moral reasoning theory and criminal offending by … - moral reasoning in offenders with... ·...

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Moral Reasoning Theory and Criminal Offending by People with Intellectual

Disabilities

Department of Psychological Sciences

Norwich Medical School

Peter Langdon

Broadland Clinic

Learning Disability Spring One Day Meeting 30/03/2012

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Collaborators

• Professor Glynis H Murphy (Tizard Centre, University of Kent)

• Dr Isabel CH Clare (University of Cambridge)

• Dr Emma Palmer (University of Leicester)

• Dr Tom Steverson (University of East Anglia)

• Dr Jo Rees (University of East Anglia)


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Background

• Meta-analytic studies demonstrate a strong association between moral

reasoning and criminal offending. (e.g. d=0.76; Stams et al., 2006). There

is also a literature linking intelligence and offending behaviour (Farrington,

1996; Moffitt, 1993, Moffit et al., 1981).

• Developmental progression within moral reasoning is fuelled by social role

taking opportunities, and is dependent upon cognitive ability.

• Gibbs (2010) argues that a ‘developmental delay in moral judgment’,

coupled with distorted cognitions and social skills deficits are common

amongst offenders. He argues that moral reasoning relates to schema

development, which in turn leads to distorted cognition in offenders, which

supports the occurrence of offending behaviour.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Gibbs’ Sociomoral Stage Theory (Gibbs, 2010)

Level 1: Immature

Stage 1: Centrations Moral justifications are based upon unilateral authority and rule based, or related to punitive consequences of

the violation of rules. Physical size and power.

Stage 2: Pragmatic Exchanges Moral justifications based upon an understanding that has arisen from social interaction with others. For

example, decisions to help others may be justified because that person may help you in the future.

Justifications remain superficial. “Do for others if they did or will do for you”. Still egocentric.

Level 2: Mature

Stage 3: Mutualities Moral justifications are characterised by further decentration, and are based upon a prosocial understanding of

emotional states (e.g. empathy), care, trust and good conduct..

Stage 4: Systems Further maturity is indexed by the development of an understanding of the complex social structures in which we

live. Justifications are also based upon constructs such as rights, values and character within society.

Other justifications may be based upon social justice and responsibility or conscience.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

• What do we already know (Langdon et al., 2010a)?

• The moral reasoning of children and adults with ID lags behind that

of age-matched peers.

• This difference tends to disappear if people with ID are matched to

people (usually younger children) of similar “mental age”.

• A single longitudinal study (Stephens and colleagues, 1974)

demonstrated that the development of moral reasoning amongst

children with ID is similar to children without ID, although it lags.

• One study (Sigman et al., 1983) demonstrated a relationship

between moral reasoning and behavioural difficulties amongst

adolescents with borderline ID on an inpatient ward.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

What did we do?

• Undertook three studies to investigate moral development and its

relationship to offending behaviour by men with mild intellectual disabilities.

• Study 1: What is the more appropriate method for measuring the moral

reasoning abilities of people with intellectual disabilities?

• Study 2: How do offenders with intellectual disabilities score on a measure

of moral reasoning?

• Study 3: Can we improve the moral reasoning of offenders with intellectual

disabilities using a clinical intervention?


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Study 1

Aims

1. To examine the psychometric properties of a production and recognition

measure of moral reasoning with a group of men with and without

intellectual disabilities.

2. To compare the moral reasoning abilities of men with and without

intellectual disabilities.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Participants

• Men with Intellectual Disabilities

• 32 men recruited from the community (M age=45.88, SD=15.01; M Full Scale

IQ=59.35, SD=6.16)

• Men without Intellectual Disabilities

• 28 men recruited from the community (M age=40.64, SD=10.41; M Full Scale

IQ=102.29, SD=8.05)

There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age

(t(57)=1.48, p=0.14; BCa 95% CI= -1.79 to 11.78)


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Measures

All participants completed:

1. WAIS-III

2. Test of Adolescent and Adult Language Forth Edition (TOAL-4)

3. Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form: comprises eleven questions, and

generally takes about twenty minutes to administer. The questions relate to the

following seven constructs, (a) Contract (questions one to three), (b) Truth (question

four), (c) Affiliation (questions five and six), (d) Life (questions seven and eight), (e)

Property (question nine), (f) Law (question ten), and (g) Legal Justice (question

eleven).

4. The Moral Theme Inventory: primarily developed for use with children, but has

also been used with populations of adults. Respondents are asked to consider four

moral stories which have a moral message, and these are presented by playing a

digital audio file to each participant. After this, respondents are asked to engage in a

series of tasks to assess their moral reasoning.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Results


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Results


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Contract Truth Affiliation Life Property Law Legal Justice

Total Score

Mo

ral R

easo

nin

g S

co

re

Sociomoral Reflection Measure Short Form

Figure 1. Adjusted means (SEM) across the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form controlling for Full Scale Intelligence Quotient or Spoken Langauage Ability

ID (Covariate FIQ)

No ID (Covariate FIQ)

ID (Covariate Spoken Language)

No ID (Covariate Spoken Language)

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Study 2

Aims

1. First, we examined the moral reasoning abilities of offenders with and

without intellectual disabilities and compared these abilities to those of non-

offenders with and without intellectual disabilities.

2. Based on the theoretical relationships among moral reasoning, distorted

cognitions, and empathy (Gibbs, 2003, 2010; Hoffman,2000), we examined

whether the relationship between empathy and distorted cognitions would

be mediated by moral reasoning.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Participants

N=80 men were recruited spread across four groups.

IDs-Group: men with IDs and no known history of arrests, cautions or

convictions (M IQ=58.8, SD=5.87; M Age=45.35; SD=16.57)

IDs-Offender Group: men with IDs and a documented history of criminal

offending (M IQ=62.9, SD=5.22; M Age=33.60, SD=7.54)

Comparison-Group: men without IDs with no known history of arrests, cautions

or convictions (M IQ=103.25, SD=5.77; M Age=38.70; SD=12.99).

Comparison-Offender Group: men without IDs with a documented history of

criminal offending (M IQ=89.50, SD=11.12; M Age=38.80; SD=15.20).


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Measures

All participants completed:

1. WAIS-III

2. Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form (Moral Reasoning)

3. Modifed Bryant Empathy Index

4. The How I Think Questionnaire (Cognitive Distortions)

5. Offence Data – this was assigned a severity score and ranked according to

Soothill and Dittrich (2001).


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Results


100

150

200

250

300

350

400

SR

M-S

F T

ota

l S

co

re

Figure 1: Means and Adjusted Means (Controlling for Spoken Language or Intelligence) for Total Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form Score by Group.

No Covariates

Covariate: Spoken Language (Adjusted Means)

Covariate: Full Scale IQ (Adjusted Means)

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Results


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Contract Truth Affiliation Life Property Law Legal Justice

SR

M-F

Sco

re

Sociomoral Reflection Measure - Short Form

Figure 1: Adjusted means (SEM) on the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form controlling for Full Scale IQ by Group.

IDs Group (Covariate IQ)

IDs-Offender (Covariate IQ)

Comparison-Offender Group (Covariate IQ)

Comparison Group (Covariate IQ)

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Results


Moral Reasoning

Cognitive Distortions Empathy

a b

c’

Unstandardised

B SE t p

a 6.698 2.137 3.13 0.0024

b -0.004 0.001 -3.55 0.0007

c -0.056 0.024 -2.29 0.0249

c’ -0.027 0.024 -1.12 0.2649

B SE z p

Indirect Effect -0.029 0.012 -2.37 0.0177

Lower BCa 95% CI Upper BCa 95% CI

Indirect Effect

(Bootstrap)

-0.0601 -0.0092

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Study 3

Aims & Method

1. To evaluate an adapted Equipping Youth to Help One Another (EQUIP)

programme using a single case series design.

Seven men with intellectual or other developmental disabilities and a history

of illegal behaviour leading to criminal convictions took part in an EQUIP

treatment programme over 12 weeks.

Participants completed pre- and post-treatment measures of moral

reasoning, problem solving ability, cognitive distortions, and anger. We

hypothesised that treatment would lead to an increase in moral reasoning

and problem solving abilities, and a decrease in distorted cognitions and

anger.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Participants • Participant 1 was 34 years old, with a Full Scale IQ of 77. He was diagnosed with Asperger

Syndrome after pleading guilty to manslaughter. He had previous convictions for violent offences.

• Participant 2 was 28 years old, with a Full Scale IQ of 88. He was diagnosed with Asperger

Syndrome after being convicted of arson. He had previous convictions for theft.

• Participant 3 was 21 years old, with a Full Scale IQ of 65. He had a diagnosis of mild intellectual

disability and had been convicted of sexual offences involving a child under the age of 13 years.

He had previous convictions for theft and sexual offending.

• Participant 4 was 25 years old, with had a Full Scale IQ of 111. He was a man with a diagnosis of

Asperger Syndrome who had pleaded guilty to arson.

• Participant 5 was 30 years old, with had a Full Scale IQ of 65. He had a diagnosis of mild

intellectual disability and depression. His had pleaded guilty to arson and had previous convictions

for assault.

• Participant 6 was 23 years old, with a Full Scale IQ of 69. He had a mild intellectual disability and

had been convicted of sexual offences involving children under the age of 13. He had previous

convictions for theft and assault.

• Participant 7 was 36 years of age, with a Full Scale IQ of 77 and a diagnosis of Asperger

Syndrome. He had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and had previous convictions relating to

firearms.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

Measures

Sociomoral Reflection Measure – Short Form (SRM-SF)

How I Think Questionnaire (HIT)

Problem Solving Task (PST)

Anger Inventory for “Mentally Retarded” Persons (AI-MRP)


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

EQUIP

EQUIP is a manualised treatment programme that was adapted and delivered

over 12 weeks.

The treatment is a multicomponent programme comprising two types of

treatment sessions a) Mutual Help Meetings, and b) Equipment Meetings.

Mutual Help: These meetings provide a forum for participants to discuss their

difficulties within a framework that allows for an appropriate resolution.

Participants are encouraged to report their problems and thinking errors that

have occurred since the last meeting and one individual is chosen

collaboratively by the group to discuss their problems in greater depth. The

group is provided with a list of 12 potential problems that they may have or

develop, which is used as a reference to aid participant understanding of

their difficulties.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

EQUIP

Example Potential Problems

“AGGRAVATES OTHERS” PROBLEM

You threaten and hassle other people

You bully other people

You tease other people

You try to “get back” at other people


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

EQUIP


“TRICKS OTHERS” PROBLEM

You get others to do bad things for you

You get others to do your “dirty work”

You manipulate others

You pretend you had nothing to do with it when others get caught

and you blame the other person


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

EQUIP


“DRUG AND ALCOHOL” PROBLEM

You abuse alcohol and drugs

You are afraid to face life without using drugs or alcohol

You think that drug and alcohol abuse are not bad

You blame the drugs or alcohol when you do something wrong


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

EQUIP


Being

Self

Centred

Blaming

Others

Minimising and

Mislabelling

Thinking

the Worst

“I can do what I want!”

“No one can tell me

what to do!”

“I got mixed up with

the wrong crowd!”

“He was asking for

it!” “I just want to have a good

time, what’s so bad about

that?!”

“I didn’t really hurt him or

her anyway!”

“Why bother? It never

works out for me!”

“I never do anything

right!”

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic

EQUIP

Equipment Meetings: These are “active treatment” meetings comprising

three different types of sessions: a) anger management and thinking

error correction (there are four categories of thinking errors), b)

social skills training, and c) social decision making. There are 30

sessions spread equally across three domains.

The treatment programme was delivered over 12 weeks with four one

hour sessions taking place each week.


Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic


EQUIP Social Decision Making (Moral Development)

“Leon has been in a secure unit for a while and then he tried to escape. As a result, all of his leave

was cancelled and he was moved to a different unit. It took Leon one year to earn the trust of the

staff again. He now thinks it is stupid to try to escape. However, Bob, who is also in the secure

unit, tells Leon that he is planning to escape that night. “I’ve got it all figured out,” Bob says. “I’ll

hit the staff on the head and take their keys.” Bob asks Leon to come along. Leon tries to talk

Bob out of it, but Bob won’t listen.

Should Leon tell the staff about Bob’s plan to escape?

What if Bob is a pretty violent kind of buy, and Leon thinks that Bob might seriously injure or maybe

even kill the staff member? Then what should Leon do?

What is the staff member is mean and everyone hates him? Then what should Leon do?

Is it right to ever tell on someone?

Let’s change the situation! Let’s say that member of staff happens to be Leon’s uncle. Then what

should Leon do?

Let’s change the situation! Let’s say that Bob is Leon’s brother. What should Leon do?

Which is most important? Not telling on your friend/not letting people get hurt/ minding your own

business

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic


Pre-treatment Post-treatment M (SD) M (SD)

Sociomoral Reflection Measure- Short Form Contract (M) 283.43 (27.25) 309.52 (37.09)

Truth 250.00 (28.89) 300.00 (64.55) Affliation (M) 264.29 (43.96) 296.43 (50.89)

Life (M) 253.57 (56.70) 303.57* (22.49) Property 216.67 (40.83) 285.71* (55.64)

Law 207.14 (93.22) 314.29* (55.64) Legal Justice 228.57 (26.73) 307.14* (67.26)

Total Score 252.86 (26.73) 300.00** (33.32) How I Think Questionnaire

Anomalous Responding 3.29 (0.82) 3.12 (1.22) Self-Centred 2.10 (0.84) 1.43* (0.55)

Blaming Others 2.61 (1.50) 1.54 (0.61) Minimising Mislabelling 2.00 (0.83) 1.38* (0.57)

Asssuming the Worst 2.09 (0.84) 1.55* (0.57) Opposition-Defiance 2.39 (0.95) 1.63* (0.64) Physical Aggression 2.30 (1.60) 1.34* (0.56)

Lying 2.64 (0.81) 1.57** (0.66) Stealing 1.64 (0.72) 1.40 (0.58)

Overt Scale 2.34 (1.24) 1.49 *(0.56) Covert Scale 2.14 (0.69) 1.49 *(0.56)

Total Score 2.22 (0.93) 1.48 *(0.55) Problem Solving Task

Problem Identification 3.86 (0.41) 4.20 (0.38) Generation of Solutions 2.17 (0.85) 2.23 (0.39)

Solution Selection 3.00 (0.35) 3.31* (0.25) Evlauation of Solutions 4.29 (0.78) 4.23 (0.82)

Total Score 16.64 (2.09) 17.46 (1.60) Anger Inventory for Mental Retarded Persons

Score 78.00 (17.18) 72.29 (14.55) *p<0.05

**p<0.001 ***p<0.0001

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic


Conclusions

The findings indicated that moral reasoning and ability to choose

solutions that were more likely to overcome relevant obstacles and

results in a minimum of negative consequences increased.

There was a reduction in distorted cognitions.

Anger and overall problem solving ability did not change.

EQUIP appears to be a promising treatment for offenders with

intellectual and developmental disabilities. However, this is a small

study and little can be said about causality. A much larger RCT is

needed and getting underway.

Faculty of Health

Broadland Clinic


References • Langdon, P. E., Clare, I. C. H., & Murphy, G. H. (2010a). Developing an understanding of the

literature relating to the moral development of people with intellectual disabilities. Developmental

Review, 30, 273-293.

• Langdon, P. E., Clare, I. C. H., & Murphy, G. H. (2010b). Measuring social desirability amongst

men with intellectual disabilities: The psychometric properties of the Self- and Other-Deception

Questionnaire-Intellectual Disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1601-1608.

• Langdon, P. E., Clare, I. C. H., & Murphy, G. H. (2011). Moral reasoning theory and illegal

behaviour by adults with intellectual disabilities. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 101 - 115.

• Langdon, P. E., Murphy, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., & Palmer, E. J. (2010). The psychometric properties

of the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure – Short Form and the Moral Theme Inventory for men with

and without intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1204-1215.

• Langdon, P. E., Murphy, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., Palmer, E. J., & Rees, J. (In Press). An evaluation

of the EQUIP treatment programme with men who have intellectual or other developmental

disabilities Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities.

• Langdon, P. E., Murphy, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., Steverson, T., & Palmer, E. J. (2011). Relationships

among moral reasoning, empathy and distorted cognitions amongst men with intellectual

disabilities and a history of criminal offending. American Journal on Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities, 116, 438-456.

moral reasoning theory and criminal offending by … - moral reasoning in offenders with... ·...

Documents