請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101580完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 趙儀珊 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yee-San Teoh | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 姜宥汝 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-ju Chiang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-02-11T16:31:04Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-02-12 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-02-11 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-02-03 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
林睿軒（2024）：〈論國民法官法下刺激證據之調查必要性－以攝影證據為核心〉。《軍法專刊》，70（3），138-168。 法務部（2025年2月10日）：〈國民法官法施行兩周年 各地檢署檢察官表現亮眼 本部積極因應重罪案件新挑戰〉。法務部全球資訊網。 高泉豐（1994）：〈認知需求的概念與測量〉。《中華心理學刊》，36（1），1-20。 張仁和、黃金蘭、林以正（2013）：〈從情緒平和與止觀探討心理位移日記書寫方法的療癒機制〉。《教育心理學報》，44（3），589-607。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20120407 翁儷禎（計畫主持人）（1999）：《點數與標示語對評定量尺反應的影響（I）》（計畫編號：NSC88-2413-H-002-010）。國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告，國科會。 英文文獻 Adams, D. D., Neal, T. M., Titcomb, C., & Griffin, M. P. (2010). Let emotions be the judge: Graphic evidence and need for affect in legal decision-making (Poster presentation). the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Ahola, A. S., Hellström, Å., & Christianson, S. Å. (2010). Is justice really blind? Effects of crime descriptions, defendant gender and appearance, and legal practitioner gender on sentences and defendant evaluations in a mock trial. Psychiatry, psychology and law, 17(2), 304-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710903566896 Allison, M., & Brimacombe, C. E. (2010). Alibi believability: The effect of prior convictions and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1054-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00610.x Anakwah, N., Horselenberg, R., Hope, L., Amankwah‐Poku, M., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2020). Cross‐cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 504-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3637 Appel, M., Gnambs, T., & Maio, G. R. (2012). A short measure of the need for affect. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(4), 418-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.666921 Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2010). Transportation and need for affect in narrative persuasion: A mediated moderation model. Media Psychology, 13(2), 101-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213261003799847 Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 429-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316030001629292 Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032 Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400105 Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042761 Corwin, E. P., Cramer, R. J., Griffin, D. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 40(1), 41-49. Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial?. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485-501. Edwards, E. R., & Mottarella, K. E. (2014). Preserving the Right to a Fair Trial: An Examination of Prejudicial Value of Visual and Auditory Evidence. North American Journal of Psychology, 16(2). Estrada-Reynolds, V., Schweitzer, K. A., & Nuñez, N. (2016). Emotions in the courtroom: How sadness, fear, anger, and disgust affect juror's decisions. Wyoming Law Review, 16, 343. Finkelstein, R., & Bastounis, M. (2010). The effect of the deliberation process and jurors' prior legal knowledge on the sentence: The role of psychological expertise and crime scene photo. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(3), 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.914 Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1301_01 Fox J, Weisberg S (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. https://www.john-fox.ca/Companion/ Ghanbari A (2017). ALSM: Companion to Applied Linear Statistical Models. R package version 0.2.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ALSM Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499073 Griffin, D. A., & Patty, E. (2010). Emotions in the Courtroom: Need for Affect in Juror Decision-Making. Jury Expert, 22, 61. Haddock, G., Maio, G. R., Arnold, K., & Huskinson, T. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 769-778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208314871 Hayes, Andrew F. (2025). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford publications. Hope, L, Anakwah, N, Antfolk, J., Brubacher, S. P., Flowe, H., Gabbert, F., Giebels, E., Kanja, W., Korkman, J., Kyo, A., Naka, M., Otgaar, Powell, H., Selim, H., Skrifvars, J., Sorkpah, I. K., Sowatey, E. A., Steele, L. C., Stevens, L. ... Anonymous. (2022). Urgent issues and prospects at the intersection of culture, memory, and witness interviews: Exploring the challenges for research and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12202 Huang, K. J., Teoh, Y. S., & Itoh, Y. (2024). Victim impact statement and lay judges’ decision making: exploring cross-cultural and individual differences in East Asia. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(10), 1292-1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2186408 Huggins, C. F., Williams, J. H., & Sato, W. (2023). Cross-cultural differences in self-reported and behavioural emotional self-awareness between Japan and the UK. BMC Research Notes, 16(1), 380. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-023-06660-0 Kassin, S. M., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial‐specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1459-1472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00481.x Kassin, S. M., & Studebaker, C. A. (1998). Instructions to disregard and the jury: Curative and paradoxical effects. In J. M. Golding & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 413–434). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Koch, C. M., & Devine, D. J. (1999). Effects of reasonable doubt definition and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 23(6), 653-674. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022389305876 Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13(1), 89-99. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056165 Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1982). A meta-analysis of the influence of research methodology on the outcomes of jury simulation studies. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky. Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 583-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694156 Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922 Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 925 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.925 Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors' decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(1), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954 Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2017). The effects of limiting instructions about emotional evidence depend on need for cognition. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(4), 516-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1254588 McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror Need for Cognition and Sensitivity to Methodological Flaws in Expert Evidence 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 385-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00310. McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1981). EDITS manual: Profile of mood states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Training Service. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.949 Nemeth, R. J. (2002). The impact of gruesome evidence on mock juror decision making: The role of evidence characteristics and emotional response. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College. https://doi.org/10.31390/gradschool_dissertations.131 Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004 Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291 Nuñez, N., Schweitzer, K., Chai, C. A., & Myers, B. (2015). Negative emotions felt during trial: The effect of fear, anger, and sadness on juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3094 R Core Team. (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Ruva, C. L. (2016). The impact of pretrial publicity and need for cognition on mock-jurors’ decisions and deliberation behavior. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 20-31. DOI: 10.5923/j.ijpbs.20160601.04 Salerno, J. M. (2017). Seeing red: Disgust reactions to gruesome photographs in color (but not in black and white) increase convictions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000122 Salerno, J. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(2), 273-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.861 Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1485-1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264481 Shao, B., Doucet, L., & Caruso, D. R. (2015). Universality versus cultural specificity of three emotion domains: Some evidence based on the cascading model of emotional intelligence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(2), 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114557479 Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813 Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1368-1377. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710012 Tam, K. P., Leung, A. K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). On being a mindful authoritarian: Is need for cognition always associated with less punitiveness?. Political Psychology, 29(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00613.x Thompson, C. M., & Dennison, S. (2004). Graphic evidence of violence: The impact on juror decision-making, the influence of judicial instructions and the effect of juror biases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(2), 323-337. ttps://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.323 Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Kehn, A., & Clark III, J. W. (2014). Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(16), 2884-2903. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527170 Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Clark, J. W., & Kehn, A. (2014). The role of emotion and cognition in juror perceptions of victim impact statements. Social Justice Research, 27, 45-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0203-9 Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K, Vaughan D (2023). dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.1.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr William Revelle (2025). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.5.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101580 | - |
| dc.description.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。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-02-11T16:31:04Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-02-11T16:31:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 審定書 I
誌謝 II 摘要 III Abstract IV 目次 V 圖次 VII 表次 VIII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 文獻回顧 4 第三節 研究架構 12 第二章 研究方法 14 第一節 研究參與者 14 第二節 研究變項 14 第三節 研究工具 18 第三章 研究結果 22 第一節 描述統計 23 第二節 變項間相關 28 第三節 操弄檢核 33 第四節 刺激性照片與限制性指示之影響 34 第五節 個體差異之迴歸分析 36 第六節 其他模型之分析 40 第七節 質性資料 43 第四章 討論 47 第一節 綜合討論 47 第二節 研究貢獻與實務建議 53 第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 54 參考文獻 57 附錄 65 附錄一 實驗材料 65 附錄二 測量量表題目 68 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 國民法官 | - |
| dc.subject | 刺激性照片 | - |
| dc.subject | 限制性指示 | - |
| dc.subject | 認知需求 | - |
| dc.subject | 情感需求 | - |
| dc.subject | 決策 | - |
| dc.subject | lay judges | - |
| dc.subject | graphic evidence | - |
| dc.subject | limiting instructions | - |
| dc.subject | need for cognition | - |
| dc.subject | need for affect | - |
| dc.subject | decision-making | - |
| dc.title | 刺激性照片對國民法官決策之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Influence Of Gruesome Photos On Lay Judges' Decisions | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 范耕維;曾祥非 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Keng-Wei Fan;Philip Tseng | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 國民法官,刺激性照片限制性指示認知需求情感需求決策 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | lay judges,graphic evidencelimiting instructionsneed for cognitionneed for affectdecision-making | en |
| dc.relation.page | 70 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600532 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-02-05 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2031-02-01 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.03 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。