Transcript Morality and Crime

Morality and Crime
Psychology of Crime
Morality and Crime
Kohlberg’s Theory
Freud’s theory
Pavlov’s theory
Social/Moral Development
Piaget 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 perspective
rule-based games are a manifestation of concrete
operations in children’s social interactions
these games provide structures circumstances in which
children balance the rules of society against their own
desires
methods for studying children’s moral ideas
behavioral observations of games
clinical 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
marbles
Piaget 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 way
they 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:
Piaget
P. 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
interaction
heteronomous morality
autonomous morality
Heteronomous morality (Age 4-7): ¨subject to
another’s law¨
child regards adult rules as sacred and unchangeable
moral wrongness is defined in terms of adult sanctions
• acts that are wrong are ones acts that adults punish
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 judgments
Piaget 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 relations
peer 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 development
Modified and elaborated on Piaget’s ideas about
moral thinking
used 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 order
The 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 morality
Stage 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 morality
An 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 behavior
How does children’s reasoning about fairness
correspond to their actual behavior?
Damon did a study in which 6-year-old and 10year-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 outcomes
older 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 situations
in 10 % of the cases, their behavior was at a higher level
in 40 % of the cases, it was lower
real candies make a difference!
Fairness
Thorkildsen studied children’s ability to consider
context in reasoning about fairness
she 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 others
then 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?
Fairness
The nature of the activity made a difference in the
judgments of all the children
All 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 help
6-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 Kohlberg
3.
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 selfserving, 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 Kohlberg
5.
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 causeeffect; 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
component
Develops with socialization, and thru
identification with same-sex parent (via
introjection) at the resolution of the Oedipal
Conflict
Introjection: 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 anxietyprovoking 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)
Unfalsifiable
All 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 Research
Dog 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 Dogs
Before Conditioning
US (Food)  UR (Salivation)
CS (Bell)  No CR; Dog may turn head (orienting
response)
During Conditioning
CS paired/presented consistently before US
Time                
CS (Bell)  US (Food)  UR (Salivation)
As presentations continue:
CS (Bell)  CR (Salivation)  US (Food) UR
(Salivation)
After Conditioning
US (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