Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants' judgment and sentencing recommendations.

The authors examined the effects of interactions (a) between defendant attractiveness and juror gender and (b) between defendant race and juror race on judgment and sentencing among 207 Black, Hispanic, and White participants in the United States. After reading a vehicular-homicide vignette in which the defendant's attractiveness and race varied, the participants rated guilt and recommended sentences. The women treated the unattractive female defendant more harshly than they treated the attractive female defendant; the men showed an opposite tendency. The Black participants showed greater leniency when the defendant was described as Black rather than White. The Hispanic participants showed an opposite trend, and the White participants showed no race-based leniency. The findings on racial effects were consistent (a) with in-group favorability bias among the Black participants and (b) with attribution effects unrelated to race among the White participants.     

Reducing White Juror Bias: The Role of Race Salience and Racial Attitudes1

Both Black and White jurors exhibit a racial bias by being more likely to find defendants of a different race guilty than defendants who are of the same race. Sommers & Ellsworth (2000, 2001 ) found that salient racial issues in a trial reduced White juror racial bias toward a Black defendant. We examined if race salience could reduce White juror racial bias, even for individuals who reported high levels of racism. Making race salient reduced White juror racial bias toward a Black defendant. Jurors' racist beliefs were only associated with the verdict when the defendant's race was not made salient. This finding suggests that the effects of individual prejudice toward a Black defendant can be reduced by making the defendant's race salient.     

Head Over the Heart or Heart Over the Head? Cognitive Experiential Self‐Theory and Extralegal Heuristics in Juror Decision Making1

Cognitive experiential self‐theory (CEST), which maintains that information can be processed in both an experiential (emotional) and a rational mode. Experiential processing fosters a reliance on heuristic cues. Previous research has demonstrated that juror verdicts are influenced by a variety of extralegal heuristics, including a defendant attractiveness cue. This research examined whether experiential processing would produce a defendant‐attractiveness/leniency effect. Before awarding monetary damages in a civil trial, participants were motivated to think either rationally or experientially and were shown a photograph of either a high‐ or low‐attractiveness defendant. Experiential mode participants awarded significantly lower damages to the plaintiff when the defendant was attractive, but the attractiveness‐leniency effect was not operative for rational mode participants.     

Rodney King and O. J. Revisited: The Impact of Race and Defendant Empathy Induction on Judicial Decisions

White university students participated in a study to investigate the impact of defendant race and empathetic induction on a subsequent juror decision-making task. Participants read a passage involving a Black or a White defendant in a criminal case. They were subsequently induced to feel no empathy, low empathy, or high empathy for the defendant. When compared to participants in the low- and control empathy conditions, those in the high-empathy condition reported greater target empathy, made attributions that were more situational, and assigned more lenient punishments. The results also indicate that group membership can moderate the impact of empathetic induction. When compared to the participants in the Black defendant condition, those in the White defendant condition reported greater target empathy, made attributions that were more situational, and assigned more lenient punishments. Implications for both empathy and judicial decision-making research are discussed.     

Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials

Past research (e.g. Lynch & Haney, 2000) has shown that race plays a significant role in juror decision making in the penalty phase of capital murder trials. This study investigates the possibility of reducing juror bias towards Blacks by altering the content of jury instructions. White and non-White participants received trial information and jury instructions in which the defendant's race (Black or White) and the instruction type (standard or simplified) were manipulated. Participants rendered a sentence recommendation, identified factors they considered to be aggravating or mitigating, and responded to instruction comprehension questions. Bias against the Black defendant was significantly reduced when simplified instructions were used and when the defendant was judged by racially diverse jurors. Simplification also led to better comprehension of sentencing instructions. Implications for capital trials are discussed.     

Racial Bias in Decisions Made by Mock Jurors Evaluating a Case of Sexual Harassment

Abstract

White (N = 161) and Black (N = 152) college students served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a female plaintiff accused a male defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the race (Black or White) of the litigants and asked the mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty; to rate the certainty of their belief in the defendant's guilt; and, when they judged the defendant guilty, to recommend an award to the plaintiff. Mock jurors of both races tended to favor litigants of their own race and their own gender. Racial bias was highest among White male jurors and lowest among White female jurors.     

Effects of Victim and Defendant Race on Jurors' Decisions in Child Sexual Abuse Cases1

We examined the influence of victim and defendant race, victim age, juror gender, and juror prejudice on jurors' decisions in child sexual abuse cases. In Experiments 1 and 2, mock jurors judged Black and Hispanic child victims to be more responsible for their sexual abuse than White victims. In Experiment 2, jurors assigned more guilt to defendants in cases involving victims and perpetrators of the same race compared to different races. Experiment 3 illustrated that laypeople believe same‐race cases to be more plausible generally. Experiment 2 revealed that high‐prejudiced White mock jurors made no more racially biased judgments than low‐prejudiced mock jurors. Finally, women were generally more pro‐victim in their case judgments than were men, and older victims were disadvantaged compared to younger victims in terms of perceived credibility and responsibility, and their cases were less likely to draw convictions.     

Attributions of guilt and punishment as functions of physical attractiveness and smiling

The authors found an interaction between sex of participant and sex of defendant in the leniency bias toward a smiling defendant. Differences occurred for male participants when levying punishment for a smiling male defendant vs. a smiling female defendant and for a smiling male defendant vs. a nonsmiling male defendant, whereas differences did not occur for female participants. The authors found moderating effects of physical attractiveness and smiling between guilt and punishment. The only significant positive relationship between guilt and punishment occurred for the defendant whom participants rated low in physical attractiveness and who was not smiling. When guilty, the smiling and unattractive defendant received less punishment than did the smiling and attractive defendant. The authors discussed complex relationships between physical attractiveness, smiling, guilt, and punishment.     

Racial bias in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual harassment

White (N = 161) and Black (N = 152) college students served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a female plaintiff accused a male defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the race (Black or White) of the litigants and asked the mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty; to rate the certainty of their belief in the defendant's guilt; and, when they judged the defendant guilty, to recommend an award to the plaintiff. Mock jurors of both races tended to favor litigants of their own race and their own gender. Racial bias was highest among White male jurors and lowest among White female jurors.     

Race Shapes Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court1

We investigated the effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on non‐African American mock jurors' perceptions of crimes committed by juvenile offenders. We predicted that mock jurors, particularly men, would render more pro‐prosecution case judgments when the defendant was African American than White. We also predicted that defendants would be judged more harshly when the crime victim was portrayed as White rather than as African American. Although there were few main effects of defendant race or victim race on case judgments, defendant and victim race by juror gender interactions revealed that men (but not women) demonstrated the predicted bias against African American defendants and victims. Explanations and implications are discussed.     

Criminal sentence recommendations in a simulated rape trial: Examining juror prejudice in Canada

This experiment examined the moderating influence of judicial instructions on prejudicial sentencing recornmendations in a simulated videotaped rape trial. Subjects were 243 Canadian university students who were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions and asked to assume the role of juror. In the rape trial, the race of the defendant and victim were varied (either White or Black) and in half of the conditions the judge's instructions to the jury were excluded. Results indicated a 2 (defendant race) × 2 (victim race) × 2 (judicial instructions) interaction with interracial rape generating longer sentence recommendations in the presence of judicial instructions and intra-racial rape eliciting longer sentence allotment in the absence of judicial instructions. Results are contrasted with reports on juror decision-making in the U.S.     

Perceptions of candidate strength in job recruitment: Does candidate race moderate the attractiveness bias in White women?

The attractiveness bias suggests that people who are more attractive will be positively favored across life outcomes. This study sought to test whether candidate attractiveness, sex, and race, affect perceptions of candidate strength in a job recruitment task. In total, 338 White women (M_age = 20.94 ± 5.65) were asked to make judgements of a potential candidate for an administrative job (resume with candidate photograph). The vignettes differed in terms of candidate ability (strong/weak), sex (male/female), race (Black/White), and attractiveness (attractive/less attractive). Participants rated perceived candidate strength and likelihood to invite for interview. Results showed no significant main effects for attractiveness. However, there was a significant interaction for target attractiveness and race, such that attractive/White candidates were more likely to be invited for interview than less attractive/White candidates. There was also a significant main effect for race such that Black candidates were rated as stronger and more likely to be interviewed. Sensitivity analyses (with nonheterosexual women removed from the sample) also showed a main effect for target sex such that female candidates were favored over male candidates. Overall, these findings provide evidence that attractiveness, sex, and race have important, albeit complex, effects on hiring decisions in the workplace.     

Deciding the Fate of Others: The Cognitive Underpinnings of Racially Biased Juror Decision Making

In criminal law, jurors are supposed to ignore defendant race when considering factual matters of culpability. However, when judging the merits of a criminal case, jurors’ ability (or inability) to avoid bias may affect verdicts. Fact-based decision making expend cognitive resources, while heuristic-based decisions (e.g., using criminal stereotypes) conserve resources. Here, we investigated whether differences in cognitive resources and prejudice attitudes about Blacks influenced trial outcomes. We tested the impact of working memory capacity (WMC), cognitive load, prejudice, and target race (Black, White) on penalties ascribed to fictional criminal defendants in ambiguous-fact cases. Results showed that when “loaded,” prejudiced-low-WMC persons supported guilty verdicts with higher confidence more often for Black than White defendants. Conversely, regardless of WMC or prejudice attitude, participants penalized White defendants more often when not loaded. We suggest that cognitive resources and prejudice attitude influence fact-based decisions. Links to juror judgments and potential trial outcomes are discussed.     

The Effects of Physical Attractiveness,Race, Socioeconomic Status,and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta-Analysis1

A meta-analysis of experimental research on mock juror judgments was conducted to assess the effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status (SES), and gender of both defendants and victims to test the theory that jurors use characteristics that are correlated with criminal behavior as cues to infer guilt and to recommend punishment. In general, it was advantageous for defendants to be physically attractive, female, and of high SES, although these advantages were nil for some crimes. There were no overall effects of race on mock jurors' judgments, but the effect of defendant race on punishment was strongly moderated by type of crime. Effects of victim characteristics on jurors' judgments were generally inconsequential, although defendants were at a disadvantage when the victim was female.     

Is it just me,or was that sexist? The role of sexism type and perpetrator race in identifying sexism

ABSTRACT

Despite sexism occurring frequently, people often do not identify it as such. Using a vignette design, the current project explored whether sexism was identified at a different rate and intensity depending on the specific form of sexism enacted (hostile or benevolently sexist behavior) and race (Black or White) of the man perpetrating sexist behaviors. When a Black man engaged in a benevolently (paternalistic) sexist behavior he was perceived as more sexist than a White man. However, White and Black men were perceived similarly when they engaged in a hostile (overtly negative and derogatory) sexist behavior. Overall, female participants identified sexism more often and viewed it as more sexist than male participants did, especially in the context of benevolent sexism. These findings suggest there are significant effects of perceiver gender and perpetrator race in the perception of sexism. This demonstrates the importance of examining both race- and gender-based discrimination together.     

Race and information processing in criminal trials: does the defendant's race affect how the facts are evaluated?

Two studies examined whether a criminal defendant's race influences Whites' sensitivity to legally relevant information. In Study 1, prosecution case strength ratings and guilt likelihood ratings were more sensitive to the strength of the defendant's alibi when he was Black than when he was White, if the experimental task was designed to elicit low processing motivation. Under high motivation, participants were equally sensitive to alibi strength, regardless of defendant race. In Study 2, the alibi strength manipulation was replaced with a manipulation of the effectiveness of the district attorney's cross-examination. As predicted, defense case strength ratings were more sensitive to the strength of the prosecutor's cross-examination with a Black defendant than with a White defendant-under low motivation. Under high motivation, sensitivity did not depend on defendant race. These results suggest that a Black defendant can elicit greater sensitivity to legally relevant information than will a White defendant.     

Race,Rape, and Bias: Distortion of Prior Odds and Meaning Changes

Two experiments were conducted to investigate how racial bias affects juror decision making. Three sources of bias were studied: (1) prior probabilities of guilt, (2) distortion of the meaning of evidence, and (3) differential weighting of information. A paired comparison technique employed in the first study revealed that pretrial probabilities of guilt were greater when the victim was White than when she was Black. In the second experiment, a different group of subjects viewed one of four videotaped simulated rape trials in which seven segments of testimony had been previously rated as pro-prosecution, pro-defense, or neutral. During the trial, subjects rated each segment on three different scales: prosecution, defense, and degree of defendant guilt. Results indicated that neutral evidence was seen as more favorable to prosecution for a White victim compared to a Black victim. Evidence which favored either prosecution or defense was not distorted. Regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between estimates of guilt and distortion of evidence. The weight or importance of the evidence did not vary as a function of victim or defendant race. Years of recommended imprisonment indicated greater severity toward the Black assailant of a White woman. The results suggest that bias in favor of White victims occurs both in the assessment of pretrial probabilities and perception of evidence.     

Racial Attitudes and the Death Penalty1

This study investigated the relationship between overt and subtle forms of racism with Whites' recommendations for capital sentencing of Black and White offenders convicted of murder. White participants (n= 104) viewed 5 other “jurors” (all Whites or 4 Whites and 1 Black) on videotape individually presenting their decisions to vote for the death penalty in the case. It was hypothesized that the bias of high prejudice-scoring participants would be overt, but that the pattern for low prejudice-scoring participants would be more complex. As predicted, among high prejudice-scoring participants, Black defendants received stronger recommendations for the death penalty than did White defendants. Among low prejudice-scoring White participants, Black offenders received stronger recommendations for the death penalty only when a Black juror advocated the death penalty.