Moral Reasoning and Offending | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision

Revision Notes
Aug 7
31 min read

Updated: Aug 14

For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025

AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 65 to 80 minutes

Moral reasoning and offending A-Level Psychology revision examines how people decide whether behaviour is right or wrong. Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning develops through increasingly sophisticated levels. Offenders may be more likely to reason at the least mature, pre-conventional level, where decisions are based mainly on avoiding punishment or gaining personal rewards.

You will learn how moral reasoning may contribute to offending, how to identify different levels in unfamiliar scenarios and why moral decisions do not always predict actual behaviour. This lesson introduces the cognitive explanations of offending required by AQA and prepares you for biased thinking used to justify offending [Lesson 8: Cognitive distortions].

The AQA specification requires level of moral reasoning as a cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

Define moral reasoning and moral development.
Explain Kohlberg’s pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional levels.
Distinguish punishment-based reasoning from reward-based reasoning.
Explain why pre-conventional reasoning may increase vulnerability to offending.
Apply levels of moral reasoning to unfamiliar offender statements.
Evaluate moral reasoning using evidence, methodological criticisms and alternative explanations.

Revision Notes 📚

Moral Reasoning and Offending A-Level Psychology Revision Focus

Moral reasoning is the thinking process used to decide:

Whether an action is right or wrong.
Why a behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable.
Whether a rule should be followed.
How the interests of different people should be balanced.
Whether punishment, reward, law or ethical principles should guide behaviour.

Moral reasoning concerns the reason given for a judgement, not simply the decision reached.

Two people might both say that stealing is wrong but give very different reasons:

“It is wrong because I might be punished.”
“It is wrong because it harms another person and violates their rights.”

The conclusion is the same, but the reasoning reflects different levels of moral development.

Moral Reasoning Is a Cognitive Explanation

Moral reasoning is a cognitive explanation because it focuses on thought processes.

It proposes that offending may be influenced by how a person thinks about:

Rules.
Punishment.
Rewards.
Other people.
Rights.
Justice.
Social responsibility.
The consequences of an offence.

The explanation does not focus primarily on:

Genes.
Brain activity.
Personality.
Conditioning.
Peer-group learning.

These may still influence moral development, but the immediate explanation concerns the offender’s reasoning.

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning develops through increasingly sophisticated levels.

As cognitive development progresses, a person may become better able to:

Consider another person’s perspective.
Understand wider social expectations.
Think beyond immediate punishment or reward.
Apply principles of fairness and justice.
Recognise conflicts between laws and ethical values.

AQA’s June 2025 mark scheme states that Kohlberg’s theory can explain offending because people’s understanding of right and wrong generally becomes more sophisticated with age. Offenders have often been found to use the least sophisticated pre-conventional reasoning rather than progressing to more empathic and perspective-taking forms of reasoning.

The Three Levels

Kohlberg’s model can be organised into three broad levels:

Pre-conventional morality
Conventional morality
Post-conventional morality

Level	Main basis of moral judgement
Pre-conventional	Personal punishment and reward
Conventional	Social approval, rules and law
Post-conventional	Wider ethical principles, rights and justice

The levels describe the reasoning behind the decision.

A person can know what the law says without reasoning at a conventional or post-conventional level. What matters is why they believe the behaviour is right or wrong.

Pre-Conventional Morality

What Is Pre-Conventional Reasoning?

At the pre-conventional level, moral decisions are based mainly on the immediate consequences for the individual.

The person asks questions such as:

Will I be punished?
Will I be caught?
What will I gain?
What is in it for me?
Will this action produce a reward?
Can I avoid negative consequences?

The person gives limited consideration to:

The victim’s feelings.
Wider social rules.
The effect on the community.
Abstract ideas of justice.
Responsibilities towards other people.

AQA places particular emphasis on two elements of pre-conventional reasoning:

The punishment stage.
The reward stage.

Punishment-Based Reasoning

In the punishment stage, behaviour is judged mainly according to whether it leads to punishment.

The reasoning is:

If I am punished, the behaviour was wrong. If I avoid punishment, the behaviour is acceptable.

The person may obey rules because:

An authority is watching.
Punishment is likely.
The consequences would be unpleasant.
They are afraid of being caught.

The person does not necessarily accept the underlying moral principle.

Punishment-Based Reasoning and Offending

Punishment-based reasoning may contribute to offending when the person believes:

They will not be caught.
Police are unlikely to investigate.
The punishment will be minor.
They can conceal the offence.
The reward is greater than the possible penalty.
Previous offences produced no punishment.

For example:

“I have stolen from the shop several times and nobody has caught me, so it cannot be that serious.”

This is pre-conventional reasoning because the moral judgement depends on the absence of punishment.

The person does not reason that stealing is acceptable because it respects rights or benefits society. They regard it as acceptable because no personal negative consequence has occurred.

The Importance of Detection

At the punishment stage, being caught can be confused with being wrong.

This produces the reasoning:

Caught and punished = wrong.
Not caught = acceptable.
Small punishment = minor wrongdoing.
Serious punishment = serious wrongdoing.

The person may therefore change behaviour only when the likelihood or severity of punishment changes.

This differs from a more mature moral judgement in which an offence remains wrong even when detection is impossible.

Applying Punishment-Based Reasoning

Consider this scenario:

Ezra regularly damages parked vehicles. He says, “There are no cameras on that street. I’ve done it five times and nothing happened, so I don’t see the problem.”

Application:

Ezra judges the behaviour through its consequences for himself.
The absence of cameras lowers the likelihood of punishment.
Avoiding detection is treated as evidence that the behaviour is acceptable.
He does not consider the cost or distress experienced by vehicle owners.
This is consistent with pre-conventional punishment-based reasoning.

Reward-Based Reasoning

In the reward stage, behaviour is judged according to the personal benefits it produces.

The person asks:

What do I gain?
Will this bring money?
Will it give me status?
Will it be exciting?
Will other people admire me?
Does the reward outweigh the possible cost?

AQA’s 2025 mark scheme describes wrongdoing at this stage as behaviour judged according to the reward or benefit it produces for the actor.

Types of Reward

Rewards associated with offending may be:

Material rewards

Money.
Possessions.
Food.
Access to valuable goods.
Financial gain.

Social rewards

Approval from friends.
Status.
Respect.
Group membership.
Reputation.

Emotional rewards

Excitement.
Thrill.
Feelings of power.
Relief from boredom.
Satisfaction.

The reward does not need to be financial.

Reward-Based Reasoning and Offending

Reward-based reasoning may increase offending because the person focuses on immediate personal gain.

For example:

“Taking the phone is worth it because I can sell it and my friends will think I’m clever.”

The person may overlook:

The owner’s distress.
The wider effects of theft.
Social rules.
The principle that another person’s property should be respected.

This creates a self-focused moral calculation:

Personal benefit is treated as evidence that the behaviour is acceptable.

Applying Reward-Based Reasoning

Consider this scenario:

Leah steals designer clothing and sells it to friends. She says, “I make good money and everyone knows I can get whatever they want.”

Application:

Financial profit is a material reward.
Approval from friends is a social reward.
The reasoning focuses on benefits to Leah.
The loss experienced by the owner is ignored.
This is consistent with the reward stage of pre-conventional morality.

Punishment and Reward Can Operate Together

An offender may show both forms of pre-conventional reasoning.

For example:

“I make a lot of money from it, and the police never catch me.”

This combines:

Reward reasoning: The offence produces money.
Punishment reasoning: The absence of detection makes it appear acceptable.

A strong application answer should identify both when the scenario supports them.

The Pre-Conventional Cost-Benefit Approach

Pre-conventional reasoning can resemble a simple personal calculation:

Possible gain	Possible personal cost
Money	Fine
Excitement	Risk of arrest
Status	Possible punishment
Possessions	Loss of freedom
Peer approval	Disapproval from authorities

The decision is based on consequences for the actor rather than ethical concern for the victim or society.

This does not mean that every rational cost-benefit calculation is immoral. The distinctive feature is that wider moral responsibilities are absent from the reasoning.

Conventional Morality

What Is Conventional Reasoning?

At the conventional level, moral reasoning is based on:

Approval from other people.
Maintaining relationships.
Fulfilling social expectations.
Respecting rules.
Obeying laws.
Maintaining social order.

The person considers what society or important groups expect.

The reasoning may include:

“People who care about me would disapprove.”
“Stealing damages trust.”
“The law should be followed.”
“Society could not function if everyone behaved this way.”
“I have responsibilities towards other people.”

Social Approval

A person reasoning conventionally may behave morally because they want to be regarded as:

Trustworthy.
Responsible.
Helpful.
Law-abiding.
A good friend or family member.

Their concern extends beyond avoiding formal punishment.

For example:

“I would not steal because I would betray the trust of my family and friends.”

The behaviour is judged according to interpersonal expectations rather than immediate personal gain.

Rules and Social Order

Conventional reasoning also recognises that rules and laws help maintain an organised society.

For example:

“People must respect property laws because society would become unsafe if everyone took whatever they wanted.”

The person thinks about collective consequences.

They may follow the law even when:

Detection is unlikely.
The offence would produce a reward.
Nobody is watching.
The immediate victim is unknown.

Conventional Reasoning and Offending

Offenders who remain at the pre-conventional level may be less influenced by conventional restraints.

They may give limited consideration to:

The victim’s perspective.
Social responsibility.
Trust.
The effect of their behaviour on the community.
Maintaining a fair social order.

AQA’s June 2025 mark scheme indicates that more sophisticated moral reasoning involves empathy and perspective-taking that may be underdeveloped among offenders reasoning pre-conventionally.

Applying Conventional Reasoning

Consider this statement:

“Even if I could take the money without being caught, it would damage the trust people need to work together.”

This is more mature than pre-conventional reasoning because:

The judgement does not depend on punishment.
Personal reward is not the deciding factor.
The person considers trust and social functioning.
Wider social expectations guide behaviour.

Post-Conventional Morality

What Is Post-Conventional Reasoning?

At the post-conventional level, moral judgements are based on broader principles such as:

Justice.
Rights.
Equality.
Human dignity.
Fairness.
Ethical responsibility.
The social contract.

The person can evaluate laws rather than obeying every law automatically.

They may recognise that:

Laws are intended to protect rights and social wellbeing.
A legal rule can sometimes be unfair.
Ethical principles may conflict with a particular law.
Moral responsibility extends beyond personal or group approval.

Laws and Ethical Principles

A post-conventional thinker might say:

“Property laws should normally be respected because they protect people’s rights, but laws should also be judged according to whether they are just.”

This reasoning differs from conventional law-following because the person evaluates the purpose and fairness of the law.

Perspective-Taking

More advanced moral reasoning involves considering:

The offender’s interests.
The victim’s interests.
The needs of society.
Competing rights.
Ethical principles.

This requires greater perspective-taking, meaning the ability to consider a situation from viewpoints other than one’s own.

A person who focuses exclusively on personal reward demonstrates less sophisticated perspective-taking.

Post-Conventional Reasoning Is Not Simply Disobeying Laws

A person does not demonstrate post-conventional reasoning merely by saying that a law should be broken.

The reasoning must involve a genuine ethical principle.

Compare:

“I should break the law because I will gain money.”

This is pre-conventional.

“A law should be challenged if it unjustly denies a group fundamental rights.”

This may represent post-conventional reasoning.

The act alone does not reveal the moral level. The reason matters.

Comparing the Three Levels

Feature	Pre-conventional	Conventional	Post-conventional
Main focus	Personal consequences	Social expectations and law	Ethical principles and rights
Why avoid offending?	To avoid punishment	To maintain trust and social order	Because it violates justice or rights
View of reward	Personal gain may justify behaviour	Gain is limited by social responsibility	Gain is evaluated against ethical principles
Perspective-taking	Limited and self-focused	Considers other people and society	Considers competing rights and principles
View of law	Obey if punishment is likely	Law should generally be followed	Law can be evaluated ethically
Offending link	Greatest predicted vulnerability	Stronger social restraint	Decisions based on wider ethical principles

The Level Matters More Than the Decision

Consider the question:

Is it acceptable to steal medicine that a person cannot afford in order to save a life?

Different people may reach the same answer using different reasoning.

One person may say:

“No, because the thief could go to prison.”

This is punishment-based reasoning.

Another may say:

“No, because people must follow the law to maintain social order.”

This is conventional reasoning.

A third may say:

“It may be justified because protecting life is a more fundamental ethical obligation than protecting property.”

This may reflect post-conventional reasoning.

The psychologist evaluates the justification, not whether the answer is simply “yes” or “no”.

The Heinz Dilemma

What Is a Moral Dilemma?

A moral dilemma is a hypothetical situation in which moral values or obligations conflict.

Kohlberg used dilemmas to investigate the reasons people gave for moral decisions.

The most widely recognised example is the Heinz dilemma.

The Heinz Scenario

In the dilemma:

A person is seriously ill.
A drug may save their life.
The medicine is unaffordable.
The pharmacist or drug supplier refuses to reduce the price.
Heinz must decide whether to steal the drug.

Participants are asked questions such as:

Should Heinz steal the medicine?
Why?
Is stealing still wrong if it saves a life?
What responsibilities does Heinz have?
What rights should be considered?

The level is identified from the reasoning behind the response.

AQA’s June 2025 mark scheme explicitly recognises description of the Heinz dilemma as relevant knowledge for level of moral reasoning.

Examples of Responses to the Heinz Dilemma

Pre-conventional punishment response

“Heinz should not steal the drug because he could be sent to prison.”

Pre-conventional reward response

“Heinz should steal it because he will benefit by keeping his partner alive.”

Conventional response

“Heinz should respect the law, but he also has responsibilities towards his family.”

Post-conventional response

“The right to life may take priority over property rights, so the law should be evaluated according to justice.”

Again, it is the justification that reveals the level.

Moral Reasoning and Offending Behaviour

The Central Explanation

The moral reasoning explanation proposes that offenders are more likely than non-offenders to reason at the pre-conventional level.

The process may be represented as:

The person evaluates behaviour using punishment and reward.
Victim perspectives and social responsibilities have limited influence.
An offence offers a personal reward.
The person believes punishment is unlikely or minor.
There is little moral reason to reject the behaviour.
Offending becomes more likely.

AQA’s mark scheme describes offenders as being more likely to show reasoning characteristic of young children and to have failed to progress to more sophisticated levels involving empathy and perspective-taking.

Limited Perspective-Taking

A person reasoning pre-conventionally may find it difficult to appreciate:

The victim’s loss.
The victim’s fear.
The emotional consequences.
The effect on the victim’s family.
The wider social damage.
Why an offence remains wrong even when concealed.

The offence is viewed mainly from the offender’s own position.

For example:

“It doesn’t hurt anyone because I never see the person I steal from.”

This shows limited perspective-taking. The absence of direct contact does not mean that the victim experiences no harm.

Lack of Empathic Reasoning

Empathy involves understanding and responding to another person’s feelings.

More developed moral reasoning may involve asking:

How would the victim feel?
What loss has been caused?
How would I feel if this happened to me?
What responsibilities do I have towards others?

Pre-conventional reasoning may be less influenced by these considerations.

However, limited moral reasoning and limited empathy are not exactly the same thing. Moral reasoning is the cognitive justification, while empathy includes an emotional response.

Focus on Immediate Consequences

Pre-conventional reasoning often focuses on immediate outcomes.

An offender may consider:

The possession they will gain now.
The excitement of the offence.
Immediate approval from friends.
Whether police are currently present.

They may give less attention to:

Long-term consequences.
The effect on the victim.
Future relationships.
Social trust.
Wider ethical responsibility.

Offending When Punishment Is Unlikely

The explanation predicts that pre-conventional thinkers may offend when they believe detection is unlikely.

For example:

“There was nobody around, so it was fine to take it.”

The person has not internalised a moral rule that applies independently of surveillance.

By contrast, a conventional or post-conventional thinker may reject the offence even when there is no risk of punishment.

Offending When Rewards Are High

The explanation also predicts increased offending when personal rewards are attractive.

Relevant rewards could include:

Money.
Status.
Excitement.
Possessions.
Acceptance by peers.
Power over another person.

The offender may treat these rewards as more important than the victim’s rights.

Applying Moral Reasoning to Theft

Consider this scenario:

Tia says, “The shop is a massive company, so taking one tablet doesn’t matter. I get something I want, and there are never any staff near the exit.”

Possible application:

The desired tablet is a personal reward.
Absence of staff reduces the expected punishment.
Tia focuses on the personal benefit and chance of detection.
She does not consider property rights or the wider effects of theft.
Her reasoning is consistent with the pre-conventional level.

The statement that the company can afford the loss may also resemble minimisation, which is studied separately in hostile attribution bias and minimalisation [Lesson 8: Cognitive distortions].

Moral Reasoning and Cognitive Distortions Are Different

This distinction is essential.

Moral reasoning

Explains the level at which a person decides what is right or wrong.

Example:

“It is acceptable because I benefit and will not be punished.”

Cognitive distortion

Explains biased or dysfunctional thinking used to interpret or justify offending.

Example:

“The victim was not really harmed.”

The same offender may display both, but they are different cognitive explanations.

The June 2025 examiner report found that many students answered the moral-reasoning question using minimalisation and hostile attribution bias instead of Kohlberg’s theory.

Applying Moral Reasoning to Aggressive Offending

Consider this scenario:

Fin says, “I hit him because everyone at school respects me now. I would not do it near a teacher because I could be excluded.”

Application:

Respect is a social reward.
Avoiding teachers reflects concern about punishment.
Fin’s judgement changes according to personal consequences.
He does not mention the victim’s pain or right to safety.
This is consistent with pre-conventional reasoning.

Applying Conventional Reasoning

“I did not join my friends in damaging the building because the community depends on people respecting shared property.”

This demonstrates conventional reasoning because:

The person considers wider society.
Behaviour is judged through social responsibility.
The decision does not depend only on personal punishment.

Applying Post-Conventional Reasoning

“Rules should protect everyone’s rights. Even if no one could identify me, exploiting another person would violate their dignity.”

This reasoning is post-conventional because:

It considers universal rights.
It does not depend on detection or social approval.
Ethical principles guide the judgement.

Applying the Explanation to a Detailed Offender Scenario

Consider this example:

Kira says, “Breaking into empty houses is easy money. I have never met anyone who lives there, so nobody is really hurt. I only choose streets without cameras, and the police have never caught me. My friends think I’m brave and ask me to get things for them.”

A developed application would include:

Easy money: Material reward at the pre-conventional reward stage.
Nobody is really hurt: Limited perspective-taking and possibly minimisation.
Streets without cameras: Behaviour is guided by the likelihood of punishment.
Never caught: Absence of punishment is treated as evidence that the behaviour is acceptable.
Friends think I’m brave: Social approval is functioning as a personal reward.
Overall: Kira reasons mainly through consequences for herself rather than laws, victims or ethical principles.

Avoid Overapplying the Theory

A person mentioning punishment does not automatically have immature moral reasoning.

A conventional thinker can recognise punishment while also considering:

Law.
Rights.
Victim welfare.
Social responsibility.

The classification should be based on the overall justification.

How Moral Reasoning May Develop

Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning generally becomes more sophisticated as cognitive abilities develop.

Progress may involve increasing ability to:

Consider different perspectives.
Understand intentions.
Think beyond immediate outcomes.
Recognise social systems.
Apply abstract principles.

However, development is not guaranteed to occur at the same rate for every person.

Possible Influences on Moral Development

Moral development may be influenced by:

Cognitive development.
Education.
Discussion of moral issues.
Opportunities for perspective-taking.
Family relationships.
Peer interaction.
Social and cultural expectations.
Experiences of rules and authority.

This means that lower moral reasoning does not need to be viewed as a fixed personal defect.

Moral Reasoning and Eysenck’s Theory

Personality and ineffective socialisation [Lesson 6: Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality] offer a different explanation of offending.

Moral reasoning	Eysenck’s theory
Focuses on cognitive judgements	Focuses on personality and conditioning
Explains how right and wrong are understood	Explains how conscience may be conditioned
Pre-conventional reasoning focuses on punishment and reward	Poor conditioning creates weak anticipatory anxiety
Assessed using moral dilemmas	Assessed using personality questionnaires
Primarily cognitive	Biosocial

The theories may operate together.

A person who conditions poorly may develop weak emotional restraints, while immature moral reasoning provides a self-focused justification for the behaviour.

Moral Reasoning and Differential Association Theory

Learning offending values through close social groups [Lesson 9: Differential association theory] explains why a person may adopt attitudes favourable to offending.

Differential association can explain:

Where pro-offending attitudes come from.
Why peers approve of an offence.
How criminal techniques are learned.
Why offending is rewarded socially.

Moral reasoning explains how the person evaluates the behaviour.

For example:

A peer group teaches that theft produces respect.
The person receives social rewards for stealing.
Pre-conventional reasoning focuses on that reward.
Victim interests are ignored.
Offending becomes more likely.

Moral Reasoning and Biological Explanations

Inherited vulnerability [Lesson 4: Genetic explanations of offending] and brain functioning associated with behavioural control [Lesson 5: Neural explanations of offending] focus on biological risk.

Biological explanations may help explain:

Impulsivity.
Emotional control.
Decision-making.
Inhibition.

Moral reasoning explains the justification used to judge the behaviour.

A person may possess impulsive vulnerability but still reject offending because of mature moral principles. Alternatively, someone may reason pre-conventionally but avoid offending because the expected punishment is high.

Evaluating Moral Reasoning

Strength: Supporting Evidence from Offender Comparisons

Research comparing offender and non-offender groups has found differences in moral reasoning.

Palmer and Hollin used moral dilemmas with offender and non-offender groups. Their work is identified by AQA as relevant evidence when evaluating whether offenders show more pre-conventional reasoning.

Such findings support the explanation because:

The theory predicts lower moral maturity among offenders.
Moral-dilemma responses can be compared systematically.
The expected group difference has been observed.

However, a group difference does not show that every offender reasons at the same level.

Limitation: Group Averages Do Not Identify Individuals

Research may show that offender groups score lower on average.

This does not mean:

Every offender is pre-conventional.
Every non-offender is conventional or post-conventional.
Moral level can identify whether one person will offend.
All types of offence involve the same reasoning.

There may be considerable overlap between groups.

The explanation identifies a risk factor rather than a diagnostic test.

Strength: The Explanation Is Testable

Kohlberg’s theory makes clear predictions.

For example:

Offenders should give more punishment-and-reward justifications.
Non-offenders should show more conventional reasoning.
Lower reasoning should be associated with reduced perspective-taking.
Moral-development programmes should improve the sophistication of justifications.

Researchers can:

Present standardised dilemmas.
Record responses.
Code the reasoning.
Compare groups.
Examine relationships with offending histories.

This makes the explanation open to empirical investigation.

Limitation: Hypothetical Dilemmas

Moral reasoning is often measured using hypothetical situations.

A participant might explain what a fictional person should do rather than deciding whether to offend in real life.

This creates a problem of ecological validity.

A hypothetical response may differ from actual behaviour because real offending involves:

Strong emotion.
Peer pressure.
Immediate rewards.
Fear.
Opportunity.
Substance use.
Time pressure.
Personal consequences.

The June 2025 examiner report noted that the few students who offered discussion often criticised moral-dilemma research because of its hypothetical nature.

What People Say Is Not Always What They Do

A person may express sophisticated moral principles but fail to follow them.

For example:

“Stealing violates another person’s rights.”

The same person might still steal when:

A valuable opportunity appears.
Peers encourage the behaviour.
They believe detection is impossible.
They are under financial pressure.

Moral reasoning measures moral knowledge or judgement, not necessarily moral action.

This creates a gap between:

Thinking.
Intention.
Behaviour.

Social Desirability

Participants may give answers that make them appear moral or socially responsible.

An offender may know that researchers expect concern for:

Victims.
Laws.
Justice.
Social order.

They may therefore provide a more sophisticated answer than their genuine reasoning.

Alternatively, some offenders may present themselves as tougher or less concerned than they really are.

This can reduce the validity of self-reported moral reasoning.

Subjective Interpretation

Researchers must interpret and classify participants’ explanations.

A response may contain features of more than one level.

For example:

“He should not steal because it is illegal, but saving a life is more important.”

This includes:

Conventional concern with law.
Possible post-conventional concern with rights.

Different researchers may classify the response differently.

Reliable coding therefore requires:

Clear criteria.
Trained researchers.
Standardised questions.
Inter-rater reliability checks.

Limitation: Cause and Effect

Lower moral reasoning may be associated with offending, but this does not establish that it caused the offence.

Several possibilities exist:

Immature moral reasoning increases offending risk.
Repeated offending encourages self-focused reasoning.
Prison experience affects moral responses.
Another variable causes both lower reasoning and offending.

Possible third variables include:

Education.
Cognitive ability.
Family environment.
Peer groups.
Social disadvantage.
Childhood experiences.

The evidence is therefore often correlational.

Direction of Effect

Repeated offending may alter a person’s moral reasoning.

An offender may develop self-focused justifications because:

They need to reduce guilt.
Their peer group praises the offence.
They have repeatedly avoided punishment.
The offence has produced rewards.
They want to maintain a positive view of themselves.

In this case, immature reasoning may partly follow offending rather than precede it.

Longitudinal research would be needed to establish whether lower moral reasoning appears before offending begins.

Limitation: Context-Specific Reasoning

A person may reason at different levels in different situations.

AQA’s June 2025 mark scheme identifies evidence suggesting that offenders may use pre-conventional reasoning in contexts connected with their offences while showing more sophisticated reasoning in other contexts. Ashkar and Kenny are given as an example.

For example, an offender might:

Use reward-based reasoning about theft.
Show conventional responsibility towards family.
Apply principled reasoning to another social issue.

This challenges the idea that each person possesses one fixed, general level of moral reasoning.

Strength of Context-Specific Findings

Context-specific findings do not necessarily make moral reasoning irrelevant.

Instead, they suggest that psychologists should examine:

The offence type.
The particular moral issue.
The person’s relationship with the victim.
Whether rewards are personally important.
Which social norms are active.

The explanation may work best when applied to reasoning directly connected with the offence.

Limitation: Different Types of Offending

Pre-conventional reasoning may be especially relevant to offences involving:

Immediate financial gain.
Excitement.
Status.
Low perceived risk.
Peer approval.

It may be less successful at explaining offending motivated by:

Strong political principles.
Coercion.
Mental-health difficulties.
Addiction.
Emotional loss of control.
Complex financial pressures.

Offending behaviour is too varied to be explained by one cognitive level.

Limitation: It May Explain Justification Rather Than Cause

An offender may describe an offence using punishment or reward after the event.

This could be a rationalisation rather than the original cause.

For example:

“It was fine because I gained money and nobody was hurt.”

The person may actually have offended because of:

Peer pressure.
Anger.
Addiction.
Financial need.
Impulsivity.
Opportunity.

Moral reasoning may explain how the person interprets the offence without explaining why the behaviour first occurred.

This criticism also applies to some cognitive distortions [Lesson 8: Cognitive distortions].

Limitation: Male Bias

Kohlberg’s original research has been criticised for male bias.

Gilligan argued that a model based primarily on male participants may treat a justice-based style of reasoning as the most advanced form of morality.

Other forms of moral judgement may place greater emphasis on:

Care.
Relationships.
Responsibility towards particular people.
Avoiding harm.

AQA’s June 2025 mark scheme identifies Gilligan’s critique and male bias as relevant evaluation.

This may reduce the validity of applying Kohlberg’s hierarchy equally to everyone.

A Care-Based Response

Consider a person who says:

“He should help because abandoning someone who depends on him would damage their relationship.”

This response focuses on care and responsibility rather than an abstract justice principle.

A rigid interpretation of Kohlberg might undervalue this type of moral reasoning.

The criticism suggests that moral sophistication may not always be represented by one universal sequence.

Limitation: Cognitive Reductionism

The explanation may be criticised as cognitively reductionist because it reduces offending to a person’s level of moral thought.

This may overlook:

Biological vulnerability.
Personality.
Emotional arousal.
Social learning.
Peer-group influence.
Poverty.
Opportunity.
Substance dependence.
Cognitive distortions.

Reductionism has advantages because moral reasoning can be:

Defined.
Measured.
Compared.
Tested.

However, it is unlikely to provide a complete explanation of offending.

This connects with the strengths and limitations of reductionist explanations [Lesson 5: Holism and reductionism].

Alternative Explanation: Cognitive Distortions

Moral reasoning and cognitive distortions may both be present.

A thief might think:

“I gain money and will not be punished.”

Pre-conventional moral reasoning.
“The company will not notice the loss.”

Minimalisation.

The first concerns the level at which right and wrong are judged.

The second reduces the perceived seriousness of the offence.

Using both explanations may produce a fuller cognitive account.

Alternative Explanation: Differential Association

Differential association theory may explain why pre-conventional rewards become so influential.

A peer group may teach that:

Offending brings status.
Victims do not matter.
Avoiding police is evidence of skill.
Criminal rules are more important than conventional laws.

The person learns definitions favourable to offending.

Moral reasoning then focuses on the rewards provided by the group.

Alternative Explanation: Biological Vulnerability

Biological explanations may account for characteristics such as:

Impulsivity.
Poor emotional regulation.
Weak behavioural inhibition.

Moral reasoning does not explain why a person struggles to pause before acting.

A combined account might propose:

Neural vulnerability reduces impulse control.
A peer group rewards offending.
Pre-conventional reasoning emphasises the reward.
The immediate opportunity triggers the offence.

Practical Value

Moral reasoning has potential practical value because cognitive processes may be open to change.

Interventions could encourage offenders to:

Consider the victim’s perspective.
Examine long-term consequences.
Discuss moral dilemmas.
Recognise wider social responsibilities.
Challenge self-focused reasoning.
Practise evaluating competing viewpoints.

The explanation therefore does not imply that offending is permanently fixed.

However, improved moral reasoning may not reduce behaviour unless interventions also address:

Peer influence.
Impulsivity.
Addiction.
Employment.
Environmental opportunities.
Cognitive distortions.

Cognitive Determinism

A strongly deterministic interpretation might suggest that a person offends because their moral reasoning controls their behaviour.

This underestimates:

Choice.
Emotional factors.
Situational pressures.
The ability to behave differently despite immature reasoning.
The fact that reasoning and action do not always match.

A more balanced view is:

Lower moral reasoning increases vulnerability but does not make offending inevitable.

Overall Evaluation

Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning offers a clear cognitive explanation of offending. Offenders may be more likely to reason at the pre-conventional level, judging behaviour according to personal punishment and reward. This can explain offending where the person focuses on money, excitement or peer respect while assuming that behaviour is acceptable if they avoid detection.

Research comparing offender and non-offender groups provides support, and the explanation generates testable predictions. However, moral dilemmas are hypothetical, responses may be affected by social desirability and lower reasoning does not establish causation. Reasoning can also be context-specific, and offenders may show mature morality outside situations connected with their offence.

The most balanced conclusion is that pre-conventional reasoning may be one cognitive risk factor. It is most convincing when combined with social learning, cognitive distortions, personality and biological vulnerability.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Moral reasoning	The thinking used to judge whether behaviour is right or wrong	Introduce the cognitive explanation
Moral development	Increasing sophistication in the way moral decisions are justified	Explain Kohlberg’s developmental theory
Cognitive explanation	An explanation based on thoughts, beliefs and interpretations	Classify level of moral reasoning
Kohlberg	The psychologist associated with levels of moral reasoning	Name the required theory
Pre-conventional morality	Reasoning based mainly on personal punishment and reward	Explain the level associated with offending
Punishment stage	Judging behaviour according to whether it leads to punishment	Apply statements about being caught or fined
Reward stage	Judging behaviour according to personal benefit	Apply statements about money, excitement or respect
Conventional morality	Reasoning based on approval, social expectations, rules and law	Explain more mature social reasoning
Post-conventional morality	Reasoning based on rights, justice and broader ethical principles	Explain the most sophisticated level
Personal consequence	A reward or punishment experienced by the actor	Identify pre-conventional thinking
Perspective-taking	Considering a situation from another person’s viewpoint	Explain what may be limited in pre-conventional reasoning
Empathy	Understanding and responding to another person’s feelings	Explain why victim welfare may inhibit offending
Social order	The organised system supported by shared rules and responsibilities	Explain conventional morality
Social contract	The idea that rules should protect rights and collective wellbeing	Explain post-conventional thinking
Ethical principle	A general standard involving justice, rights or human dignity	Identify principled reasoning
Moral dilemma	A hypothetical situation containing a conflict between moral obligations	Explain how reasoning may be assessed
Heinz dilemma	Kohlberg’s scenario involving whether medicine should be stolen to save a life	Illustrate assessment of moral reasoning
Offender comparison	Research comparing moral reasoning in offender and non-offender groups	Evaluate empirical support
Context-specific reasoning	The use of different moral levels in different situations	Evaluate the idea of one fixed level
Social desirability	Giving answers that appear acceptable to other people	Evaluate dilemma responses
Inter-rater reliability	Agreement between researchers classifying moral responses	Evaluate the coding of reasoning
Ecological validity	The extent to which a task reflects real behaviour	Evaluate hypothetical dilemmas
Cognitive reductionism	Explaining complex offending mainly through thought processes	Evaluate the limited explanatory level
Male bias	Theory or research that may represent male experience more strongly	Explain Gilligan’s criticism
Probabilistic explanation	An account that changes the likelihood of behaviour rather than determining it	Reach a balanced conclusion

Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡

Answer Moral Reasoning, Not Cognitive Distortions

Examiner hint: Check which cognitive explanation the question names.

The June 2025 examiner report found that many students wrote about minimalisation and hostile attribution bias when the question asked about level of moral reasoning. These concepts could not be applied successfully as substitutes for Kohlberg’s theory.

Remember:

Moral reasoning: Punishment, reward, social rules and ethical principles.
Cognitive distortions: Hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.

Go Beyond Punishment and Reward

Examiner hint: Punishment and reward are the starting point, not the entire essay.

The examiner report noted that students who knew Kohlberg’s theory often said little beyond avoiding punishment and gaining reward.

A developed answer should also explain:

Why this reasoning is pre-conventional.
Limited empathy or perspective-taking.
Conventional reasoning.
More principled reasoning.
How the level increases offending risk.
Relevant evaluation.

Apply Separate Details from the Scenario

A strong application identifies each clue independently.

For example:

Scenario detail	Application
“I get expensive things”	Material reward
“It is exciting”	Emotional reward
“My friends respect me”	Social reward
“The police never catch me”	Punishment-based reasoning
“The fine would be tiny”	Punishment is judged insignificant
“Nobody is hurt”	Limited victim perspective or possible minimisation

The 2025 mark scheme expected direct links between Debi’s comments and punishment, reward, empathy and the wider social perspective.

Explain Why Avoiding Punishment Matters

Do not write only:

The offender does not want to be punished.

Explain:

At the pre-conventional punishment stage, the offender judges wrongdoing according to whether punishment occurs. Avoiding detection is therefore treated as evidence that the offence is acceptable.

Identify Different Types of Reward

Rewards may be:

Material.
Social.
Emotional.

This allows a richer application than simply writing that the offender gains money.

Distinguish Social Reward from Conventional Morality

Peer approval does not automatically indicate conventional morality.

Ask why the approval matters.

“My friends respect me, so offending benefits me” is pre-conventional reward reasoning.
“I should behave responsibly because relationships depend on trust” is conventional reasoning.

The first is self-focused. The second considers social responsibility.

Explain the Absence of Higher Reasoning

A strong answer can explain not only what is present but what is missing.

For example:

The offender does not consider the victim’s perspective or the need for laws protecting property. This suggests that their reasoning has not progressed to a more conventional level.

Include Genuine Discussion

The 2025 examiner report found that very few students included discussion in the extended moral-reasoning answer.

Useful evaluation includes:

Evidence from offender comparisons.
Hypothetical moral dilemmas.
Context-specific reasoning.
Male bias.
Cause and effect.
Alternative explanations.
Reductionism.

Develop the Moral-Dilemma Criticism

Do not state only:

The Heinz dilemma is unrealistic.

Develop the consequence:

Explaining how a fictional person should behave does not recreate the emotion, reward and peer pressure present during a real offence. A participant may therefore give sophisticated answers without behaving according to them, reducing ecological validity.

Use Context Specificity Effectively

A developed point is:

Some offenders may show pre-conventional reasoning only when discussing their offence. If they reason more conventionally in unrelated situations, moral development may not be a fixed general characteristic. The explanation may therefore need to focus on offence-specific thinking.

Evaluate Evidence Rather Than Naming Studies

Do not write:

Palmer and Hollin support the theory.

Explain:

A lower level of moral reasoning among offender groups supports Kohlberg’s prediction. However, differences between offender and control groups may reflect education or social background rather than moral reasoning causing offending.

Follow the AO Allocation

The June 2025 question allocated:

AO1: 6 marks.
AO2: 4 marks.
AO3: 6 marks.

A successful 16-mark response therefore needs:

Accurate knowledge.
Several explicit links to the scenario.
Developed evaluation.
A reasoned conclusion.

Explain that perspective-taking may support more mature reasoning without being exactly the same process.

Mistake 15

Mistake: Using “reductionist” as an unexplained label.

Why this is incomplete:

Evaluation requires a consequence.

How to improve:

Explain that focusing on moral thought may overlook biology, personality, peer learning and situational opportunity.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

What is meant by moral reasoning? [2 marks]

Question 2

Explain one difference between pre-conventional and conventional moral reasoning. [3 marks]

Question 3

Outline the punishment and reward stages of pre-conventional morality. [4 marks]

Question 4

Luca says:

“Taking money from unlocked bags is easy. I get something useful, my friends think I’m clever and nobody has ever caught me.”

Use your knowledge of moral reasoning to explain Luca’s comments. [4 marks]

Question 5

Sana finds a valuable watch in an empty classroom. She decides to hand it in because she believes that trust would disappear if people kept property that did not belong to them.

Explain which level of moral reasoning Sana is demonstrating. [3 marks]

Question 6

A researcher presents moral dilemmas to people with convictions and to a matched group without convictions.

Group	Pre-conventional responses	Conventional responses	Post-conventional responses
Conviction group	22	11	3
Comparison group	9	19	8

Describe two patterns in the results and explain how they relate to Kohlberg’s explanation of offending. [6 marks]

Question 7

Explain one reason why responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas may not predict actual offending behaviour. [3 marks]

Question 8

Explain one difference between level of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions as explanations of offending. [4 marks]

Question 9

Explain one strength and one limitation of moral reasoning as an explanation of offending. [6 marks]

Question 10

Discuss level of moral reasoning as an explanation of offending. Refer to the following comments in your answer.

“Selling stolen phones gets me money and makes me popular. I only take them when no one is looking, so I won’t be punished. The owners can buy new ones anyway.”

[16 marks]

Answers and Mark Scheme

Question 1

Award one mark for each of the following:

The thinking or judgement used to decide whether behaviour is right or wrong.
The reasons or justification given for that moral decision.

Maximum: 2 marks

Question 2

Award up to three marks for an explicit distinction:

Pre-conventional reasoning is based mainly on personal punishment and reward.
Conventional reasoning is based on social expectations, approval, law or maintaining social order.
A pre-conventional thinker may avoid an offence only when punishment is likely, whereas a conventional thinker may avoid it because it violates rules or damages trust.

Question 3

Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:

Both stages belong to the pre-conventional level.
At the punishment stage, behaviour is judged according to whether it is punished.
Behaviour may be seen as acceptable when punishment or detection is avoided.
At the reward stage, behaviour is judged according to the benefit gained by the actor.
Rewards may be material, social or emotional.
Both stages are self-focused.
Limited attention is given to victims, wider society or abstract principles.

Question 4

Award up to four marks for effective application:

Luca is showing pre-conventional reasoning.
Getting something useful is a personal material reward.
Approval from friends is a social reward.
The absence of detection means Luca does not expect punishment.
He treats not being caught as evidence that the behaviour is acceptable.
He does not mention the victim’s rights or feelings.
His reasoning is based on consequences for himself rather than conventional social responsibility.

Question 5

Award marks as follows:

One mark for identifying conventional morality.
One mark for linking Sana’s reasoning to trust or social relationships.
One mark for explaining that she considers the wider effect on society rather than personal punishment or reward.

Do not credit post-conventional reasoning unless the answer clearly identifies an abstract ethical principle rather than social order.

Question 6

Award up to two marks for describing patterns:

The conviction group produces more pre-conventional responses.
Twenty-two members of the conviction group respond pre-conventionally compared with nine in the comparison group.
The comparison group produces more conventional responses.
The comparison group also produces more post-conventional responses.
Pre-conventional responses are the largest category in the conviction group.
Conventional responses are the largest category in the comparison group.

Award up to four marks for explanation:

The findings are consistent with Kohlberg’s explanation.
People with convictions are more likely to focus on punishment and reward.
The comparison group shows more socially oriented or principled reasoning.
Lower moral reasoning may reduce consideration of victims or social responsibility.
Group differences do not show that every offender is pre-conventional.
The results are correlational and do not prove that moral reasoning caused offending.
Other group differences may explain the pattern.

Question 7

Award one mark for identifying a valid issue and up to two marks for explanation.

Possible answers include:

Hypothetical nature

Participants know that no real offence, reward or punishment is involved. They may reason calmly and give a socially acceptable answer that differs from how they would act under real pressure.

Reasoning-behaviour gap

A person may understand sophisticated moral principles but fail to follow them when an opportunity or reward appears. The response measures moral judgement rather than actual behaviour.

Social desirability

Participants may say what they believe the researcher expects, producing more mature responses than their genuine reasoning.

Maximum: 3 marks

Question 8

Possible answer:

Level of moral reasoning explains the basis on which an offender judges behaviour as right or wrong, such as personal punishment and reward at the pre-conventional level. Cognitive distortions are biased ways of interpreting or justifying an offence, such as minimising the harm or attributing hostile intentions to a victim. Moral reasoning concerns the sophistication of the moral judgement, whereas distortions alter the offender’s interpretation of events or consequences.

For four marks, both explanations should be accurate and the distinction explicit.

Question 9

Award up to three marks for one developed strength and up to three marks for one developed limitation.

Possible strength:

Research comparing offender and non-offender groups has found lower moral reasoning among offender samples. This supports Kohlberg’s prediction that offenders are more likely to focus on personal punishment and reward. The explanation is also testable because responses to standardised dilemmas can be coded and compared.

Possible limitation:

Moral dilemmas are hypothetical. Explaining what a fictional person should do does not reproduce the emotional arousal, peer pressure or rewards present during a real offence. Participants may therefore show sophisticated reasoning without acting according to it, reducing ecological validity.

Other creditworthy limitations include:

Context-specific reasoning.
Male bias.
Correlation and cause-and-effect problems.
Social desirability.
Subjective coding.
Different types of offending.
Cognitive reductionism.
Moral reasoning possibly justifying rather than causing offending.

Question 10

A high-level answer should include accurate knowledge, explicit application and developed evaluation.

Indicative AO1 content

Moral reasoning as a cognitive explanation.
Kohlberg’s developmental theory.
Increasing sophistication with age.
Pre-conventional morality.
Punishment-based reasoning.
Reward-based reasoning.
Personal consequences.
Conventional morality.
Social approval, rules and law.
Post-conventional morality.
Rights, justice and ethical principles.
Perspective-taking and empathy.
Heinz dilemma.
Greater pre-conventional reasoning among offenders.

Indicative AO2 application

Money from phones is a material reward.
Popularity is a social reward.
Offending when nobody is looking reflects concern about detection.
Avoiding punishment is treated as evidence that offending is acceptable.
The owners’ loss is minimised.
Victim perspective is limited.
The comments show little conventional concern for property laws, trust or social order.
The offender does not apply broader rights or justice principles.

Indicative AO3 content

Supporting offender-comparison evidence.
Palmer and Hollin’s use of dilemmas.
Hypothetical nature of moral dilemmas.
Social desirability.
Reasoning not necessarily predicting behaviour.
Context-specific moral reasoning.
Ashkar and Kenny.
Male bias and Gilligan’s critique.
Cause and effect.
Third variables such as education or social background.
Moral reasoning as justification rather than initial cause.
Different offence types.
Comparison with cognitive distortions.
Comparison with differential association.
Comparison with biological or personality explanations.
Cognitive reductionism.
Practical value of developing perspective-taking.
Need for an interactionist conclusion.

Thirteen to sixteen marks: Knowledge is accurate and generally detailed. Application is clear and effective, with several comments linked explicitly to punishment, reward and limited higher-level reasoning. Discussion is thorough, focused and effective. Specialist terminology is used precisely.

Nine to twelve marks: Knowledge is mostly accurate. Application and discussion are generally effective, although some links or evaluation points may lack development.

Five to eight marks: Some relevant knowledge is present, but the response is mainly descriptive. Application may be limited to mentioning punishment and reward, or evaluation may be generic.

One to four marks: Knowledge is very limited or confused. The response may describe cognitive distortions instead of moral reasoning, make few effective links to the comments or provide little discussion.