使用觀點取替辯護策略對法律權威主義者的效果

Abstract

本研究使用網路及紙本問卷調查方式，以文字呈現一件殺人案件的檢辯雙方辯論內容，嘗試了解觀點取替的辯護策略是否受到受試者的法律權威主義、歸因複雜傾向調節，而產生不同的同理狀態、歸因行為、判決、量刑及證據再認正確率。結果發現，在受試者認為被告有罪的前提下，觀點取替辯護策略與法律權威主義的交互作用對認知同理有影響，但認知同理對歸因行為、量刑、證據再認正確率沒有效果。情感同理不受觀點取替辯護策略與法律權威主義的交互作用，但對判決罪名有影響。歸因行為無法預測量刑與證據再認正確率。歸因行為與歸因複雜度沒有關聯，但與證據再認正確率有正相關。

The present study sought to understand whether perspective-taking defense strategies would affect lay judges’ psychology through the use of online and paper questionnaires. We examined whether legal authoritarianism and attribution complexity moderated lay judges’ empathy state, attribution behavior, verdict, and accuracy of evidence recognition. The findings showed an interaction effect of perspective-taking defense strategies and legal authoritarianism on cognitive empathy state when the defendant was found guilty, but cognitive empathy did not have significant effects on attribution behavior, sentencing and accuracy of evidence recognition. Affective empathy was not affected by the interaction between perspective-taking defense strategies and legal authoritarianism but affective empathy had a significant effect on participants’ verdict. Attribution behavior did not significantly predict sentencing and evidence recognition accuracy. Attribution behavior and complexity did not correlate with each other, but attribution behavior positively correlated with evidence recognition accuracy.