Rationalizing Criminal Behaviour: The Influence of Criminal Sentiments on Sociomoral Development in Violent Offenders and Nonoffenders

Stevenson, S.F.; Hall, Guy; Innes, John

doi:10.1177/0306624x03258483

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ideally, such a study would be a longitudinal design that incorporates assessments at several time points thus strengthening the basis for determining a causal context. Second, the growing skepticism about whether attitudes and perceptions of crime seriousness can explain anything about the commission of or approval for deviant and/or criminal behavior (Hammond & Nicholas, 2007;Stevenson et al, 2004) concurs with the tenets of Kohlberg's cognitive structural analysis of moral development. It is perhaps inevitable therefore that Kohlberg's (1984) formulations should be seen as a more viable alternative to such skepticism as a basis for explaining variations in moral behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Judgment, Crime Seriousness, and the Relations Between Them

Herzog

Einat

2012

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study analyzes the relationship between moral judgment and perceptions of crime seriousness. This analysis is done with special attention to Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Main research findings: Significant correlations exist between perceived seriousness of offenses and consideration of such conducts as immoral, and between the levels of the perceived seriousness of offenses and the levels of the moral judgment of their moral dilemmas. In addition, attitudes toward various moral dilemmas are found to be influenced by education, ethnicity and social strata. Main conclusions: Correlation between moral reasoning and perceptions of crime seriousness is weak at best, and that mature-level socio-moral development and perceptions of crime seriousness might not necessarily protect a person from identifying with criminal acts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Judgment, Crime Seriousness, and the Relations Between Them

Herzog

Einat

2012

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The few theoretical and empirical studies examining moral reasoning among criminal populations, some of whom used drugs, are inconclusive regarding the attainment of mature levels of moral reasoning (Stevenson et al, 2004). Taken as a whole, the diversity of moral precepts expressed by participants, including sensitivity to the welfare of others, consideration of moral agency, fairness, interpersonal responsibilities, and appreciation of role obligations, suggests that socially and economically marginalized street drug users with minimal levels of education are nonetheless capable of mature sociomoral reflection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The few studies available focus on general levels of sociomoral reasoning, community attitudes toward the morality of drug use, the ethics of clinical research, and perceptions of research risk interpreted through the lens of traditional moral development theory or regulations for the protection of human participants (Grady et al, 2006; Rhodes, Zikic, Prodanovic, Kuneski, & Bernays, 2008; Slomka, McCurdy, Ratliff, Timpson, & Williams, 2008; Stevenson, Hall, & Innes, 2004). Applying traditional frameworks to the design of research ethics practices involving drug users and others who may deviate from traditional social norms may be inadequate when they do not reflect the practical ethical challenges confronted by drug use investigators nor inquiry into how these populations view and manage their moral worlds (Klockars and O’Connor, 1979).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addiction Research Ethics and the Belmont Principles: Do Drug Users Have a Different Moral Voice?

Fisher

2010

Substance Use & Misuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used semi-structured interviews and content analysis to examine moral principles that street drug users apply to three hypothetical addiction research ethical dilemmas. Participants (n = 90) were ethnically diverse, economically disadvantaged drug users recruited in New York City in 2009. Participants applied a wide range of contextually sensitive moral precepts, including respect, beneficence, justice, relationality, professional obligations, rules, and pragmatic self-interest. Limitations and implications for future research and the responsible conduct of addiction research are discussed.

show abstract

“…Justice-involved youth have also been found to hold more non-normative beliefs and attitudes towards societal rules (Granic & Butler, 1998;Mills & Kroner, 1997;Shields & Simourd, 1991;Skilling & Sorge, 2014;Simourd & van de Ven, 1999;Stevenson, Hall, & Innes, 2004). Social learning theories of crime have implicated antisocial attitudes and beliefs as one of the main risk factors for criminal behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2003;Andrews & Bonta, 2010).…”

Section: Individual Differences In Ratings Of Self-control Recognitimentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence, Executive Functions, and Decision Making as Predictors of Antisocial Behavior in an Adolescent Sample of Justice‐Involved Youth and a Community Comparison Group

Sorge

Skilling

Toplak

2015

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A clinical sample of justice-involved male adolescents and a community comparison group were compared on a battery of cognitive ability tasks (intelligence and executive functions), decision making measures, and other individual difference measures, including ratings of selfcontrol, recognition of morally debatable behaviors, and antisocial beliefs. The clinical sample displayed lower performance on cognitive abilities and decision making than the community comparison group. In particular, the clinical group displayed less otherside thinking and more hostile attribution biases in unintentional situations compared with the community comparison group. Cognitive abilities and the decision making performance predicted group membership. Then, group membership, ratings of self-control, attitudes about morally debatable behaviors, and antisocial beliefs predicted ratings of antisocial behavior in the full sample. These findings suggest that measures of cognitive ability and decision making make separate contributions to explaining antisocial behaviors. In addition, the predictors of group membership and antisocial behavior did not overlap, suggesting that antisocial behavior engagement in clinical samples may be separable from the continuum of antisocial behavior across the full sample. Cognitive science models of decision making can provide a framework for understanding antisocial behavior in clinical and community samples of adolescents.

show abstract

Rationalizing Criminal Behaviour: The Influence of Criminal Sentiments on Sociomoral Development in Violent Offenders and Nonoffenders

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

Moral Judgment, Crime Seriousness, and the Relations Between Them

Moral Judgment, Crime Seriousness, and the Relations Between Them

Addiction Research Ethics and the Belmont Principles: Do Drug Users Have a Different Moral Voice?

Intelligence, Executive Functions, and Decision Making as Predictors of Antisocial Behavior in an Adolescent Sample of Justice‐Involved Youth and a Community Comparison Group

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About