刺激性照片對國民法官決策之影響

Abstract

於審判中呈現刺激性照片是否會對於國民法官的決策造成影響，先前研究結果並不一致。本研究為探討此一議題，並為同時釐清法官的限制性指示對於國民法官的影響，設計2個獨變項：刺激性照片及法官的限制性指示，前者分為3個水準：彩色照片、黑白照片、無照片，後者分為2水準：一般性說明與限制性指示（即對於刺激性證據的評價做額外的提醒）、僅一般性說明，共分為6組。本研究為受試者間設計，以網路問卷的方式招募符合國民法官資格的參與者共計307位，參與者隨機分配至6個組別，閱讀不同的實驗材料並完成問卷。研究結果顯示，刺激性照片並未對參與者的罪名判斷、量刑輕重、證據充足程度產生影響，而限制性指示的操弄並未成功。參與者的個體差異上，認知需求得分越高的參與者請向認為實驗材料所呈現的證據越不血腥，且控制證據充足程度時，高認知需求者會偏好較輕的量刑；情感需求的作用則有限，其扮演著調節角色，情感需求得分越高的參與者，於觀看實驗材料時會經驗到更高程度的恐懼/焦慮，除此之外，情感需求並無法影響到參與者對於罪名、量刑、證據充足程度所做的決定。

Prior research has yielded inconsistent findings regarding whether lay judges’ decisions are influenced by the presentation of graphic photographs during trial. The present study investigated this issue as well as the effect of limiting instructions. A 3 (color photographs, black-and-white photographs, no photographs) × 2 (general vs. limiting instructions) between-subjects design was employed. Participants (n = 307) who were eligible to serve as lay judges were recruited and randomly assigned to one of six conditions. They read trial materials and completed a questionnaire afterward. Results indicated that graphic photographs did not influence participants’ verdicts, sentencing decisions, nor their perceptions of evidence sufficiency. Moreover, the manipulation of limiting instructions was unsuccessful. However, individual differences emerged: participants with higher Need for Cognition (NFC) perceived the evidence as less gruesome and, after controlling for perceptions of evidence sufficiency, they preferred more lenient sentences. By contrast, Need for Affect (NFA) played a limited moderating role. Participants with higher NFA experienced stronger fear/anxiety responses after reading the trial materials. Aside from that, NFA had no direct influence on participants’ decision-making on verdicts, sentencing decisions and perceptions of evidence sufficiency.