不同類型犯罪者之自利社會認知思考：一個詮釋現象學分析研究

Self-serving Social Cognitive Thinking of Different Types of Offenders: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

犯罪人具有異質性抑或同質性，是犯罪研究領域中一個值得被探究的議題。本研究在了解毒癮、竊盜、性侵害與暴力犯等四種不同類型犯罪人，如何在「自我認同」、「道德領域判斷」，及「規範信念」等三個社會心理認知面向上，利用主位和客位的交叉比較法，評價自己及其他三類犯罪行為。本文也進一步探討犯罪認知與犯罪經驗之關係。有十六位成年男性累再犯參與本半結構深度訪談研究，訪談資料以詮釋現象學進行分析。訪談文本分析發現，相對於沒有涉入之犯罪行為，在社會認知評價上，犯罪人對自己犯的犯罪類型較具自利性偏誤，但卻譴責沒有違犯的犯罪行為類型。此自利社會認知評價傾向以三個特徵顯示，包括「接受與認同自己涉入的犯罪」、「否認犯罪對自己之傷害」，及「負向的評價其他類型犯罪行為與犯罪人」。犯罪人操縱且策略性地使用偏誤的認知評價包含：一、規避不利於己的評價面相：使用對己有利的標準來評價自己與其它犯罪行為；二、自訂具偏誤的規範標準：設定一套利己的行為規範標準；三、條件化允許自己犯罪行為：自己的犯罪行為可以在某些條件下被接受和合理化。犯罪人的犯罪經驗及後果可能會逐漸形構成一組自利行為規範。因而增強其成為特定常習犯罪類型之危險性，但卻也可能抑制犯他罪的動力。本研究對於實務處遇方案內容，以及不同犯罪者之犯罪認知結構有更進一步的認識。未來研究仍需進一步探究動態因素對犯罪決策的影響。
Little has been known about the specific relationship between social cognitions and offending behavior. This paper aimed to understand how different types (drug, theft, sexual and violent) of offenders socio-cognitively evaluate the four offences through self (emic) and other (etic) perspectives on self-regulations(normative beliefs, self-identity, moral domains judgment, cognitive perception). Additionally, the social cognitions tapped are further considered in relationship to offenders' crime specialty. Sixteen male recidivists were invited to take part in semi-structure in-depth interviews; the research was informed by interpretative phenomenological analysis. Data showed different perspectives towards self-regulations were produced as a result of the variations in crime sub-cultural context. Generally, a self-serving yet other-blaming tendency was observed in socio-cognitive evaluations. Offenders tended to evaluate their behavior more positively and legitimately and less moral concerns involved than other crime patterns investigated. Offenders' cognitive assessments about offences were found to exhibit an orientation featuring crime-thematic-like style. With crime experiences, offenders may establish a set of self-standards in regulating behavior. It is this interactive process which we suspect may increase the susceptibility for one to specific crimes, whereas possibly prevent individuals from pressure of others'. Moreover, several self-serving cognitive techniques utilized by the offenders to reduce, dodge and rationalize their responsibilities were revealed. This indicates that how social knowledge may differentially relate to specific crime commitment. Future research should explore in greater depth the specificity and versatility of social cognitive reasoning in this context. Also, the factors which intervene between beliefs about what is good and good behavior needs to be understood better. In order to paint a fuller picture about the association between offending behavior and crime decision, it is suggested more research is called for to include individuals' on-line dynamic factors, such as emotion, coding and response choices.

Little has been known about the specific relationship between social cognitions and offending behavior. This paper aimed to understand how different types (drug, theft, sexual and violent) of offenders socio-cognitively evaluate the four offences through self (emic) and other (etic) perspectives on self-regulations(normative beliefs, self-identity, moral domains judgment, cognitive perception). Additionally, the social cognitions tapped are further considered in relationship to offenders' crime specialty. Sixteen male recidivists were invited to take part in semi-structure in-depth interviews; the research was informed by interpretative phenomenological analysis. Data showed different perspectives towards self-regulations were produced as a result of the variations in crime sub-cultural context. Generally, a self-serving yet other-blaming tendency was observed in socio-cognitive evaluations. Offenders tended to evaluate their behavior more positively and legitimately and less moral concerns involved than other crime patterns investigated. Offenders' cognitive assessments about offences were found to exhibit an orientation featuring crime-thematic-like style. With crime experiences, offenders may establish a set of self-standards in regulating behavior. It is this interactive process which we suspect may increase the susceptibility for one to specific crimes, whereas possibly prevent individuals from pressure of others'. Moreover, several self-serving cognitive techniques utilized by the offenders to reduce, dodge and rationalize their responsibilities were revealed. This indicates that how social knowledge may differentially relate to specific crime commitment. Future research should explore in greater depth the specificity and versatility of social cognitive reasoning in this context. Also, the factors which intervene between beliefs about what is good and good behavior needs to be understood better. In order to paint a fuller picture about the association between offending behavior and crime decision, it is suggested more research is called for to include individuals' on-line dynamic factors, such as emotion, coding and response choices.