Search Swinburne Research Bank
Home List of Titles Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/151520
- Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment
- Mitchell, Tara L.; Haw, Ryann M.; Pfeifer, Jeffrey E.; Meissner, Christian A.
- 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
- Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, no. 6 (Dec 2005), pp. 621-637
- Publication year
- FOR Code(s)
- 1701 Psychology; 1702 Cognitive Sciences; 1801 Law
- 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 URL
- 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