoning comprised of six overall stages. Kohlberg's stages of moral development occur around the following ages:

1. Level One (Pre-Conventional Reasoning): Obedience and punishment AND Self-interest - Nine years old.
2. Level Two (Conventional Reasoning): Good people orientation AND Law and order - Older children, adolescents, and most adults.
3. Level Three (Postconventional Reasoning): Social contract orientation AND Universal ethics principle - Rarely adolescents, some adults.

Most people tend to end up in level two, and rarely do people reach level three. Kohlberg developed and investigated his stages of moral development theory through ten moral stories presented to participants. One famous example is the Heinz Dilemma.

Fig. 2 - Kohlberg described different stages of moral reasonming¹.

Level One – Preconventional Reasoning

Preconventional reasoning is the first stage of moral development in which the sense of moral values is externally directed.

• Children are in this stage until they are about nine years old.

Children do not yet have a personal moral code at this stage because they have not internalised social conventions about right and wrong. Instead, adult norms and the consequences of breaking their rules guide moral decisions.

Stage One: Obedience and Punishment

Children understand rules based on how authority figures enact rewards or punishments. Actions associated with ‘offending behaviour’ or breaking rules at this stage are:

• If my actions result in punishment, it must have been a wrong decision.

• If my actions lead to a reward, it must be the right decision.

Stage Two: Self-Interest

Children’s best interest determines the proper behaviour at this stage, so they show little interest in others and are concerned with their gain. Actions associated with ‘offending behaviour’ or breaking rules at this stage are:

• What are the gains of breaking the rules?

• The offence is likely to occur if the potential gain is worth it.

Level Two – Conventional Reasoning

Conventional reasoning is the second stage of moral development. The sense of morality at the conventional level is tied to personal and social relationships.

It is the stage when people begin to internalise the moral standards of adult roles in society. Attachment to rules and conventions is more rigid, and the rule’s relevance or integrity is rarely questioned. At this stage, social rules are essential to ensure the functioning of society. However, this affects our moral views of what is right and wrong.

Stage Three: Good People Orientation

In this stage, the emphasis is on positive behaviour and a good and balanced relationship with others. The individual tends to be good so that others perceive them as such.

Therefore, this positive behaviour is strongly associated with others’ recognition. Children need the approval of peers and authority figures and will behave accordingly to avoid being disliked.

Stage Four: Law and Order Orientation

At this stage, the child accepts rules and conventions due to the importance of maintaining a functioning society. The laws are seen as equal to everyone, and obeying rules is considered valuable and essential.

Moral reasoning is about the need for individual approval, like in the previous stage. There is a duty to support laws and rules.

Level Three: Postconventional Reasoning

Postconventional morality is the third level of moral development. At this level, people develop their own ethical and moral principles. At this stage, the individual understands some laws are unjust and should be changed or abolished, characterised by a growing awareness.

These may be abstract ethical principles and values, usually aimed at the greater good of humanity.

Stage Five: Social Contract Orientation

Kohlberg believed this stage was unattainable for most, where the world is diverse with different cultures, values, rights, and opinions. Perspectives at this level should be mutual and respected as unique to each.

Individuals see laws not as rigid edicts but as social agreements. People at this stage should allow and encourage changes in cooperation for the highest good of the general welfare.

Stage Six: Universal Ethical Principles

Moral reasoning relies on the abstract application of universal ethical principles at this stage. Usually, these principles focus on moral values such as equality, dignity, or respect.

At this stage, people believe laws are valid only if they rely on justice. They are aware that commitment to justice entails not obeying unjust laws. People who choose ethical principles want to follow those laws.

When they violate them, they feel remorse. They select certain attitudes because they believe it is in their best interest. Kohlberg believed that at this stage, it is difficult to identify individuals who consistently act at this level.

Importance of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg was the first researcher to apply moral reasoning to criminal behaviour and proposed three levels of moral reasoning. The higher the level, the more complex the stages of moral development become.

Difference Between Cognitive Development and Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning development is a product of cognitive development. We can see how cognitive development and moral reasoning tie in together by understanding how criminals develop different moral outlooks.

It is theorised that criminals do not progress through the stages of moral reasoning and cognitive development milestones like other members of society. Instead, they remain at lower levels of moral reasoning (Allen et al., 2001).

Evaluation of Moral Reasoning and Cognitive Distortions

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches discussed above is essential.

Strengths of Levels of Moral Reasoning Approach

Research supports the cognitive explanation for offending behaviour. Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared the moral reasoning of female and male nonoffenders and offenders.

They found the offender group exhibited lower moral reasoning maturity than the nonoffender group, which was the same for both genders. Female nonoffenders showed higher moral judgement than male nonoffenders.

Strengths of the Cognitive Distortions Approach

Crick and Dodge (1994) found a relationship between hostile attribution bias and aggression observed in children and adolescents. The link between actual situations is considered one of the antecedents of aggressive behaviour in children, adolescents, and adults, possibly leading to criminal behaviour.

Another strength of the cognitive explanation of delinquent behaviour is that it is widely applicable.

The rehabilitation included cognitive behavioural therapy methods that directly address dysfunctional thoughts (cognitive distortions). They learn how to gain a less distorted view of their actions by confronting their crime. Studies found less denial and minimisation in therapy are highly correlated with a lower risk of recidivism, i.e., reoffending.

Fig, 3 - Rehabilitation includes methods such as cognitive behavioural therapy.

Weaknesses of the Cognitive Distortions Approach

Minimalisation can be seen as descriptive rather than explanatory. It describes how an offender distorts the reality of their offending behaviour but does not explain the reasons for committing the crime. However, minimalisation could predict reoffending.

Weaknesses of Levels of Moral Reasoning Approach

The cognitive explanation for delinquent behaviour using the moral reasoning model is gender-specific because it was conducted on American males.

• Gilligan (1982) thought the model was too androcentric.
• Gibbs (1979) suggested Kohlberg’s postconventional level should be abandoned because it is culturally biased toward Western culture.

This is problematic because the model does not represent a ‘natural’ maturation stage of cognitive development. Alternatively, Gibbs proposed two levels of moral reasoning: the mature and the immature. These levels tend to be more general when applied to different cultures. It questions the credibility of the cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.