OCR Psychology
Turning to crime: Morality key study
Palmer and Hollin (2000)

Aim: To find out
whether there are
differences in
thinking patterns
between young male
offenders and male
non-offenders of
similar age.
Palmer and Hollin (2000)



Sample:
Experimental: 97
convicted male
offenders aged between
13 and 21 years (mean
age 18.18 yrs)
(Type of offences ‘delinquent ‘ behavior,
such as burglary, car
theft, joyriding and
assault.)

Control: 77 non
offenders aged between
12 and 24 years (mean
age 17.41 yrs)
 (Not matched for SES :
offenders typically
unemployed /unskilledmanual ; non-offenders
skilled-manual/
intermediate nonmanual)
Palmer and Hollin (2000)
Procedure: P’s completed three
psychometric tests, to measure
 level of moral reasoning
 perceptions of parenting
 attributions of intentions.
Plus a CONTROL for criminality
 self-reported Delinquency Checklist

Palmer and Hollin (2000)


level of moral reasoning
Sociomoral Reflection Measure (short form).
 11 questions based on Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas.
scores show the level reached (preconventional;
conventional; post-conventional )
 Offenders were found to have less mature moral
reasoning than non-offenders.
 Offenders were typically at Kohlberg’s preconventional level where moral decisions are made on
the basis of what behaviours are rewarded or
punished .
Palmer and Hollin (2000)

perceptions of parenting

used extracts from the Own Perceptions of
Parenting (EMBU)
This assesses perceptions of parenting (by mother
and father separately) including rejection, emotional
warmth and overprotection.
The offender group perceived both their fathers and
their mothers as significantly more rejecting than the
non-offender group (the effect was stronger for
paternal rejection)


Palmer and Hollin (2000)

Attribution of Intent ( hostile attribution
bias )




It included 12 scenarios
4 acting with hostile intent,
4 acting with prosocial intent
4 ambiguous.
Participants have to suggest reasons for why people
behaved as they did. These reasons could be a. ‘to be
mean or horrible’, b. ‘to be helpful or nice’ or c. ‘not
sure’. If someone consistently interprets the
ambiguous scenarios as hostile, then they can be said
to have a hostile attribution bias.

Palmer and Hollin (2000)
Hostile Attribution Bias
 Offenders made more hostile attributions
of intent when shown ambiguous
scenarios than did non-offenders.
 Perceived parental rejection was
associated with a high hostile attribution
style in both offenders and non-offenders

Palmer and Hollin (2000)

Self-reported Delinquency Checklist (SRD).

self report scale of 46 offences
respondents indicate which offences they have committed
how often they were committed.
This was used as a CONTROL to check whether the ‘offenders’
and ‘non-offenders’ REALLY were different in their level of
offending.
Results confirm that the groups differed in terms of their offending
behaviours.
The modal score for the non-offender group was 6 and for the
offender group it was 25.





Palmer and Hollin (2000)





Conclusions
The following differences in thinking patterns were
found between the young male offenders and the nonoffending group :The young male offenders were less mature in their
moral reasoning than the non-offenders
YMOs were more likely to perceive their parents as
having rejected them (especially their fathers)
YMOs were more likely to show a hostile attribution
style when thinking about ambiguous social situations.
Palmer and Hollin (2000)
OCR: how does this study relate to the
forensic syllabus?
 Levels of Moral Reasoning: supports
Kohlberg’s Theory
 Hostile Attribution: Demonstrates
differing social cognition
