Moral Reasoning and Intellectual Disabilities 2

Many studies conclude there is a strong relationship between moral reasoning and illegal behaviour amongst young offenders. However, there has been no research examining this relationship amongst people with intellectual disabilities. There is some empirical evidence to suggest that the relationship between moral reasoning and illegal behaviour may be curvilinear, such that lower moral reasoning and higher moral reasoning relates to lower rates of illegal behaviour and inappropriate conduct. Given this, and evidence that people with intellectual disabilities are reasoning at a lower moral stage than their sameage peers, it is proposed that some people with intellectual disabilities may actually be less likely to engage in illegal behaviour because they are reasoning at an earlier moral stage, while those with ‘borderline’ intelligence would be more likely to engage in illegal behaviour. This suggests that the relationship between moral reasoning and illegal behaviour is moderated by intelligence, and this has implications for the design of intervention programmes for people with intellectual disabilities, but further research is needed. Moral Reasoning and Intellectual Disabilities 3 Moral Reasoning Theory and Illegal Behaviour by Adults with Intellectual Disabilities Meta-analytic studies have demonstrated a strong relationship between moral reasoning and illegal behaviour, including both crimes and antisocial behaviour amongst young offenders (Blasi, 1980; Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, 1990; Stams, Brugman, Deković, & van Rosmalen, 2006).The most recent study reported that moral reasoning is lower amongst ‘delinquent’ adolescents than ‘non-delinquents’, with a large effect size of d=0.76 (Stams, et al., 2006). However, these meta-analytic studies do not include populations of people with intellectual disabilities (ID). As a consequence little is known about the relationship between moral reasoning and illegal behaviour for this group. In this paper, we present a brief summary of moral reasoning theory, followed by a discussion of the proposed relationships between moral reasoning, intelligence and illegal behaviour. We then review the relevant literature involving people with ID, and draw attention to its theoretical and empirical limitations. We conclude that, as far as is known, no studies have examined the potential relationship between moral reasoning and illegal behaviour in this population. In an attempt to address this gap, we propose that the relationship between intelligence and such behaviour is moderated by moral reasoning. The implication is that at least some people with ID may actually be less likely to engage in illegal behaviour than their counterparts in the general population. However, we recognise that, given the unsatisfactory nature of the literature, that the evidence base in support of our proposal is weak. Moral Reasoning and Intellectual Disabilities 4 Moral Reasoning Theory Piaget (1932) is credited with constructing the first psychological theory of moral development. He argued that moral development occurs in parallel with and is dependent upon logical reasoning; moral development cannot occur without associated developmental progression within the logical reasoning domain. Given the link between cognitive ability and moral reasoning, the implications for people with ID are obvious. However, one of the difficulties with Piagetian theory is that it does not consider development beyond childhood. This difficulty was addressed by Kohlberg (1969, 1974) who proposed a stage theory of moral development that extended beyond childhood and into adolescence and adulthood. Kohlbergian moral reasoning theory originally comprised six stages, spread across three levels (Table 1), and forming a hierarchical stage model where more complex levels of moral reasoning required successful progression through earlier stages in a more or less linear fashion. The progression in moral reasoning was accompanied by a parallel developmental progression in logical reasoning, or cognitive abilities, similar to that proposed by Piaget (1932). Over the years, there have been a wide range of criticisms of Kohlbergian moral stage theory on the grounds of cultural bias (Simpson, 1974), Western liberalism (Schweder, 1982; Sullivan, 1977), masculinist conceptualisations of morality (Gilligan, 1982), and the lack of attention paid to the important role of emotion (Sullivan, 1977). Moreover, little evidence has been found for the existence of higher order levels of moral reasoning within various populations, while stage reversal and regression have also been reported Moral Reasoning and Intellectual Disabilities 5 (Simpson, 1974; Sullivan, 1977). However, Kohlberg and his colleagues attempted to address these criticisms by revising the scoring methods of their data collection instruments, revising theory and reanalysing their data (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983, 1984). INSERT TABLE ONE ABOUT HERE Nevertheless, many of the criticisms remained salient, and Gibbs (1979) argued for the separation of post-conventional reasoning completely from moral reasoning theory on the grounds that such mature levels of moral reasoning were “existential”. Drawing on evidence that post-conventional moral reasoning is achieved infrequently across cultures, Gibbs and his colleagues (1979; Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, 1992) revised Kohlbergian moral theory into a sociomoral stage theory regarding the reasons or justifications people give for their behaviour (Table 2), and their revisions have recently been shown to have cross cultural validity (Gibbs, Basinger, Grime, & Snarey, 2007). This sociomoral reasoning theory, and the associated instruments for measuring moral stage, have subsequently been used widely to examine the relationship between illegal behaviour and moral reasoning, and the theory has been developed further. Gibbs (2003) revisited his theoretical perspective and placed moral reasoning within the context of traditional information processing theory, drawing parallels between moral stages and schema. At Moral Reasoning and Intellectual Disabilities 6 the same time, he recognised the importance of emotional states such as empathy, as considered by Hoffman (2000). INSERT TABLE TWO ABOUT HERE Moral Reasoning, Illegal Behaviour and Intelligence According to Gibbs (2003), a “developmental delay in moral judgement” (p. 135) coupled with distorted cognitions and social skill deficits are common among the perpetrators of illegal behaviours, and suggested that “...antisocial behaviour stems in part from moral perception based on developmentally delayed morality” (p. 135). He argued that illegal behaviour is driven by cognitive distortions that are generated by the development of schema reflecting the individual’s moral stage. This account has been elaborated by Palmer (2003a; 2003b), who embedded moral reasoning within the context of a developmental theory that recognises the influences of peers and parents, information processing, and social and environmental factors. Like Gibbs (2003), Palmer (2003a, 2003b) proposed that immature moral reasoning leads to the generation of cognitive distortions, used by an individual to support their illegal behaviour. She thus provided a theoretical link as to why moral reasoning theory may be associated with behaviour that