Morality and Crime

1
Morality and Crime

• Psychology of Crime

2
Morality and Crime

• Kohlbergs Theory
• Freuds theory
• Pavlovs theory

3
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 anothers
  perspective
• rule-based games are a manifestation of concrete
  operations in childrens social interactions
• these games provide structures circumstances in
  which children balance the rules of society
  against their own desires
• methods for studying childrens moral ideas
• behavioral observations of games
• clinical interviews about rules and moral dilemmas

4
Rules in marble games

• Piaget observed childrens 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?

5
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

6
Stages of moral development Piaget

• P. argues that moral development follows the
  childrens 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
  anothers 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
• moral responsibility is understood as obedience
  to authority

7
Stages of moral development Piaget

• Heteronomous morality (continued)
• the childs 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

8
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?

9
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?

10
Stages of moral development Piaget

• Autonomous morality (Age 8 on) subject to ones
  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

11
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
  childhoodaffecting moral development

12
Kohlberg moral development

• Modified and elaborated on Piagets 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 womans 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 mans store to steal the drug
  for his wife. Should the husband had done that?
  Why?

13
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

14
Kohlberg moral development (contd)

• 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
• Ill 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

15

• The conventional morality the childs
  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 his
  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!

16
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)

17
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)

18
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?

19
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).

20
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?

21
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)

22
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 childrens reasoning
• they start to take into account all the factors
  involved to ensure a fair outcome in a particular
  situation

23
Reasoning and actual behavior

• How does childrens 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
  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, childrens 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!

24
Fairness

• Thorkildsen studied childrens 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?

25
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

26
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).

27
Evidence against Kohlberg

• Poor reliability
• Correlational data
• Inconsistent for different crimes
• Moral dilemma method
• Self-reports

28
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)).

29
Evidence against Kohlberg

• 3.      As both Ross and Fabiano (1985) and
  Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) point out, research
  has focused on the offenders beliefs and
  attitudes (content), this can be contrasted with
  the offenders 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.)

30
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).

31
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).

32
Freuds Theory

• Morality and Crime

33
Structural (Tripartite) Theory

• Freuds second model of the mind to explain
  psychopathology
• Developed in the early 1900s

34
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

35
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)

36
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

37
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

38
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

39
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

40
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

41
Ego Defense Mechanisms

• Result from interactions between the ID, Ego, and
  Superego
• Thus, theyre 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)

42
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

43
Primary Repression

• Conflict arises when the IDs 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

44
Classification of Defenses

• Mature
• Immature
• Narcissistic
• Neurotic

45
Mature Defenses

• Altruism
• Anticipation
• Humor
• Sublimation
• Suppression

46
Altruism

• Unselfishly assisting others to avoid negative
  personal feelings

47
Anticipation

• Thinking ahead and planning appropriately

48
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

49
Suppression

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

50
Immature Defenses

• Acting Out
• Somatization
• Regression
• Denial
• Projection
• Splitting
• Displacement

• Dissociation
• Reaction Formation
• Repression
• Magical Thinking
• Isolation of Affect
• Intellectualization
• Rationalization

51
Acting out

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

52
Somatization

• Unconscious transformation of unacceptable
  impulses or feelings into physical symptoms

53
Regression

• Return to earlier level of functioning (childlike
  behaviors) during stressful situations
• Ex. Kids regress after trauma

54
Denial

• Unconsciously discounting external reality

55
Projection

• Falsely attributing ones own unacceptable
  impulses or feelings onto others
• Can manifest as paranoia

56
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

57
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

58
Dissociation

• Mentally separating part of consciousness from
  reality can result in forgetting certain events
• Ex. Dissociative amnesia

59
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

60
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

61
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

62
Isolation of Affect

• Stripping an idea from its accompanying feeling
  or affect
• Idea is made conscious but the feelings are kept
  unconscious

63
Intellectualization

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

64
Rationalization

• Unconscious distortion of reality so that its
  negative outcome seems reasonable or not so bad,
  after all (making lemonade out of lemons)
• Giving seemingly reasonable explanations for
  unacceptable or irrational feelings

65
Evidence for Freud

• Socialisation depends on a good relationship with
  parents
• Can explain child abuse and paedophilia

66
Evidence against Freud

• Case study method (e.g. Little Hans)
• Unfalsifiable
• All unconscious

67
Classical Conditioning
68
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

69
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

70
Salivary Conditioning Apparatus
71
Process of Pavlovs Saliva Research

• Dog given food and salivation was recorded while
  the dog ate
• Key finding Experienced dogs salivated before
  the food was presented
• Pavlovs 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

72
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

73
Pavlovs 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)

74
Classical conditioning Evidence for

• Children can be made to feel guilt by association

75
Classical conditioning Evidence against

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

76
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

77
The end