Before the 1990s controlled research using mock jurors consistently found black defendants guilty more often than white. However, more recently, research has generally failed to find this effect. One explanation is that prejudice has been reduced so much that there is no longer an effect. While there does seem to have been a reduction in overt prejudice, it is unlikely that it has decreased to the point that it does not affect verdicts. A more likely explanation is that strong social norms exist concerning prejudice which result in efforts to avoid being (or appearing) biased. Thus, when motivation to reduce prejudice is salient, mock jurors and perhaps real jurors will display little or no prejudice; but when motivation to reduce prejudice is not salient, decision-making becomes spontaneous and whatever prejudice does exist will affect decisions. In a series of 6 studies, race of defendant, race of witness, and the salience of the importance of being unbiased were varied. Results revealed a complex situation with many factors playing a part. Race of key alibi witness played a key role, with the white witness favoured, and the black witness mistrusted. Outcomes may be partially predicted based on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Those high in SDO treat incongruent defendant/witness race pairs more harshly than congruent race pairs. Modern apparently egalitarian outcomes are perhaps due to low prejudice participants’ bias in favour of black defendants while high prejudice participants were biased against black defendants – effectively cancelling out each others’ verdicts. Those low in SDO treat incongruent defendant/witness race pair too leniently as compared to congruent race pairs. When race is made salient, bias is reduced, and though the average results are still essentially egalitarian, these verdicts are more truly egalitarian – much fairer and less biased when considered at an individual level. These results also reinforce theories of dual process models of attitudes. Individuals may have common stereotype knowledge, but separate activation based on prejudice levels. Both high and low prejudiced individuals can control bias with the proper motivation.

Before the 1990s controlled research using mock jurors consistently found black defendants guilty more often than white. However, more recently, research has generally failed to find this effect. One explanation is that prejudice has been reduced so much that there is no longer an effect. While there does seem to have been a reduction in overt prejudice, it is unlikely that it has decreased to the point that it does not affect verdicts. A more likely explanation is that strong social norms exist concerning prejudice which result in efforts to avoid being (or appearing) biased. Thus, when motivation to reduce prejudice is salient, mock jurors and perhaps real jurors will display little or no prejudice; but when motivation to reduce prejudice is not salient, decision-making becomes spontaneous and whatever prejudice does exist will affect decisions. In a series of 6 studies, race of defendant, race of witness, and the salience of the importance of being unbiased were varied. Results revealed a complex situation with many factors playing a part. Race of key alibi witness played a key role, with the white witness favoured, and the black witness mistrusted. Outcomes may be partially predicted based on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Those high in SDO treat incongruent defendant/witness race pairs more harshly than congruent race pairs. Modern apparently egalitarian outcomes are perhaps due to low prejudice participants’ bias in favour of black defendants while high prejudice participants were biased against black defendants – effectively cancelling out each others’ verdicts. Those low in SDO treat incongruent defendant/witness race pair too leniently as compared to congruent race pairs. When race is made salient, bias is reduced, and though the average results are still essentially egalitarian, these verdicts are more truly egalitarian – much fairer and less biased when considered at an individual level. These results also reinforce theories of dual process models of attitudes. Individuals may have common stereotype knowledge, but separate activation based on prejudice levels. Both high and low prejudiced individuals can control bias with the proper motivation.

No description available.

This study examined the relationship between levels of sports team identification and sentence leniency. It was hypothesized that sharing the same sports team affiliation with the defendant would create bias in the form of juror leniency, and that highly identified fans would show more bias than lower identified fans. A case description of a hit and run accident, in which the defendant was described as a Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan, was read by 220 participants. Results showed a significant difference in recommended sentence length and levels of sympathy between the three groups (High Identity, Low Identity, & No Identity). However, contrary to the original hypothesis, participants who were highly identified with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers recommended a significantly longer sentence for the defendant and were less sympathetic than participants who had lower identification to the Buccaneers and those who had no Buccaneer identification. This paper discusses the relation of this finding with the Reverse Attractive Leniency Effect, as well as the Same-Sex Penalty Effect.

The current study was based on Brown and Jacquin’s (2010) study of juror bias in rape trials, except that group deliberation was utilized in examining mock juror verdicts. Specifically, this study examined the influence of type of rape (stranger or acquaintance), complainant alcohol consumption, and defendant alcohol consumption on the opinions of mock jurors (N = 224). Type of rape and defendant alcohol consumption did not impact mock juror responsibility attributions or guilt ratings before or after group deliberation. However, complainant alcohol consumption significantly impacted mock juror opinions before and after group deliberation. Complainants who were intoxicated at the time of the alleged rape were viewed as more responsible for the rape. Defendants were viewed as more responsible when the complainant was sober at the time of the alleged rape. The results indicate a need for jurors and the courts to be aware of juror biases about female alcohol consumption.

No description available.