終生持續型犯罪者、青少年限期型犯罪者、和一般青少年在同理心上的差異

Empathy in Life-Course-Persistent Offenders, Adolescent-Limited Offenders, and Non-offending Adolescence

黃美月(Mei-Yueh Huang)

指導教授 ： 吳英璋

國立臺灣大學/理學院/心理學研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2004.00945

摘要

本研究目的在於了解犯罪青少年的同理反應。本研究首先統合同理心的文獻，提出「歷程性同理反應」模式假設：「觀點取得」引發「同理痛苦」、「同情痛苦」、和「個人痛苦」，「同理痛苦」、「同情痛苦」、和「個人痛苦」促使「助人行為或道德行為」；亦假設其中「同理痛苦」和「同情痛苦」是助人行為的主要動力來源。其次討論Moffitt（1993）所論述之「終生持續型」與「青少年限期型」兩類犯罪次群在「歷程性同理反應」模式中可能有的差異，提出假設：終生持續型犯罪者的同理能力明顯較一般青少年低，而青少年限期型犯罪者的同理能力與一般青少年無明顯差異，或介於一般青少年與終生持續型犯罪者之間。本研究研究一的受試者為一般高中生，研究方法是先請受試者觀看同理誘發事件的影片，再詢問其真實的情緒反應與可能的行為反應。以指導語操弄受試者在觀看影片過程中的「觀點取得」，預期不同的實驗操弄觀點取得會影響後續同理情緒與同理行為反應，藉以檢驗「歷程性同理反應」模式之假設。研究結果部分支持研究假設，「觀點取得」可預測三種同理情緒反應，但同理情緒反應之中，只有「同理痛苦」對「助人行為」具有預測力。研究二有四組受試者：一般高中生、一般高職生，青少年限期型犯罪者、和終生持續型犯罪者。其研究程序與研究一實驗組相同，研究目的是檢驗「終生持續型」與「青少年限期型」犯罪者在同理心上的差異之假設，研究結果顯示前者的同理反應與一般青少年沒有明顯差異，而後者則在「同理痛苦」與「同情痛苦」上與一般青少年有顯著差異。研究結果與研究假設並不一致，研究者以為可能的主要原因之一是忽略了「情緒辨認」變項，因此亦進行後續研究的討論。

關鍵字

終生持續型犯罪者 ； 青少年限期型犯罪者 ； 同理心 ； 歷程性同理反應模式 ； 青少年犯罪

並列摘要

The study aims to understand the empathetic reactions in delinquent juveniles. We analyzed and integrated, by literature review, the articles on empathy and proposed a model of “Progressive- Empathetic-Response Process”: (a) “Perspective Taking” would induce “Empathetic Distress”, “Sympathetic Distress”, and “Personal Distress”; (b) “Empathetic Distress”, “Sympathetic Distress”, and “Personal Distress” would increase “Helping Behavior”, with “Empathetic Distress” and “Sympathetic Distress” being the most important contributor of “Helping Behavior”. We also reviewed Moffitt’s (1993) hypothesis regarding the developmental taxonomy of criminal offenders and integrated it into our discussion of the probable differences of life-course-persistent offenders and adolescent-limited offenders in “Progressive- Empathetic-Response Process”. We proposed that the empathetic ability of life- course-persistent offenders is evidently lower than the non-offending adolescences’. In addition, we proposed that the empathetic ability of adolescent-limited offenders is either no different from the non-offending adolescents’ or right in the middle of the empathetic ability of non-offending adolescents and life-course-persistent offenders. In study 1, high school students were first asked to watch films that were suppose to induce empathetic responses. Next, in order to understand participants’ emotions and behavior responses, the participants were interviewed by researchers. The “Perspective Taking” of the participants was experimentally increased or decreased by the instruction of the experiment. We expected that the differences in the amount of “Perspective Taking” would engender different empathetic emotions as well as empathetic behavioral responses. The results of study 1 partially supported our “Progressive-Empathetic-Response Process” model. Specifically, “Perspective Taking” was found to predict “Empathetic Distress”, “Sympathetic Distress”, and “Personal Distress, but only the variable “Empathetic Distress” was a predictor of “Helping Behavior” . In study 2, we recruited four groups of participants: high school students, vocational high school students, adolescent-limited offenders, and life-course-persistent offenders. The procedure of study 2 was identical to the experimental group in study 1. The purpose of study 2 is to evaluate the hypothesis that life-course-persistent offenders and adolescent-limited offenders differ in their level of empathy. The data from study 2 suggested that the empathetic responses in life-course-persistent offenders were not evidently different from that of non-offending adolescents. Moreover, the results demonstrated that the “Empathetic Distress” and “Sympathetic Distress” observed in adolescent-limited offenders is evidently lower than that of non-offending adolescents. These results were inconsistent with our hypotheses and we believed that this could be attributed to the exclusion of a variable called “Emotion Recognition”. Further discussion on study’s results as well as a possible follow-up research is provided in the discussion section.

並列關鍵字

Adolescent-limited offenders ； Life-course-persistent offenders ； Empathy ； Juvenile delinquency ； Progressive-empathetic-response process model

參考文獻

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Aronfreed, J. (1968). Conduct and conscience: the socialization of internalized control over behavior (pp. 115-122). New York: Academic Press.

Cohen, D. & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disorder and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 988-998.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: a two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 752-766.

Daugherty, D. A., Murphy, M. J., & Paugh, J. (2001). An examination of the Adlerian construct of social interest with criminal offenders. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 465-471.