請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101830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 | 楊紫晴 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Zih-Cing Yang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-03-04T16:55:20Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-03-05 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-03-04 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-02-09 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
司法院（2020）：〈司法院：國民法官制度〉。司法院。https://social.judicial.gov.tw/CJlandingpage/ 司法院（2022）：〈金門地方法院第2輪次國民法官實務模擬法庭〉。司法院。https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/lp-2308-5-xCat-55.html 陳美彤（2014/1/20）：〈性侵害刑事審判中之兒童證人〉。國立台灣大學中國信託慈善基金會兒少暨家庭研究中心。 張瑋心（2012）：〈論性侵案件「兒童被害人證言可信性」之檢驗〉。《司法新聲》，102，71–88。 英文文獻 Bild, E., Redman, A., Newman, E. J., Muir, B. R., Tait, D., & Schwarz, N. (2021). Sound and credibility in the virtual court: Low audio quality leads to less favorable evaluations of witnesses and lower weighting of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 45(5), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000466 Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441 Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282 Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgements. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10/1023/A:1015380522722 Brown, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (2025). Children as Witnesses: Remembering, Reporting, and Reliability. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-111323-113323 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403 Dahl, L. C., & Price, H. L. (2012). He couldn’t have done it, he was with me!: The impact of alibi witness age and relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2821 Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622 Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Studebaker, N., & Stolle, D. P. (2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: data from the field. Law and human behavior, 33(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law & Society Review, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053737 Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O’Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90015-X Fawcett, H., & Winstanley, K. (2019). Children as alibi witnesses: the effect of age and confidence on mock-juror decision making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(6), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1482573 Goodman, G. S., Golding, J. M., Helgeson, V. S., Haith, M. M., & Michelli, J. (1987). When a child takes the stand: Jurors' perceptions of children's eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044837 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 Hildebrand-Edgar, N., & Ehrlich, S. (2017). “She was quite capable of asserting herself”: Powerful speech styles and assessments of credibility in a sexual assault trial. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 4(2), 89–107. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 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 Kassin, S., & Wrightsman, L. (1985). The psychology of evidence and trial procedure. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1987). Children on the witness stand: A communication/persuasion analysis of jurors' reactions to child witnesses. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F. Ross (Eds.), Children's eyewitness memory (pp. 155–177). New York: Springer-Verlag. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93 Newcombe, P. A., & Bransgrove, J. (2007). Perceptions of witness credibility: Variations across age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 318–331. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 Nunez, N., Kehn, A., & Wright, D. B. (2011). When children are witnesses: The effects of context, age and gender on adults' perceptions of cognitive ability and honesty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1713 OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT (January 27 version) [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/ Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242 Pozzulo, J. D., Lemieux, J. M. T., Wells, E., & McCuaig, H. J. (2006). The influence of eyewitness identification decisions and age of witness on jurors' verdicts and perceptions of reliability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(6), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500415539 Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386 Ross, D. F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1990). The child in the eyes of the jury: Assessing mock jurors' perceptions of the child witness. Law and Human Behavior, 14(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055786 Ross, D. F., Jurden, F. H., Linsday, R. C. L., & Keeney, J. M. (2003). Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01903.x Saywitz, K.J., Lyon, T.D., & Goodman, G.S. (2017). When Interviewing Children: A Review and Update. University of Southern California Center for Law & Social Science (CLASS) Law & Economics Research Paper Series. Simon, D. (2004). A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making. The University of Chicago Law Review, 71(2), 511–586. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600674 Manarin, B., Wheatcroft, J. M., & Wagstaff, G. F. (2015). The Influence of Delay and Item Difficulty in Criminal Justice Systems on Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 1, 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.lifescienceglobal.com/pms/index.php/ijhssr/article/view/2891/1695 Williams, C.E., & Colloff, M. (2024). Child witness reliability: A qualitative exploration of professional perceptions. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2024.2431260 Winsor, A. A., Flowe, H. D., Seale-Carlisle, T. M., Killeen, I. M., Hett, D., Jores, T., ... & Colloff, M. F. (2021). Child witness expressions of certainty are informative. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(11), 2387. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101830 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 臺灣自 2023 年起施行國民參與刑事審判制度（簡稱國民法官制度）。隨著制度上路，近期亦逐漸出現涉及兒童證人參與之國民法官案件。本研究以網路問卷呈現一起模擬國民法官案件，並以 3×3 之受試者間設計操弄證人年齡（8、 16、 30 歲）與其對證詞的信心程度（高／中性／低），檢驗兩者對臺灣一般民眾在證詞可信度評價、罪名判定與量刑之影響。研究共納入 351 份樣本，以二元羅吉斯迴歸分析罪名判定，並以二因子變異數分析檢驗量刑與可信度評價。結果顯示，證人年齡與其信心程度對罪名判定與量刑皆未呈現顯著影響。然，在證詞可信度的評價上，青少年證人在認知能力評價與誠實性評價上皆高於兒童與成人。另一方面，以證詞的信心程度而言，中性語氣相較於高、低信心版本獲得最高的可信度評價。整體而言，本研究顯示證人特徵能影響其可信度評價，卻未見於罪名與量刑判定之差異；一落差所涉及之決策依據與機制，仍有待後續研究進一釐清。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Since 2023, Taiwan has implemented the citizen judge system, and cases involving child witnesses have begun to appear. Using a simulated citizen judge case presented in an online survey, this study examined whether witness age and expressed confidence influence lay evaluations and legal decisions. A 3 × 3 between-subjects design manipulated witness age (8, 16, 30 years) and testimony confidence (high, neutral, low) among 351 participants. Charge decisions were analyzed with binary logistic regression, and credibility ratings and sentencing were analyzed with two-way ANOVAs. Neither witness age nor confidence affected charge selection or sentencing. In credibility judgments, however, testimony from a 16-year-old witness received higher ratings of both cognitive ability and honesty than testimony from an 8-year-old child or a 30-year-old adult, and the neutral-confidence version was rated as most credible. Overall, witness characteristics shaped subjective credibility evaluations but did not translate into differences in charge or sentencing decisions, suggesting a potential gap between evaluation and formal legal decision-making that warrants further study. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-03-04T16:55:20Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-03-04T16:55:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 ii
英文摘要 iii 目次 iv 圖次 vi 表次 vi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 文獻回顧 3 第三節 研究問題 10 第二章 研究方法 13 第一節 參與者 13 第二節 研究材料 13 第三節 研究設計 14 第四節 研究變項 15 第五節 研究檢核 19 第六節 研究流程 19 第三章 研究結果 21 第一節 前置分析 21 第二節 描述性統計 21 第三節 證人信心程度的操弄檢核 24 第四節 材料中立性與決策歷程之檢驗 25 第五節 證詞可信度：量表結構與操弄效果分析 26 第六節 案件裁判決策：罪名判定與量刑分析 32 第七節 變項間相關分析 35 第八節 證詞特質信念 37 第四章 結果討論 43 第一節 證詞可信度評價之構念與測量意涵 43 第二節 證人特徵對證詞可信度評價之影響 44 第三節 證人特徵對裁判決策之影響 47 第四節 證詞特質信念、可信度評價與裁判決策之關聯 48 第五章 研究貢獻 51 第一節 學術貢獻 51 第二節 實務建議 52 第六章 研究限制及未來研究建議 55 參考文獻 57 附錄一 案件材料 63 附錄二 證詞筆錄 73 附錄三 問卷題項 87 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 國民法官制度 | - |
| dc.subject | 兒童證人 | - |
| dc.subject | 證詞可信度 | - |
| dc.subject | 證人信心程度 | - |
| dc.subject | 論罪科刑 | - |
| dc.subject | citizen judge system | - |
| dc.subject | child witness | - |
| dc.subject | testimony confidence | - |
| dc.subject | credibility | - |
| dc.subject | conviction and sentencing | - |
| dc.title | 證詞可信度與論罪科刑：臺灣國民法官如何評價不同年齡與信心程度的證人 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Testimony Credibility and Verdict/Sentencing Decisions: How Taiwanese Citizen Judges Evaluate Witnesses’ Age and Expressed Confidence in a Mock Trial | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 戴伸峰;范耕維 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Shen-Feng Tai;Keng-Wei Fan | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 國民法官制度,兒童證人證詞可信度證人信心程度論罪科刑 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | citizen judge system,child witnesstestimony confidencecredibilityconviction and sentencing | en |
| dc.relation.page | 91 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600607 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-02-10 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2031-02-02 | - |
| 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 | 3.17 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。