Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/151520

Title

Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment

Author(s)

Mitchell, Tara L.;  Haw, Ryann M.;  Pfeifer, Jeffrey E.;  Meissner, Christian A.

Abstract

Common wisdom seems to suggest that racial bias, defined as disparate treatment of minority defendants, exists in jury decision-making, with Black defendants being treated more harshly by jurors than White defendants. The empirical research, however, is inconsistent-some studies show racial bias while others do not. Two previous meta-analyses have found conflicting results regarding the existence of racial bias in juror decision-making (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344; Sweeney & Haney, 1992, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 179-195). This research takes a meta-analytic approach to further investigate the inconsistencies within the empirical literature on racial bias in juror decision-making by defining racial bias as disparate treatment of racial out-groups (rather than focusing upon the minority group alone). Our results suggest that a small, yet significant, effect of racial bias in decision-making is present across studies, but that the effect becomes more pronounced when certain moderators are considered. The state of the research will be discussed in light of these findings.

Publication type

Journal article

Source

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, no. 6 (Dec 2005), pp. 621-637

Publication year

2005

FOR Code(s)

1701 Psychology;  1702 Cognitive Sciences;  1801 Law

Keyword(s)

Bias;  Courts;  Clinical trials;  Criminal justice;  Decision making;  Discrimination;  Juries;  Juror decision-making;  Minority groups;  Modern racism;  Personal bias;  Prejudice;  Public perceptions;  Racial bias;  Racism;  Social perception;  Social psychology;  Verdict

Publisher

Springer

ISSN

0147-7307

Publisher URL

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9

Copyright

Copyright © 2005 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association. The copyright policy of the publisher allows the accepted manuscript to be reproduced here.

Peer reviewed