Morality and Crime

Psychology of Crime

Morality and Crime

Kohlberg’s Theory

Freud’s theory

Pavlov’s theory

Social/Moral DevelopmentPiaget argues that moral development is closely related with cognitive development

for e.g., children have difficulties forming moral judgments until they get out of egocentric thinking and are able to assume another’s perspectiverule-based games are a manifestation of concrete operations in children’s social interactionsthese games provide structures circumstances in which children balance the rules of society against their own desires

methods for studying children’s moral ideasbehavioral observations of gamesclinical interviews about rules and moral dilemmas

Rules in marble games

Piaget observed children’s rule-following behavior during the game of marbles (bilye)

and asked the children what the rules meant to them

alterability: Can the rules be changed?

historicity: Have they always been the same as today?

Origins: How did the rules begin?

Boys playing marblesPiaget observed how children actually played the game, and found that preschoolers typically played in an egocentric manner

if 2 boys were playing, each would play in his own waythey had little sense of winning, one might yell ¨I won and you won too!¨

after age 7, children tried to follow common rules that determine who wins

at the beginning, Piaget found that children believed that rules were fixed and unchangeable

• they said the rules came from some prestigious authority, from the government or God

• after age 10, children were more relativistic they said the rules probably had changed over the years began to treat rules as social conventions that could be changed if the other players

agreed

Stages of moral development: PiagetP. argues that moral development follows the children’s understanding about the rules of games P. found two qualitatively different forms of moral judgments, which follow an amoral stage

presocial/amoral stage: from age 2 to 4, child is extremely egocentric and not engaged in real social interactionheteronomous moralityautonomous morality

Heteronomous morality (Age 4-7): ¨subject to another’s law¨

child regards adult rules as sacred and unchangeablemoral wrongness is defined in terms of adult sanctions

• acts that are wrong are ones acts that adults punish

moral responsibility is understood as obedience to authority

Stages of moral development: Piaget

Heteronomous morality (continued)the child’s cognitive limitations lead him to think of wrongdoing in highly literal, objective terms without regard to intentions

• evaluate actions in terms of its consequences

• for e.g., a well-intended act with a big physical damage is considered to be more naughty than a negatively intended act resulting in less physical damage

the idea of immanent justice: a wrongdoing will inevitably be followed by a punishment

Moral judgmentsPiaget used stories to assess the nature of moral judgments of children. Examples (see others in Textbook)

Ali was outside when his mother called him in for dinner. As he opened the dining room door he accidentally knocked over a tray of cups, breaking all eight of them. Compare him with Osman who came home from school hungry. Though his mother told him not to eat before dinner, he climbed up the cupboard anyway to steal a cookie; while up there, he broke one cup. Who is naughtier, Ali or Osman?

Moral judgments

After school Michael ran into a market, stole three large, read apples and ran out he door. As he fled a policeman saw and chased him. In attempting to escape, Michael crossed a bridge. As he reached the top, the bridge cracked, Michael fell into the water, and he was captured. Would the bridge have broken if Michael had not stolen the apples?

What would a younger/older child say?

Stages of moral development: Piaget

Autonomous morality (Age 8 on): ¨subject to one’s own law¨

moral flexibility: rules can be changed

rules are now regarded as products of group agreement

wrongdoing interpreted in terms of subjective intentions, not objective consequences

the idea of immanent justice abandoned

Factors causing moral development (Piaget)

general cognitive development from egocentrism to perspective-taking

changed social relationspeer relations are based on reciprocal negotiations based on consensus, not on unilateral respect for authority figures or constraint

early on, child-parent relations are predominant. But peer interactions increase during middle childhood…affecting moral development

Kohlberg: moral developmentModified and elaborated on Piaget’s ideas about moral thinkingused interviews with individuals based on moral dilemmas (e.g., the Heinz dilemma)

In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband had done that? Why?

Kohlberg: moral development

Found 3 kinds of morality that form a developmental orderThe preconventional morality: the child shows no internalization of moral values, just based on punishment (stage 1) or reward/benefit (stage 2)

Stage 1 (Heteronomous morality) (Age 4-7): • obedience for its own sake• involves deference to powerful people, usually the parents, in

order to avoid punishment• the morality of an act is defined in terms of its physical

consequences• Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will be put in

jail

Kohlberg: moral development (cont’d)

The preconventional moralityStage 2 (Instrumental morality) (Age 7-10):

• the child conforming to gain rewards

• although there is evidence of reciprocity and sharing, it is a manipulative, self-serving reciprocity rather than one based on a true sense of justice, generosity, or sympathy

• justice is seen as an exchange system; you give as much as you receive

I’ll lend you my bike if I can play with your wagon.

• Heinz should steal the drug because someday he might have cancer and would want someone to steal it from him

The conventional morality: the child’s internalization of moral values is intermediate. He/she abides by certain standards of other people such as parents (stage 3) or the rules of society (stage 4)

Stage 3 (Good-child morality) (Age: 10-12)• good behavior is that which maintains approval and good

relations with others• the child is concerned about conforming to hiş friends’ and

families’ standards to maintain good-will and good relations• a social-relational moral perspective develops, based on

feelings and agreements between people• Heinz should steal the drug for his wife. He loves his wife

and his wife loves him. You can do anything for love!

Stage 4

Stage 4) "He should steal it. Heinz has a duty to protect his wife's life; it's a vow he took in marriage. But it's wrong to steal, so he would have to take the drug with the idea of paying the druggist for it and accepting the penalty (of) breaking the law later." (Rest, 1979)

Stages 5 and 6(Stage 5) "Although there is a law against stealing, the law wasn't meant to violate a person's right to life. . . . Heinz is justified in stealing in this instance. If Heinz is prosecuted for stealing, the law needs to be reinterpreted to take into account (certain) situations. . . ." (Rest, 1979)

(Stage 6) "If Heinz does not do everything he can to save his wife, then he is putting some value higher than the value of life. It doesn't make sense to put respect for property above respect for life itself." (Kohlberg, 1969)

Convention vs morality

In a study by Nucci (1981), children were asked about dilemmas based on conventions and dilemmas based on morality. An example of a convention dilemma is: There is a school in a faraway place where boys can wear dresses. Is it okay for a boy to wear a dress in that school?

Convention vs moralityAn example of the matching moral dilemma is: There is a school in a faraway place where there's no rule against hitting other kids. Is it okay to hit other kids if you go to that school? When these two types of dilemma are juxtaposed, even very young children (ages four to six) show that they understand that moral transgressions are worse than violations of social convention (e.g., it's okay for boys to wear dresses, but it's still not okay for kids to hit each other).

Moral Development and fairness: Damon

Studied 4- to 12-year-olds’ ideas about positive justice, how resources should be divided or rewards distributed. An example story:

A classroom of children spent a day drawing pictures. Some children made a lot drawings; some made fewer. Some children drew well; others did not draw as well. Some children were well-behaved and worked hard; others fooled around. Some children were poor, some were boys, some were girls, and so one. The class then sold the drawings at a school bazaar. How should the proceeds from the sale of the drawings be fairly distributed?

Moral Development and fairness: Damon

In studies in the USA. Israel, Puerto Rico, and parts of Europe, he found that the ideas of fairness develop through a sequence of levels

under age 4: children simply state their desires, giving no reasons for their choice

4- to 5-year olds state their desires but justify their choices on the basis of external characteristics (¨we should get more because we are girls/ the biggest¨)

Moral Development and fairness: Damon

5- to 7-year-olds tend to believe that strict equality is the only fair treatment when dividing resources

no mitigating circumstances

from age 8 on, notions of deservingness and merit enter into children’s reasoning

they start to take into account all the factors involved to ensure a fair outcome in a particular situation

Reasoning and actual behaviorHow does children’s reasoning about fairness correspond to their actual behavior?Damon did a study in which 6-year-old and 10-year-old groups were asked to divide candy bars given to their group as ¨payment¨ for making bracelets

6-year-olds insisted that fairness means equal outcomesolder children were better able to adjust the outcome to fit the profile of abilities and contributions in the group

in about 50 % of the cases, children’s behavior matched their reasoning level in hypothetical situationsin 10 % of the cases, their behavior was at a higher levelin 40 % of the cases, it was lower

real candies make a difference!

FairnessThorkildsen studied children’s ability to consider context in reasoning about fairnessshe told to children from 6- to 11-year olds that there is a classroom where everyone is trying hard to learn how to read, but some children finish the assignments more quickly than othersthen asked them to rate the fairness of fasters readers helping slower readers in each of these 3 situations

is it fair for the teacher to ask the fast readers to help the slow readers during a reading lesson?is it fair for the good readers to help the slow readers by whispering answers during a spelling bee?is it fair for the good readers to help the slow readers during a test?

FairnessThe nature of the activity made a difference in the judgments of all the childrenAll children thought it was fair to have a reading lesson in which children work independently or help each other

but it would be unfair to introduce competition

if the activity was a spelling bee or a test, they thought it would be unfair to help6-year-olds were as good as 11-year-olds in taking social context into account

Evidence for Kohlberg

Researchers have concluded that delinquent adolescents are more likely to display Stage 1 or Stage 2 moral reasoning whereas nondelinquent youth are more often in Stage 3 (Arbuthnot et al., 1987).

Evidence against Kohlberg

Poor reliability

Correlational data

Inconsistent for different crimes

Moral dilemma method

Self-reports

Evidence against Kohlberg

1.      The failure to control for variations in personality;

2.      The failure to control for the type of offence. (Thornton and Reid (1982) reported that convicted criminals who had offended for no financial gain (assault, murder, sex offences) showed more mature moral judgement than those who offended for money (robbery, burglary, theft, fraud)).

Evidence against Kohlberg3.      As both Ross and Fabiano (1985) and Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) point out, research has focused on the offender’s beliefs and attitudes (content), this can be contrasted with the offender’s actions (process). Ross and Fabiano suggest: ‘One can argue eloquently and convincingly about social/moral issues yet have a personal set of values which are entirely self-serving, hedonistic or anti-social’ (1985: 169) (Consider politicians such as Jeffery Archer who during the course of their office espouse virtue but do not practice it, by committing perjury for example.)

Evidence against Kohlberg

4.      Several well-known experiments have shown that people will behave in ways which they believe or know to be wrong, being influenced by the present situation rather than their individual disposition to behave morally (Asch 1952; Milgram 1963).

Evidence against Kohlberg5.      Tests of moral development which assess answers to hypothetical moral and social issues have also been criticized as having little relevance to the type of thinking an offender engages in when deciding whether to commit a crime (Jurkovic 1980). Indeed, studies of thinking prior to offending show that the criminal is not concerned with moral issues, but rather with the likelihood of being successful (J. Carroll and Weaver 1986).

Freud’s Theory

Morality and Crime

Structural (Tripartite) Theory

Freud’s second model of the mind to explain psychopathology

Developed in the early 1900’s

The ID

Home of instinctual Drives

“I want it and I want it NOW”

Completely unconscious

Present at birth

Operates on the Pleasure Principle and employs Primary Process Thinking

To Review:

Pleasure Principle: constant drive to reduce tension thru expression of instinctual urges

Primary Process Thinking: Not cause-effect; illogical; fantasy; only concern is immediate gratification (drive satisfaction)

The Superego

Internalized morals/values- sense of right and wrong

Suppresses instinctual drives of ID (thru guilt and shame) and serves as the moral conscience

The Superego

Largely unconscious, but has conscious componentDevelops with socialization, and thru identification with same-sex parent (via introjection) at the resolution of the Oedipal ConflictIntrojection: absorbing rules for behavior from role models

The Superego- 2 Parts:

Conscience: Dictates what is proscribed (should not be done); results in guilt

Ego-Ideal: Dictates what is prescribed (should be done); results in shame

The Ego

Created by the ID to help it interface with external reality

Mediates between the ID, Superego, and reality

Partly conscious

Uses Secondary Process Thinking:Logical, rational

“Ego” Defense Mechanisms

The Ego employs “ego defense mechanisms”

They serve to protect an individual from unpleasant thoughts or emotions

Keep unconscious conflicts unconscious

Defense Mechanisms are primarily unconscious

“Ego” Defense Mechanisms

Result from interactions between the ID, Ego, and Superego

Thus, they’re compromises:Attempts to express an impulse (to satisfy the ID) in a socially acceptable or disguised way (so that the Superego can deal with it)

“Ego” Defense Mechanisms

Less mature defenses protect the person from anxiety and negative feelings, but at price

Some defense mechanisms explain aspects of psychopathology:

Ex. Identification with aggressor: can explain tendency of some abused kids to grow into abusers

Primary Repression

Conflict arises when the ID’s drives threaten to overwhelm the controls of the Ego and Superego

Ego pushes ID impulses deeper into the unconscious via repression

Material pushed into unconscious does not sit quietly- causes symptoms

Classification of Defenses

Mature

Immature

Narcissistic

Neurotic

Mature Defenses

Altruism

Anticipation

Humor

Sublimation

Suppression

Altruism

Unselfishly assisting others to avoid negative personal feelings

Anticipation

Thinking ahead and planning appropriately

Sublimation

Rerouting an unacceptable drive in a socially acceptable way; redirecting the energy from a forbidden drive into a constructive act

A healthy, conscious defense

Ex. Martial Arts

Suppression

Deliberately (consciously) pushing anxiety-provoking or personally unacceptable material out of conscious awareness

Immature Defenses

Acting Out

Somatization

Regression

Denial

Projection

Splitting

Displacement

Dissociation

Reaction Formation

Repression

Magical Thinking

Isolation of Affect

Intellectualization

Rationalization

Acting out

Behaving in an attention-getting, often socially inappropriate manner to avoid dealing with unacceptable emotions or material

Somatization

Unconscious transformation of unacceptable impulses or feelings into physical symptoms

Regression

Return to earlier level of functioning (childlike behaviors) during stressful situations

Ex. Kids regress after trauma

Denial

Unconsciously discounting external reality

Projection

Falsely attributing one’s own unacceptable impulses or feelings onto others

Can manifest as paranoia

Splitting

Selectively focusing on only part of a person to meet a current need state; seeing people as either all-good or all-bad

Serves to relieve the uncertainty engendered by the fact that people have both bad and good qualities

Considered normal in childhood

Displacement

Redirection of unacceptable feelings, impulses from their source onto a less threatening person or object

Ex. Mad at your boss, so you go home and kick the dog

Dissociation

Mentally separating part of consciousness from reality; can result in forgetting certain events

Ex. Dissociative amnesia

Reaction Formation

Transforming an unacceptable impulse into a diametrically opposed thought, feeling, attitude, or behavior; denying unacceptable feelings and adopting opposite attitudes

Ex. Person who loves pornography leads a movement to outlaw its sale in the neighborhood

Repression

Keeping an idea or feeling out of conscious awareness

The primary ego defense

Freud postulated that other defenses are employed only when repression fails

Magical Thinking

A thought is given great power, deemed to have more of a connection to events than is realistic

Ex. Thinking about a disaster can bring it about

Can manifest as obsessions

Isolation of Affect

Stripping an idea from its accompanying feeling or affect

Idea is made conscious but the feelings are kept unconscious

Intellectualization

Using higher cortical functions to avoid experiencing uncomfortable emotions; thinking without accompanying emotion

Rationalization

Unconscious distortion of reality so that it’s negative outcome seems reasonable or “not so bad, after all” (making lemonade out of lemons)

Giving seemingly reasonable explanations for unacceptable or irrational feelings

Evidence for Freud

Socialisation depends on a good relationship with parents

Can explain child abuse and paedophilia

Evidence against Freud

Case study method (e.g. Little Hans)

UnfalsifiableAll unconscious

Classical Conditioning

Key Definitions

Unconditioned Stimulus (US) - stimulus naturally triggers a response Unconditioned Response (UR) - unlearned, natural response to the UCS Conditioned Stimulus (CS) - previously neutral stimulus triggers a response Conditioned Response (CR) - learned response to a neutral stimulus

Ivan Pavlov and the role of Serendipity

Russian physiologist studying the digestive system

Focusing on what substance helped to break food down

One notable substance studied was saliva

Developed method to measure saliva production

Salivary Conditioning Apparatus

Process of Pavlov’s Saliva ResearchDog given food and salivation was recorded while the dog ate

Key finding: Experienced dogs salivated before the food was presented

Pavlov’s Theory: Some stimulus (e.g. experimenter; apparatus) that proceeded food presentation had acquired capacity to elicit the response of salivation

What was happening? Dogs were exhibiting simple type of learning

This type of learning is the foundation of Classical Conditioning

Paradigm of Classical Conditioning

1st: Select a stimulus that reliably elicits a characteristic response

Stimulus – Unconditioned stimulus (US)Response -- Unconditioned response (UR)• Unconditioned - Signifies the US - UR connection is unlearned

(innate)

2nd: Select a Stimulus for Conditioning (CS)CS – Can be any reasonable stimulus that does not initially evoke the UR• Conditioned – Signifies that CS will only elicit desired response

after conditioning take place

Pavlov’s DogsBefore Conditioning

US (Food) UR (Salivation)CS (Bell) No CR; Dog may turn head (orienting response)

During ConditioningCS paired/presented consistently before US

Time CS (Bell) US (Food) UR (Salivation)As presentations continue:CS (Bell) CR (Salivation) US (Food) UR (Salivation)

After ConditioningUS (Food) UR (Salivation)CS (Bell) CR (Salivation)

Classical conditioning – Evidence for

Children can be made to feel guilt by association

Classical conditioning – Evidence against

Ignores cognition

Children who are reasoned with plus a mild punishment show the most improvement

Evaluation points

These three theories have some research evidence to back them up but the methods used are all questionable:

Moral dilemmas

Case studies

Story telling (Piaget)

Animal experiments with dogs applied to humans

The end