The present study investigated mock juror perceptions of hate crimes in the courtroom, specifically whether a victim’s religion (Atheist, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) influenced the likelihood that a mock juror would render a hate crime verdict. I employed a mock juror methodology where participants read an assault trial summary, rendered a verdict, and answered a series of rating questions about the victim and defendant. Two theoretical explanations were proposed to explain the main effect of victim religion on participant verdict decisions; that participants would be most likely to render a guilty verdict when the victim is considered an in-group member (i.e., same religion) or when participants perceived the victim’s religion to be commonly targeted in religion-motivated hate crimes. The results showed a main effect of victim religion on participant verdict decisions, such that the Jewish victim received the highest percentage of hate crime verdicts. Participant perceptions of the victim’s trustworthiness and the defendant’s bias mediated the relationship between participant religion (Christian or Jewish) and verdict decisions. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for law enforcement, social psychology, and policy.

偉大的科學家牛頓曾說：「如果我能比別人看的更遠，那是因為我站在巨人的肩膀上」。任何一個學科的發展，其創始和演進的過程中，必定有一群具有前瞻性與領導風格的研究者，憑藉著他們本身的才能與智慧、努力的奉獻和卓越的理念做出具體的貢獻，透過相同的理念奠定學科的根基，並促使學科興盛發展。 本研究採用書目計量學研究方法中的共被引分析法，以美國資訊科學學會所頒發「最佳貢獻獎」之得主為研究對象，並以1900年至2007年為研究範圍，進行資訊科學家之間的主題性分析。本研究旨在探討44位資訊科學先驅的共被引情況，以瞭解各位先驅和各領域主題的群集現象，進而探討資訊科學的知識結構。本研究透過Web Of Science資料庫分別對於44位資訊科學家與個人被引用最多之著作進行共被引次數檢索，製成共被引矩陣，除了瞭解資訊科學家與其被引用最多之著作的共被引強度外，並以KNOT軟體進行路徑搜尋網路分析，進一步探討資訊科學之主題分佈情況，並與前人所做的相關研究進行比較。 本研究結果歸納如下： 一、資訊科學先驅的被引用次數和共被引次數 (一)被引用次數和共被引次數高低的差異，較高者可強化連結強度，較低者可反應出不同的學科結構。 (二)共被引次數較普遍者，具有跨領域的特性。 二、資訊科學先驅的路徑搜尋網路分析 (一)資訊科學領域以五大領域為主要範疇。分別是以Salton, G所領軍的資訊檢索領域；Lancaster, FW所代表的圖書資訊學與圖書館教育、圖書館自動化與自動化系統、圖書館與資訊服務評鑑等領域；Garfield, E為核心的資訊計量學與引用文獻分析之領域；Belkin, NJ所代表的使用者研究與資訊尋求行為領域；Saracevic, T為主的圖書資訊科學概念與理論、圖書資訊科學史的領域。 (二)單篇被引用最多之著作的網路圖無法判別。 三、本研究與White, HD (2003a)研究結果之比較結果 (一)資訊科學領域的學科結構並無太大變動。 (二)資訊科學中心點的不同。本研究所得的網路圖是以Salton, G為圖形的中心點，而White, HD (2003a)則是以Lancaster, FW為圖形中心點。 四、資訊科學領域有跨學科之性質。透過分析結果可以發現資訊科學有跨領域的特性，在許多的資訊科學先驅本身的研究範疇不只侷限於資訊科學，甚且有跨越其他學科主題，例如：電腦科學、社會網絡分析、數學、統計學等。 / Newton, one of the great scientists, said：「If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.」The development in any discipline, in the founding and evolution of the process , there must be a group of forward-looking with the leadership style of the researchers. They make concrete contribution by virtue of their own abilities and intelligence, outstanding efforts and dedication. They through the same idea lay the foundation of their subjects and flourish their disciplines. This study aims at using co-citation analysis of bibliometrics, and regards the Winners of Award of Merit of American Society for Information Science as the research objects to analyze the relevance between and between information scientists, and the research years from 1900 to 2007. The main purpose of this study is to explore the co-citation counts of 44 information scientists to understand the pioneers and the major subjects in information science, and further explore the structure of scientific knowledge of information science. This study through the Web Of Science database retrieve the co-citation counts of 44 pioneers of information science and the most cited of their works to build co-citation matrix. The result let us understanding the co-citation strength of 44 pioneers of information science. We also use the KNOT software in the analysis of PFNETs, try to explore the subjects how to distribute in information science, and take the results compare to the results of the study by White, HD in 2003. The results of the study reveal that: 1.Cited counts and co-citation counts of 44 pioneers of information science (1)The difference between higher counts and lower counts. The higher counts can strengthen the connections between the network, the lows counts can response to the different structures of information science. (2)The higher co-citation counts commonly have the characteristics of cross- discipline. 2.The PFNETs of 44 pioneers of information science (1)The fields of information science divide into five main areas. Salton, G lead the field of information retrieval. Lancaster, FW represent the education of library science and information science, library automation and automated systems, the evaluation for library and information services etc.. Garfield, E as the core of the field of informetrics and citation analysis. Belkin, NJ represent the field of the users research and information-seeking behavior. Saracevic, T represent the field of library information science concepts and theories, the history of library and information science etc.. (2)The network map of the most cited works of 44 pioneers of information science cannot be differentiated. 3. Take the results compare to the results of the study by White, HD in 2003 (1)The field of information science disciplines have not much change in the scientific structure. (2)Different focal point in the maps of information science. This study is based on the network map as Salton, G as focal point for the network, and White, HD (2003a) is based on the network map as Lancaster, FW as focal point for the graphics. 4. The field of information science has the nature of interdisciplinary. The results can be found through the co-citation analysis of information scientists on cross-cutting nature of information science. A pioneer in many areas of study itself is not limited to information science, and even likely to go beyond the subject of other disciplines, such as: computer science, social network analysis, mathematics, statistics etc..