Cognitive Distortions (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes

Cognitive Distortions

Cognitive distortions are faulty thinking patterns that criminals use to justify their antisocial behaviours. These distorted thought processes help offenders rationalise their actions and reduce feelings of guilt or responsibility. Two main types of cognitive distortions are hostile attribution bias and minimisation.

Hostile attribution bias

Hostile attribution bias occurs when individuals consistently interpret others' actions as threatening or hostile, even when the behaviour is neutral or benign. This cognitive distortion is particularly linked to aggressive crimes, as offenders view others' actions as intimidating and believe an aggressive response is justified.

Attribution theory explains how people assign causes to behaviour through either internal attributions (personal choice) or external attributions (situational factors). Those with hostile attribution bias tend to make negative internal attributions about others' intentions.

How hostile attribution bias works

Research evidence

Spielberger (1988) demonstrated a clear relationship between hostile attribution bias and aggression. This occurs because social cues and behaviours are misinterpreted, leading to hostile responses and potentially aggressive acts.

Research indicates that hostile attribution bias links specifically to impulsive aggression - reactive outbursts in response to perceived threats. However, it does not appear connected to premeditated aggression, which involves planned aggressive acts to achieve specific goals. This distinction occurs because premeditated aggression represents a calculated tool rather than an immediate reaction to misinterpreted behaviour.

Gudjonsson (1984) developed the Blame Attribution Inventory to measure how offenders attribute blame across three categories: environmental circumstances, mental illness or lack of self-control, and feelings of guilt or remorse. Using this measure, Gudjonsson and Singh (1988) found that offenders' attributions varied depending on their crime type, suggesting attributions cannot be universally applied across all criminal behaviour.

Crick and Dodge (1994) found evidence supporting the relationship between hostile attribution bias and aggression in children and adolescents. This occurred in both hypothetical scenarios and real-life situations, indicating that hostile attribution bias does translate to actual criminal behaviour.

Epps and Kendall (1995) studied college students with high anger and aggression scores, finding they demonstrated elevated levels of anger and hostility when tested for hostile attribution bias, even in benign situations. This supports the connection between hostile attribution bias and criminal behaviour involving aggression.

Holtzworth-Munroe and Hutchinson (1993) established a link between hostile attribution bias and domestic violence. They presented men with video scenarios of difficult marital situations and asked them to rate the woman's behaviour. Men who had been violent towards their wives were more likely to perceive the woman as being negative towards her husband and interpret her intentions as hostile. This demonstrates how cognitive style underpins violent and aggressive acts.

Evaluation of hostile attribution bias

Research consistently demonstrates a link between hostile attribution bias and offending behaviour, establishing it as one potential origin of aggressive behaviour in children, adolescents, and adults that can lead to criminal behaviour.

Minimisation

Minimisation is a cognitive distortion where offenders use faulty thinking to underestimate the seriousness of their criminal actions. This can be understood as self-deception, where the offender refuses to accept the full reality of their situation and attempts to rationalise their behaviour.

How minimisation works

Minimisation involves several strategies that help offenders cope with guilt:

• Downplaying the effects of their crimes
• Trivialising their actions
• Attributing some blame to the victim

This psychological process allows offenders to maintain their self-image whilst dealing with the guilt they experience from their criminal behaviour.

Research evidence

Alvaro and Gibbs (1996) measured cognitive distortions in antisocial young adults and found a strong relationship between levels of antisocial behaviour and minimisation. This indicates that offenders frequently use minimisation in conjunction with negative behaviours.

Maruna and Mann (2006) examined minimisation as a strategy for dealing with guilt following criminal behaviour. They noted that treatment programmes in prisons often attempt to challenge this minimisation. However, they argue that focus should shift towards offenders taking responsibility for future behaviour rather than dwelling on past actions. They suggest that minimisation might actually represent a psychologically healthy strategy in non-offending contexts, meaning it relates more to post-crime coping than explaining why someone initially commits crimes.

Kennedy and Grubin (1992) investigated minimisation use among convicted sex offenders. Researchers assessed offenders' accounts of their crimes and rated them for denial levels. The majority attempted to excuse their behaviour by blaming others, usually the victim. One-third denied any involvement whatsoever, whilst a quarter believed their victim benefited from the abuse. This demonstrates extensive use of minimisation by these offenders.

Evaluation of minimisation

Research demonstrates a clear relationship between minimisation levels and offending behaviour within criminal populations, providing strong data support for this concept.