臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的主要目的在於探索「被害人/被害人家屬表達對加害人的不仇恨看法卻受到外界否定」這樣一個現象的詳細狀況與原因。透過與心理學中「道德憤怒」此一概念知歷程的比對，藉以了解這個現象背後可能的心理機制與心理歷程。兩個子研究分別以問卷及訪談的方式進行，其中研究一以網路問卷的方式，共有192為有效參與者填寫了他們對三個我們有興趣的社會案件本身、以及若被害人或被害人家屬表示要原諒兇手，他們會有何反應。結果顯示參與者普遍認為原諒這件事與道德有關，且原諒是道德的。然而，參與者的道德判斷卻會受到事件影響，因此研究二則根據研究一的結果，邀請了61名參與者來參加訪談，藉以更進一步釐清這個狀況。研究二的結果顯示參與者對被害人家屬不仇恨態度的看待在各個方面確實是受事件不同影響的。本研究試圖將現象與理論進行連結，雖然結果並不足以提供強烈支持，但希望這樣的做法，能有助於未來對現象的了解與改善。

The present''s study major aim was to explore the phenomenon of third party denial towards victims or victims'' next of kin who do not show hatred towards the perpetrator. We attempted to gain understanding of this phenomenon using the ''moral outrage'' theory, through two sub-studies. The first study utilized a questionnaire method where 192 participants provided their responses to three types of crime events and their reactions to displays of forgiveness by the victims and their next of kin. Results showed that forgiveness was related to morality and that it was moral to forgive. However, such moral judgments appeared to be affected by the type of crime, and so the second study utilized a semi-structured interview method to further explore this phenomenon with 61 participants. Results from the second study revealed that third party perspectives towards victims or victims'' family members who do not show hatred towards the perpetrator varied according to type of crime event. Although the results merely show preliminary insight into this issue, at least this research attempts to bridge the gap between theory and real world phenomenon.

緒論 1
研究一：關於原諒的道德判斷 9
研究方法 9
研究結果 12
討論 18
研究二：各種犯罪事件及被害人（或家屬）不仇恨態度之評判 19
研究方法 19
研究結果 23
討論 29
綜合討論 31
參考資料 34

詹志禹，1986。「年級、性別角色、人情取向與同理心的關係」(未出版碩士論文)。國立政治大學，台北市。
Batson, C., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L.-A., Stocks, E., Fleming, D. Y. A., Marzette, C. M., Zerger, T. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1272-1285.
Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In J. Everett L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research & theological perspectives (pp. 79-104). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.
Martin, J., Brickman, P., & Murray, A. (1984). Moral outrage and pragmatism: Explanations for collective action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 484-496. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(84)90039-8
Murphy, J. G. (2004). Forgiveness self-respect, and the value of resentment. In J. Everett L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 33-40). New York, NY: Routledge.
O''Mara, E. M., Jackson, L. E., Batson, C. D., & Gaertner, L. (2011). Will moral outrage stand up?: Distinguishing among emotional reactions to a moral violation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 173-179. doi:10.1002/ejsp.754
Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267-274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01887.x
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Worthington, E. L. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinary speculations about unforgiveness and promotion of forgiveness. In J. Everett L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research & theological perspectives (pp. 107-137). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.