바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.34 No.2

Citation Share

Given who they are... surely they would do: The roles of moral characteristics and typicality of crime in judical judgment of intentionality

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2020, v.34 no.2, pp.55-74
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2020.34.2.004


& (2020). Given who they are... surely they would do: The roles of moral characteristics and typicality of crime in judical judgment of intentionality. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 34(2), 55-74, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2020.34.2.004

Abstract

The moral-character model (Choi & Hur, 2020) in judical judgment of intentionality proposed that crime agent’s moral characteristic would be a core factor regardless of its direct relevance to the crime. The previous studies on the model have focused only on the moral characteristic of the crime agents but not on that of the victims. We examined the interactive roles and potential mechanisms - typicality of the crime - of moral characteristics of both the parties on intentionality judgment. In Study 1, participants were presented with one of four scenarios varied in moral characteristics (positive vs. negative) of both the crime agent and victim and rated how intentional the crime was. In Study 2, participants first rated the probability of criminal involvement for each moral characteristics and then were given the crime scenarios to respond on the typicality and intentionality questionnaire. As a result, participants evaluated the crime more intentionally conducted when both the agent and victim were described morally negative than all the other conditions. Furthermore, probability of criminal involvement and typicality of the crime revealed the same pattern as intentionality. The results suggest that moral characteristic of the victim as well as that of the crime agent could influence judgment of crime intentionality and typicality, which was discussed in limitations of information processes focused on the crime agent and implications for holistic approaches integrating all factors in crimes.

keywords
고의성 판단, 도덕적-특성, 범죄의 전형성, intentionality judgment, moral character, typicality of crime

Reference

1.

김상준 (2013). 무죄판결과 법관의 사실인정에 관한연구: 항소심의 파기자판 사례들을 중심으로. 서울대학교 법학전문대학원 박사학위논문.

2.

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

3.

김범준 (2007). 강간범죄에 대한 위험도 인식과가치판단에 관한 연구: 남여차이. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(3), 57-73. doi:10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.3.004

4.

김청택, 최인철 (2010). 법정의사결정에서의 판사들의 인지편향. 서울대학교 법학, 51(4), 317-345. uci: G704-002133.2010.51.4.008

5.

박광배, 김상준, 한미영 (2005). 가상적인 재판쟁점에서의 현역판사의 판단과 모의배심의집단판단에 대한 인지적 방략의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 11(1), 59-84. uci: G704-000654.2005.11.1.003

6.

사법연수원 (2011). 형사증거법 및 사실인정론. 경기도: 사법연수원 출판부.

7.

안영문 (2008). 당신이 판사. 부산: 산지니.

8.

이지혜, 박우현, 이수정 (2014). 성폭력사건의 피해자 요인이 배심원의 양형판단에 미치는영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 28(2), 25-40. doi:10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.2.002

9.

최대권 (2004). 국민의 사법참여: 무엇이 문제인가. 서울대학교 법학, 45(3), 119-140. uci: G704-002133.2004.45.3.015

10.

최승혁, 허태균 (2012). 잘난 사람의 범죄는? 처벌판단에서 사회경제적 지위의 역할과 그심리기제. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(4), 113-125. doi:10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.4.008

11.

최승혁, 허태균 (2020). 형사사건에서의 고의성판단: 도덕적 특성의 역할. 한국심리학회지:문화 및 사회문제, 26(1), 25-45. doi:10.20406/kjcs.2020.2.26.1.25

12.

Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.556

13.

Cova, F., Lantian, A., & Boudesseul, J. (2016). Can the Knobe Effect be explained away? Methodological controversies in the study of the relationship between intentionality an morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1295-1308. doi:10.1177/0146167216656356

14.

Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment:Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006

15.

Findley, K., & Scott, M. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 1023, 291-397.

16.

Guglielmo, S., & Malle, B. F. (2010). Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1635-1647. doi:10.1177/0146167210386733

17.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

18.

Hoffman, E. (1981). Social class correlates or perceived offender typicality. Psychological Reports, 49, 347-350. doi:10.2466/pr0.1981.49.2.347

19.

Hughes, J. S., & Trafimow, D. (2012). Inferences about character and motive influence intentionality attributions about side effects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 661-673. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02031.x

20.

Jones, C. S., & Kaplan, M. F. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1-13. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_1

21.

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 42-52. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001

22.

Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190-194. doi:10.1111/1467-8284.00419

23.

Landy, D., & Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 141-152. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(69)90043-2

24.

Malle, B. F. (2006). Intentionality, morality, and their relationship in human judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 87-112. doi:10.1163/156853706776931358

25.

Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 147-186. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.877340

26.

Malle, B. F., & Konbe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionalality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101-121. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1314

27.

Malle, B. F., & Nelson, S. E. (2003). Judging mens rea: The tension between folk concepts and legal concepts of intentionality. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 563-580. doi:10.1002/bsl.554

28.

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, 1315-1344. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x

29.

Monroe, A. E, & Malle, B. F. (2019). People systematically update moral judgments of blame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 215-236. doi:10.1037/pspa0000137

30.

Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical explorations, 9, 203-219. doi:10.1080/13869790600641905

31.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

32.

Ngo, L., Kelly, M., Coutlee, C. G., Carter, R. M., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Huettel, S. A. (2015). Two distinct moral mechanisms for ascribing and denying intentionality. Scientific Reports, 5, 1-11. doi:10.1038/srep17390

33.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242

34.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192-221). NY: Cambridge Universiry Press.

35.

Rogers, R., Alicke, M. D., Taylor, S. G., Rose, D., Davis, T. L., & Bloom, D. (2019). Causal deviance and the ascription of intent and blame. Philosophical Psychology, 32(3), 404-427. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2018.1564025

36.

Siegel, J. Z., Crockett, M. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2017). Inference about moral character moderate the impact of consequences on blame and praise. Cognition, 167, 201-211. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.004

37.

Sripada, C. (2010). The deep self model and asymmetries in folk judgments about intentional action. Philosophical Studies, 151, 159-176. doi:10.1007/s11098-009-9423-5

38.

Sripada, C. (2012). Mental state attributions and the side-effect effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 232-238. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.008

39.

Sripada, C., & Konrath, S. (2011). Telling more than we can know about intentional action. Mind &Language, 26, 353-380. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01421.x

40.

Stawiski, S., Dykema-Engblade, A., & Tindale, R. S. (2012). The roles of shared stereotypes and shared processing goals on mock jury decision making. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 88-97. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.637467

41.

Uhlmann, E. R., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81. doi:10.1177/1745691614556679

42.

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129-140. doi:10.1080/17470216008416717

43.

Westra, E. (2018). Character and theory of mind:An integrative approach. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1217-1241. doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0908-3

44.

Zucchelli, M. M., Starita, F., Bertini, C., Giusberti, F., & Ciaramelli, E. (2019). Intentionality attribution and emotion: The Knobe Effect in alexithymia. Cognition, 191, 1-9. doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.015

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy