有两个假设（1）处罚的严重程度较高的重复圈内罪犯应该比第一圈内犯罪，而犯罪史应在类群有惩罚性反应无影响；（2）这样的效果应该只能在圈内的情况通过社会关注和愤怒/愤怒的中介。这样，会员和犯罪历史是独立的变量，愤怒/愤怒，社会关注，惩罚严重度是因变量。
97名来自科布伦茨大学的心理学班的学生被要求完成一份关于一个学生，无论是心理学或生物学的学生，还是第一个或重复的罪犯，从大学图书馆里隐藏重要的心理学书籍的问卷。有效问卷86份。
笔者将实验设计为一个主体之间的实验，其中（1）目标人的团体成员和（2）他或她的犯罪历史被独立操纵。然后，三个因变量被指定为2（小组成员：内群体与外类群）×2（犯罪记录：第一次与重复）方差分析。严格按照假设检验法，对各变量进行科学量化。In order to test the second hypothesis, the author use dummy-code method to take both independent variables into account (Group membership: –1 =outgroup offender; +1 = ingroup offender; Criminal history:
结果对这两个假设都是支持的。对于第一个假设，在圈内的情况，一个惯犯应该面对更多的愤怒/愤怒，更高的社会关注，和更严厉的惩罚比第一个。而在外围的条件，犯罪史上有三个变量影响不大。
作为第二个假设，在一个圈内的人的情况下，当以社会问题为中介，犯罪史上处罚力度的间接影响是相当大的。这一结果表明，重复内罪犯往往比第一次更提高圈内罪犯的社会问题，并使他们受到更严厉的惩罚。此外，当将愤怒/愤怒作为调解人时，刑事历史对惩罚严重程度的间接影响也相当大。这表明，重复内罪犯往往比第一次更引起圈内罪犯愤怒和义愤，并因此受到更严厉的惩罚。然而在一类犯罪，案件，犯罪史通过社会问题也不愤怒/愤怒为中介间接处罚程度的影响不显著。
悉尼assignment 代写:犯罪人的身份和犯罪史
The article coauthored by Mario Gollwitzer and Livia Keller (2009) aims to test whether criminal history has a stronger effect on the punitive responses to the offender when he or she is a member of one’s own social category than when he or she belongs to a different social group. Although some previous literature has been devoted to study how the offender’s criminal history and membership are related to the punishment severity respectively, few has probed into how the offender’s membership and his or her criminal history interact with each other. Specifically, this study focuses on an intergroup context where an important social norm is violated, without taking political, historical and other factors into account.
There are two hypothesis (1) punishment severity is higher for repeat ingroup offenders should than first-time ingroup offenders, while criminal history should have no effect on punitive response in the case of outgroup members; (2) such effect should only works in ingroup condition via societal concerns and anger/outrage as mediators. In this way, membership and criminal history are the independent variables; anger/ outrage, societal concerns, and punishment severity is the dependent variables.
97 students from psychology classes at the University of Koblenz-Landau were asked to finish a questionnaire on the case about a fellow student, a student of either psychology or biology and either a first-time or a repeat offender, who hid important books on psychology from the university library. 86 questionnaires were effective.
The authors designed the experiment as a between-subjects one, in which (1) the target person’s group membership and (2) his or her criminal history were manipulated independently. Then, the three dependent variables were designated to a 2 (Group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) × 2 (Criminal history: first-time vs. repeat) variance analysis. Strictly according to the hypothesis testing method, all the variables were scientifically quantified. In order to test the second hypothesis, the author use dummy-code method to take both independent variables into account (Group membership: –1 =outgroup offender; +1 = ingroup offender; Criminal history:
–1 = first-time offender; +1 = repeat offender). And meanwhile, they standardized the two mediators (societal concerns, anger/outrage) and the dependent variable (punishment severity).
The results are supportive to both of the hypotheses. As to the first hypothesis, in the ingroup condition, a repeat offender should face more anger/outrage, higher societal concerns, and more severe punishment than a first-time one. While in the outgroup condition, criminal history had little impact on the three variables.
As to the second hypothesis, in the case of an ingroup offender, when taking societal concerns as the mediator, the indirect effect of criminal history on punishment severity was considerable. This result indicates that repeat ingroup offenders tend to raise more societal concerns than first-time ingroup offenders, and so that they are punished more severely. Furthermore, when taking anger/outrage as the mediator, the indirect effect of criminal history on punishment severity was also considerable. This shows that repeat ingroup offenders tend to evoke more anger and moral outrage than first-time ingroup offenders, and thus are punished more severely. In the case of an outgroup offender, however, criminal history has no significant indirect effect on punishment severity via neither societal concerns nor anger/outrage as the mediator.
