바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.3
Citation Share

Socioeconomic Status and Ambiguity of Criminal Intent on Punitive Judgment

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.3, pp.101-118
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.3.006



& (2018). Socioeconomic Status and Ambiguity of Criminal Intent on Punitive Judgment. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32(3), 101-118, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.3.006
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The present study examined the interaction of wrongdoer’s socioeconomic status(SES) and the ambiguity of criminal intent in punitive judgment. One hundred ninety two participants were randomly exposed to one of four versions of scenarios varying in the wrongdoer’s SES (high vs. low) and the ambiguity of criminal intent (high or low) and then asked to make punitive judgments. The results showed that the wrongdoers with high SES (vs. low SES) were more responsible and deserved harsher punishment. Of more importance, the impacts of SES on perceived responsibility and punitive judgment were moderated by the ambiguity of criminal intent. That is, the heavier responsibility and severe punishment on wrongdoers with high SES were found only when the criminal intent was ambiguously described. It was not true in the low ambiguity context. The further analyses revealed that the impacts of SES on punitive judgment were mediated by perceived responsibility and the mediated effect were moderated by ambiguity of criminal intent. The results suggest the critical role of uncertainty in punitive judgment and their implications on potential biases of legal systems were discussed.

keywords
socioeconomic status, criminal intent, uncertainty, responsibility, punitive judgment, 사회경제적 지위, 범행의도 불확실성, 고의성, 책임지각, 처벌판단

Reference

1.

김일수, 서보학 (2008). 새로 쓴 형법총론(제11판). 서울: 박영사.

2.

박희찬, 김혜숙 (2010). 범죄자에 대한 고정관념과 처벌 관련 판단. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및성격, 24(2), 27-49.

3.

조병철, 김혜숙 (2018). 제 3자 도덕적 면허 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 32(1), 1-31.

4.

최승혁, 김범준, 김시업 (2009). 화이트칼라 범죄에 대한 처벌철학과 양형판단. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 23(3), 1-17.

5.

최승혁, 허태균 (2011). 공정한 사회를 위한 형사처벌: 공정세상 믿음 및 기대의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(2), 113-125.

6.

최승혁, 허태균 (2012). 잘난 사람의 범죄는? 처벌판단에서 사회경제적 지위의 역할과 그 심리기제. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(4), 127-140.

7.

최승혁 (2015). 도덕적 특성이 고의성 판단에 미치는영향: 가해자와 피해자 특성의 상호작용. 고려대학교대학원 박사학위논문.

8.

하사랑, 김범준, 김민지 (2013). 공인(公人)의 개념과 위법행위에 대한 처벌과 용서. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 27(1), 67-84.

9.

Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes in decision making and information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 267-282.

10.

Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284-299.

11.

Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324-336.

12.

Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20(2), 109-134.

13.

Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 571-587.

14.

Fragale, A. R., Rosen, B., Xu, C., & Merideth, I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53-65.

15.

Freeman, N. J. (2006). Socioeconomic status and belief in a just world: Sentencing of criminal defendants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2379-2394.

16.

Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2009). Retributive and restorative justice: Importance of crime severity and shared identity in people's justice responses. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 50-57.

17.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

18.

Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2012). Public's responses to aviation accidents: the role of exemplification and attributions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(4), 350-367.

19.

Kleinke, C. L., Wallis, R., & Stalder, K. (1992). Evaluation of a rapist as a function of expressed intent and remorse. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 525-537.

20.

Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030-1051.

21.

Malle, B., & Nelson, S. (2003). Judging mens rea:The tension between folk concepts and legal concepts of intentionality. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 563-580.

22.

Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 7-24.

23.

Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1315-1338.

24.

Polman, E., Pettit, N. C., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2013). Effects of wrongdoer status on moral licensing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 614-623.

25.

Weiner, B. (1996). Searching for order in social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 7(3), 199-216.

26.

Wickens, C. M., Wiesenthal, D. L., Flora, D. B., & Flett, G. L. (2011). Understanding driver anger and aggression: Attributional theory in the driving environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 354-370.

27.

Willis-Esqueda, C. W., Espinoza, R. K., & Culhane, S. E. (2008). The effects of ethnicity, SES, and crime status on juror decision making: A cross-cultural examination of European American and Mexican American mock jurors. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(2), 181-199.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy