supporting cognitive distortions as an explanation of criminal behaviour could be argued to lack ecological validity as it is difficult to generalise the responses from a hypothetical situation to a real life situation. It also lacks predictive validity as it is difficult to make predictions about why people engage in violent behaviour as their responses may not the same as they would be in a real situation. Notes Minimalisation: This refers to an offender downplaying or denying the seriousness of the offence committed. This can include downplaying the effects of the crime, rationalising why they have committed the crime or trivialising the acts they committed. For example, burglars may describe themselves as 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family' as a way of minimising the seriousness of their offences. Studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation. For example Barbaree (1991) found among 26 convicted rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim. Similarly, Hasmall (1991) reported 35% of a sample of child molesters argued that the crime they had committed was non-sexual ('they were just being affectionate') and 36% stated the victim had consented. Evaluation of minimalisation Descriptive rather than Minimalisation describes how an offender may have a distorted view of explanatory their offending behaviour but it does not really explain why they committed the offence in the first place. Despite this, it could be argued that it is still useful to understand how minimalisation is involved in offending behaviour as it could be used to predict reoffending or used in the development of treatment programmes.
supporting cognitive distortions as an explanation of criminal behaviour could be argued to lack ecological validity as it is difficult to generalise the responses from a hypothetical situation to a real life situation. It also lacks predictive validity as it is difficult to make predictions about why people engage in violent behaviour as their responses may not the same as they would be in a real situation. Notes Minimalisation: This refers to an offender downplaying or denying the seriousness of the offence committed. This can include downplaying the effects of the crime, rationalising why they have committed the crime or trivialising the acts they committed. For example, burglars may describe themselves as 'doing a job' or 'supporting my family' as a way of minimising the seriousness of their offences. Studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation. For example Barbaree (1991) found among 26 convicted rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim. Similarly, Hasmall (1991) reported 35% of a sample of child molesters argued that the crime they had committed was non-sexual ('they were just being affectionate') and 36% stated the victim had consented. Evaluation of minimalisation Descriptive rather than explanatory Minimalisation describes how an offender may have a distorted view of their offending behaviour but it does not really explain why they committed the offence in the first place. Despite this, it could be argued that it is still useful to understand how minimalisation is involved in offending behaviour as it could be used to predict reoffending or used in the development of treatment programmes.