Criminal Thinking Data.sav

Abstract: A large body of literature has explored moral decision-making; however, fewer have examined the explicit role of criminal thinking (CT). This study sought to determine whether moral judgement is influenced by CT in the general population and if this relationship further depends on the type of scenario (i.e., immoral vs. illegal) and/or the actor orientation (i.e., self vs. other). Using a sample of 239 U.S. adults and hypothetical case vignettes, results showed that those who endorsed higher levels of CT rated offending behaviors, regardless of the type of scenario, as significantly more morally acceptable than participants who endorsed lower levels of CT. However, this difference was more pronounced for the immoral (but not illegal) dilemma compared to the illegal dilemma. Among a mostly non-offending sample, this finding makes sense as it appears participants’ levels of criminal thinking may have been high enough to rationalize an immoral dilemma but not so high as to allow for rationalization of an illegal dilemma. No significant differences were found concerning actor orientation. This research not only has important implications for better understanding traits associated with moral decision-making and explaining the rationale behind layperson’s everyday moral choices, but it may also have practical application in legal contexts. For example, jurors with higher levels of CT could be more inclined to rationalize a defendant’s or litigant’s alleged actions. However, further research is needed in these contexts. Findings were also limited by a lack of racial diversity among participants. Additional limitations and future directions are discussed.<br><br>A path analysis within structural equation modeling was used to examine whether moral reasoning is influenced by levels of CT and whether this relationship is moderated by type of dilemma (i.e. immoral vs. illegal) and/or the actor-focused orientation (i.e. self vs. other) of the dilemma. actor-focused orientation was a between-subjects factor with type of dilemma as the within-subjects factor. <br>