請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85893完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 趙儀珊(Yee-San Teoh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Tzu Yang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 楊郁慈 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:27:58Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-09-26 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王曉丹（2017）：〈司法意識與司法信賴－權威、感知與正義觀〉。《檢察新論》，21，13-23頁。 江玉林（2006）：〈司法圖騰與法律意識的繼受－在正義女神與包青天相遇之後〉。《法制史研究》，9，275-292頁。 江玉林（2013）：〈臺灣法律倫理規範反思－從「司法不公」與「司法公正」談起〉。《世新法學》，7(1)，39-65頁。 吳毓瑩（1996）：〈量表奇偶點數的效度議題〉。《調查研究：方法與應用》， 2，5–34頁。 郭重余、金孟華（2020）：〈國民法官選任程序之研究〉。《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》，23，309-341頁。 翁儷禎（1999）：〈點數與標示語對評定量尺反應的影響（I）〉。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。NSC 88-2413-H-002-010。 傅仰止（2021）：臺灣社會變遷基本調查計畫2019第七期第五次：社會不平等組(C00351_1)【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。doi:10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00351_1-2 顏志龍、鄭中平（2020）：《給論文寫作者的統計指南：傻瓜也會跑統計》（第三版）。台北市：五南。 顏志龍、鄭中平（2020）：《給論文寫作者的統計指南：傻瓜也會跑統計II》（初版）。台北市：五南。 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵（2022）：《多變量分析方法－統計軟體應用》（第六版）。台北市：五南。 林俊益（2016）：《刑事訴訟法概論（上）》（第16版）。台北市：新學林。 林岳宏（2005）：《文化、人格及認知行為的關係：個人層次的探討》。碩士論文。國立臺灣大學，台北。 歐陽以剛（2012）：《歸因複雜性及反事實思考對認知需求與懲罰決定關係之影響》。碩士論文。國立臺北大學，新北。 劉啟鍠（2018）：《對精神疾病違法者之懲罰嚴厲性與動機－生理性資訊、先／後天資訊與個體差異》。碩士論文。國立臺灣大學，台北。 司法院（2018，11月24日）。臺灣高雄地方法院109年度第1場模擬法庭審判程序筆錄。司法院實務模擬法庭。https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-127073-acc66e01da94431fbbcbbfe1b34d1145.html 司法院（2022，4月19日）：國民法官群像 第一輪次實務模擬法庭統計報告發表。司法院國民法官訊息公告。https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-2011-624743-72d1d-1.html。 Adler, F. (1973). Socioeconomic factors influencing jury verdicts. New York University Review of Law and Social Change,3(1), 1-10. Andrew F. Hayes. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. (3rd ed.). Guilford publications. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751-758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008 Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. prejudice, miss sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: an application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 1968(3), 734-750. Bonazzoli, M. (1998). Jury selection and bias: debunking invidious stereotypes through science. QLR, 18(2), 247-306. Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Grahe, J. (1995). Nominal and interactive groups: Effects of preinstruction and deliberations on decisions and evidence recall in complex trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.58 Bray, James H., & Scott E. Maxwell. (1985). Multivariate analysis of variance. Sage. Buckner, R. L. (2004). Memory and executive function in aging and AD: multiple factors that cause decline and reserve factors that compensate. Neuron, 44(1), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.006 Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2007). The impact of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.734 Cabeza, R., Daselaar, S. M., Dolcos, F., Prince, S. E., Budde, M., & Nyberg, L. (2004). Task-independent and task-specific age eEffects on brain activity during working memory, visual attention and episodic retrieval. Cerebral Cortex, 14(4), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhg133 Campbell, R. G., & Babrow, A. S. (2004). The role of empathy in responses to persuasive risk communication: Overcoming resistance to HIV prevention messages. Health Communication, 16(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1602_2 Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 Chory-Assad, R. M., & Cicchirillo, V. (2005). Empathy and affective orientation as predictors of identification with television characters. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810500130786 Cochran, J. K., Boots, D. P., & Chamlin, M. B. (2006). Political identity and support for capital punishment: A test of attribution theory. Journal of Crime and Justice, 29(1), 45–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2006.9721217 Cohen, J. (2001). Defining Identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0403_01 Decty, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current directions in psychological science, 15(2), 54-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00406.x 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 Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.875 Frekel-Brunswick, E. (1954). Social tensions and the inhibition of thought. Social Problems, 2(2), 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/798819 Garh J. O. Fletcher. (1983). The analysis of verbal explanations for marital separation: Implications for attribution theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb01738.x Gould, R., & Sigall, H. (1977). The effects of empathy and outcome on attribution: An examination of the divergent-perspectives hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(5), 480–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90032-4 Hawkins, D. F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1981.9967554 Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18(2), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499012 Joireman, J. (2004). Relationships between attributional complexity and empathy. Individual Differences Research, 2(3), 197–202. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3 King, N. J. (1993). Postconviction Review of Jury Discrimination: Measuring the Effects of Juror Race on Jury Decisions. Michigan Law Review, 92(1), 63–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289642 Kovera, M. B., & Austin, J. L. (2016). Identifying juror bias: Moving from assessment and prediction to a new generation of jury selection research. In C. Willis-Esqueda & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), The witness stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr. (pp. 75–94). Springer Science, Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2077-8_6 Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17(6), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044688 Lakshman, C., Vo, L. C., & Ramaswami, A. (2020). Measurement invariance and nomological validity of the Attributional Complexity Scale: Evidence from Estonia, France, India, United States, and Vietnam. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 20(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595820913600 Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2010–2038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x Lee, J. W., Jones, P. S., Mineyama, Y., & Zhang, X. E. (2002). Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Research in Nursing and Health, 25(4), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.10041 Levin, M. E., Luoma, J. B., Vilardaga, R., Lillis, J., Nobles, R., & Hayes, S. C. (2016). Examining the role of psychological inflexibility, perspective taking, and empathic concern in generalized prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(3), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12355 Lorek, J., Centifanti, L. C. M., Lyons, M., & Thorley, C. (2019). The impact of individual differences on jurors’ note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts. PLoS ONE, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212491 Markowitz, D. M., & Slovic, P. (2020). Social, psychological, and demographic characteristics of dehumanization toward immigrants. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(17), 9260–9269. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921790117 McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x Melburg, V., Rosenfeld, P., Riess, M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1984). A reexamination of the empathic observers paradigm for the study of divergent attributions. Journal of Social Psychology, 124(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1984.9922848 Mills, C. J. (1980). Juror characteristics: to what extent are they related to jury verdicts. Judicature, 64(1), 22-31. Otis, C. C., Greathouse, S. M., Kennard, J. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Hypothesis testing in attorney-conducted voir dire. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000092 Penrod, S. D. (1990). Predictors of jury decisionmaking in criminal and civil cases: A field experiment. Forensic Reports, 3, 261–277. Peteson, C., Semmel, A., Von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive therapy and research, 6(3), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173577 Pope, J., & Meyer, R. (1999). An attributional analysis of jurors’ judgments in a criminal case: A preliminary investigation. Social Behavior and Personality, 27(6), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1999.27.6.563 Pritchard, M. E., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Does jury deliberation really improve jurors memories? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(5), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.816 Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484 Roberts, A. H., & Jessor, R. (1958). Authoritarianism, punitiveness, and perceived social status. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(3), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040779 Saks, M. J. (1997). What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 6(1), 1-54. Shen, L. (2010). On a scale of state empathy during message processing. Western Journal of Communication, 74(5), 504–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2010.512278 Stephan, C. (1974). Sex prejudice injury simulation. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 88(2), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1974.9915741 Stevenson, M. C., Bottoms, B. L., & Diamond, S. S. S. (2010). Jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018404 Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, Communication, And Prosocial Behavior. Communication Monographs, 55(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376166 Tsoudis, O. (2002). The influence of empathy in mock jury criminal cases: adding to the affect control model. Western Criminology Review, 4(1), 55-67. Venta, A., Bailey, C. A., Walker, J., Mercado, A., Colunga-Rodriguez, C., Ángel-González, M., & Dávalos-Picazo, G. (2022). Reverse-Coded Items Do Not Work in Spanish: Data From Four Samples Using Established Measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.828037 West, M. P., Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2018). Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity. Psychology, Crime and Law, 24(8), 761–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1438432 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85893 | - |
| dc.description.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。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:27:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1309202213051700.pdf: 4520154 bytes, checksum: cdbb81000479964dee68f6fc5b9b674f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 審書書........................................................... i 致謝....................... .................................... ii 中文摘要........................................................ iii 英文摘要........................................................ iv 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................................................ 10 第二章 研究方法................................................... 11 第一節 受試者.................................................. 11 第二節 研究變項................................................ 11 第三章 研究結果................................................... 19 第一節 描述性統計及量表的信度分析、因素分析......................... 19 第二節 變項間相關............................................... 35 第三節 操弄檢核................................................ 42 第四節 徑路分析(Path analysis)................................. 44 第五節 罪名及有罪與否的邏吉斯迴歸分析(Logistic Regression)......... 48 第六節 質性資料................................................ 56 第四章 結果討論................................................... 58 第一節 研究假設的中介-調節模型.................................... 58 第二節 以判決為依變項觀察........................................ 61 第三節 量表討論................................................. 64 第五章 研究貢.........獻........................................... 68 第一節 學術貢獻................................................. 68 第二節 實務建議................................................. 70 第六章 研究限制及未來研究建議......................................... 72 參考文獻.......................................................... 73 附錄.............................................................. 81 附錄一 實驗材料................................................. 81 附錄二 測量量表題目.............................................. 91 附件三 中介-調節模型 SPSS 語法.................................... 94 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 法律權威主義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 同理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 歸因 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 觀點取替 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 國民法官 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | attribution | en |
| dc.subject | lay judge | en |
| dc.subject | legal authoritarianism | en |
| dc.subject | perspective-taking | en |
| dc.subject | empathy | en |
| dc.title | 使用觀點取替辯護策略對法律權威主義者的效果 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Effects of Perspective-Taking Defense Strategies for Legal Authoritarians | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 孫蒨如(Chien-Ru Sun),金孟華(Mong-Hwa Chin) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee-orcid | ,金孟華(0000-0002-6630-7772) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 國民法官,法律權威主義,觀點取替,同理,歸因, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | lay judge,legal authoritarianism,perspective-taking,empathy,attribution, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 94 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202203341 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-24 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-09-26 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-1309202213051700.pdf | 4.41 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。