바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.4
Citation Share

Construal Level and Punishment: Focusing on Temporal Distance

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.4, pp.25-40
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.002



& (2018). Construal Level and Punishment: Focusing on Temporal Distance. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32(4), 25-40, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.002
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This study aims to investigate differences in sentencing depending on temporal distance. Participants (127 college students) were asked to read crime scenarios and respond to questionnaires. In Study 1, the participants were randomly assigned to one of two different temporal distance(proximal/distal) conditions. They read the crime scenario and were asked to make a sentencing judgment. The results showed that the participants who were assigned to the distal condition generally gave a longer sentence than the participants in the proximal condition. Study 2 was conducted to find out the effect of temporal distance on sentencing when the sentencing factor was provided. The participants were randomly assigned to four different conditions by the temporal distance(distal/proximal) and the sentencing factor(mitigating/aggravating) and read a crime scenario to make a sentencing decision. The results turned out that there were the main effects of the sentencing factor and the temporal distance. Also, the interaction effect between the factors was significant. In the aggravating condition where the cause of crime was retaliation, the participants sentenced longer when the crime was distant than near. The limitations of the study and the suggestions for further research are discussed.

keywords
해석수준이론, 심리적 거리, 시간적 거리, 양형인자, 처벌, Construal level theory, Psychological distance, Temporal distance, Sentencing Factor, Punishment

Reference

1.

김범준 (2007). 강간범죄에 대한 위험도 인식과가치판단에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회및 성격, 21(3), 57-73.

2.

김범준, 최승혁 (2008). 처벌기준이 양형판단에미치는 효과: 남녀차이. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 13(3), 343-361.

3.

김재중 (2016). 국민참여재판의 현황과 향후 대책. 법학연구, 49, 191-222.

4.

김혜정 (2017). 횡령· 배임죄 처벌 및 양형기준의적정성에 관한 고찰. 법학연구, 58(1), 79-103.

5.

박미량, 이민식 (2011). 강간상해 범죄의 양형에영향을 미치는 요인. 교정연구, 9, 121-151.

6.

박성훈, 최이문 (2016). 양형기준제도가 양형에미치는 영향에 대한 연구. 형사정책연구, 27(3), 155-188.

7.

박지선, 김정희 (2011). 성폭력 피해자에 대한 경찰의 인식이 가해자 처벌 판단에 미치는 영향. 피해자학연구, 19, 77-96.

8.

양윤, 김민혜 (2012). 해석수준, 메시지유형, 시간적 거리가 메시지 태도와 구매의도에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 23(2), 151-172.

9.

양형위원회 (2012). 양형기준. 양형위원회.

10.

이재협, 우지숙, 이준웅 (2013). 배심제 평의의합리성에 관한 연구. 저스티스, 12, 208-249.

11.

이진용 (2010). 시간적 거리가 소비자 의사결정에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. 소비문화연구, 13, 201-222.

12.

정의준, 김혜영, 유승호 (2012). 소비자 태도와행위에 대한 이론적 접근. 사회와이론, 21, 377-410.

13.

정지원, 이인숙, 김혜숙 (2015). 가해자 및 피해자의 성별과 판단자의 성별에 따른 양형판단. 한국심리학회 학술대회 자료집, 464-464.

14.

정혜승, 정은경, 손영우 (2011). 확률에 따른 심리적 거리감이 도덕적 의사결정에 미치는영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(4), 27-40.

15.

조연진, 박경도, 서재범, 이호택 (2017). 소비자의자아조절자원과 해석수준이 유통업체의 제품구색 평가에 미치는 영향. 경영컨설팅연구, 17(1), 161-169.

16.

최수형 (2011). 배심원의 범죄사실 및 양형판단에 대한 연구. 범죄와 비행, 1, 227-250

17.

하민경 (2016). 양형요소로서 피고인의 직업 관련 불이익 고려의 정당성 판단. 비교형사법연구, 18(4), 55-74.

18.

황인정 (2007). 범죄 피해자와 범죄 판단자의 성별이 양형판단에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 12(2), 107-121.

19.

Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2009). Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27, 261-282.

20.

Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437-451.

21.

Carrera, P., Caballero, A., Fernández, I., & Muñoz, D. (2017). Abstractness leads people to base their behavior intentions on desired attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 27-33.

22.

perspective on employee concerns about unfair treatment at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Precesses, 116, 17-31.

23.

Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.

24.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204-1209.

25.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Thinking of why a transgression occurred may draw attention to extenuating circumstances. Social Psychology, 45, 329-331.

26.

Gamliel, E., Kreiner, H., & McElroy, T. (2017). The effect of construal level on unethical behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(2), 211-222.

27.

Gilead, M., Liberman, N., Maril, A. (2013). The language of furure-thought: A fMRI study of embodiment and tense processing. Neuroimage, 65, 267-279.

28.

Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 15-26.

29.

Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 628-638.

30.

Hagan, J. (1974). Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 8, 357-384.

31.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.

32.

Johnson, E. H. (1957). Selective factors in capital punishment. Social Forces, 36, 165-169.

33.

Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increase hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 475-480.

34.

Leventhal, G., & Krate, R. (1977). Physical attractiveness and severity of sentencing. Psychological Reports, 40(1), 315-318.

35.

Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-534.

36.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasiblity and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.

37.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Science, 18, 364-369.

38.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2010). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski, &W. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. Vol. 2. (pp. 353-383). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113-117.

40.

Mentovich, A., Yudkin, D., Tyler, T., & Trope, Y. (2016). Justice without borders: the influence of psychological distance and construal level on moral exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1349-1363.

41.

Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485-497.

42.

Partington, D. (1965). The incidence of the death penalty for rape in Virginia. Washington and Lee Law Review, 22, 43-75.

43.

Rim, S., Hansen, J., & Trope, Y. (2013). What happens why? Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 457-472.

44.

Rizvi, S., & Bobocel, D. R. (2016). Promoting Forgiveness Through Psychological Distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 875-883.

45.

Sellin, T. (1928). The Negro Criminal A Statistical Note. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 140, 52-64.

46.

Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54, 558-568.

47.

Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Revisiting the past and back to the future: Memory systems and the linguistic representation of social events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 877-892.

48.

Stephan, E., Shidlovski, D., & Heller, D. (2017). Distant determination and near determinism:The role of temporal distance in prospective attribution to will. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 113-121.

49.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., Diekmann, K. A., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). The ethical mirage: A temporal explanation as to why we are not as ethical as we think we are. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 153-173.

50.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889.

51.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.

52.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.

53.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95.

54.

Tumasjan, A., & Strobel, M. (2010). Ethical leadership evaluations after moral transgression:Social distance makes the difference. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6.

55.

Wolfgang, M. E., Kelly, A., & Nolde, H. C. (1962). Comparison of the executed and the commuted among admissions to death row. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 53(3), 301-311.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy