Social-moral awareness and theory of mind in adult offenders who have intellectual disabilities
| Pages | 111-121 |
| Published date | 11 September 2017 |
| Date | 11 September 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-12-2016-0024 |
| Author | Sarah Hammond,Nigel Beail |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Learning & intellectual disabilities,Offending behaviour,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Education,Special education/gifted education,Emotional/behavioural disorders |
Social-moral awareness and theory of
mind in adult offenders who have
intellectual disabilities
Sarah Hammond and Nigel Beail
Abstract
Purpose –There has been little empirical investigation into the theoretical relationship between moral
reasoning and offending in people with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of this paper is to compare
offending and non-offending ID groups on a new measure of social-moral awareness, and on theory
of mind (ToM).
Design/methodology/approach –A between groups design was used. The scores of 21 male offenders
and 21 male non-offenders, all with ID and matched for IQ, were compared on the Social-Moral Awareness
Test (SMAT) and on two ToM tasks.
Findings –There was no significant difference in SMAT scores or on first- or second-order ToM
tasks between offending and non-offending groups. Better ToM performance significantly predicted
higher SMAT scores and non -offending groups. Bett er ToM performance sig nificantly predicte d higher
SMAT scores.
Research limitations/implications –Results were inconsistent with previous research. Further work is
required to establish the validity and theoretical underpinnings of the SMAT. Development in the
measurement of ToM for people with ID is also required.
Originality/value –This is the first use of the SMAT with a population of offenders who have ID. The findings
suggest caution in its use in clinical settings.
Keywords Offending, Intellectual disabilities, Assessment, Moral reasoning, Social-moral awareness test,
Social-moral reasoning, Theory of mind
Paper type Research paper
Moral reasoning has been defined as the cognitive and emotional process of establishing
whether something is right or wrong (Langdon, Clare and Murphy, 2010). A review of the
literature assessing the moral development of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) concluded
that moral development occurs more slowly in this population than in their age-matched peers
(Langdon, Clare and Murphy, 2010). Gibbs (2003) and Palmer (2003) theorised that less
developmentally mature moral reasoning increases the risk of offending due to associated
deficits in empathy and increased cognitive distortions (McDermott and Langdon, 2016).
The finding that people with ID are likely to have less mature moral reasoning than their
age-matched peers has important implications for understanding offending behaviour in this
population (Langdon, Clare and Murphy, 2011).
The relationship between moral reasoning and offending has been explored using socio-moral
reasoning theory (Langdon, Clare and Murphy, 2011). Kohlberg (1969) suggested that there
are six stages over three levels of moral development: pre-conventional (reasoning based on
consequences); c onventional (rea soning based on appr oval from others/g roup norms); and
post-convention al (reasoning based on genera l rather than individual benefit , and conscience).
Gibbs (1979) and Gibbs et al. (1992) built upon Ko hlberg’s work to develop a socio-moral
stage theory (Livesey et al., 2012). The socio-moral stage theory categorises the justifications
people give for their behaviour into “immature”, where decisions are rule-based (stage 1) or
based upon personal gain (stage 2), and “mature”, where decisions are made based
Received 23 December 2016
Revised 18 April 2017
Accepted 25 July 2017
Sarah Hammond is based at
Sheffield Adult Autism and
Neurodevelopmental Service,
Sheffield Health and Social
Care NHS Foundation Trust,
Sheffield, UK.
Nigel Beail is a Consultant
Clinical Psychologist at South
West Yorkshire Partnership
NHS Foundation Trust,
Barnsley, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JIDOB-12-2016-0024 VOL. 8 NO. 3 2017, pp.111-121, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8824
j
JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES AND OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
j
PAGE111
To continue reading
Request your trial