The Western District of Washington recently developed an educational video to reduce jurors’ implicit biases. Little is known regarding the effectiveness of this proposed remedy to address a range of implicit biases. This study tested whether this educational video reduces pretrial publicity (PTP) bias. A total of 330 undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to read PTP or unrelated articles. An average of 9 days later, they were randomly assigned to watch the educational video prior to viewing a murder trial. Those exposed to PTP were more likely to convict and found the defendant more culpable and less credible. The educational video did not reduce PTP bias. A more tailored debiasing strategy may be needed to overcome the biasing effects of PTP. Differences in legal decisions also emerged depending on whether participants completed the second phase in-person or online, which has implications for future data collection modes.
BennettM. W. (2010). Unraveling the gordian knot of implicit bias in jury selection: The problems of judge-dominated voir dire, the failed promise of Batson, and proposed solutions. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 4(1), 149–172.
2.
BornsteinB. H.GoldingJ. M.NeuschatzJ.KimbroughC.ReedK.MagyaricsC.LuechtK. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/lhb0000223
3.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
4.
ChangE. H.MilkmanK. L.GrometD. M.RebeleR. W.MasseyC.DuckworthA. L.GrantA. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 7778–7783. https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1816076116
5.
DevineD. J.CaughlinD. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/law0000006
6.
DevineP. G.ForscherP. S.AustinA. J.CoxW. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
DumasR.LepastourelN.TestéB. (2014). Press articles and influence processes: The different effects of incriminating information and crime story information on judgments of guilt. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.854790
10.
EiflerS.PetzoldK. (2019). Validity aspects of vignette experiments: Expected “what-if” differences between reports of behavioral intentions and actual behavior. In LavrakasP.TraugottM.KennedyC.HolbrookA.de LeeuwE.WestB. (Eds.), Experimental methods in survey research: Techniques that combine random sampling with random assignment (pp. 393–416). John Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119083771.ch20
11.
ElekJ. K.Hannaford-AgorP. (2013). First, do no harm: On addressing the problem of implicit bias in juror decision making. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 49, 190–198.
FeigensonN. (2016). Jurors’ emotions and judgments of legal responsibility and blame: What does the experimental research tell us?Emotion Review, 8, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601223
14.
FrostP.IngrahamM.WilsonB. (2002). Why misinformation is more likely to be recognized over time: A source monitoring account. Memory, 10, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000317
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
17.
JacksonS.HillardA.SchneiderT. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
20.
KangJ.BennettM.CarbadoD.CaseyP.DasguptaN.FaigmanD.GodsilR.GreenwaldA. G.LevinsonJ.MnookinJ. (2012). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1124–1186.
21.
KerrN. L.KramerG. P.CarrollJ. S.AlfiniJ. J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study. American University Law Review, 40, 665–702.
22.
KerrN. L.NiedermeierK. E.KaplanM. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2855
LaiC. K.SkinnerA. L.CooleyE.MurrarS.BrauerM.DevosT.CalanchiniJ.XiaoY. J.PedramC.MarshburnC. K.SimonS.BlancharJ. C.Joy-GabaJ. A.ConwayJ.RedfordL.KleinR. A.RoussosG.SchellhaasF. M. H.BurnsM.NosekB. A. (2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1001–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179
25.
LernerJ. S.TiedensL. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.515
26.
LiebermanJ. D.ArndtJ. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 677–711. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.677
27.
LiebermanJ. D.SalesB. D. (2007). Scientific jury selection. American Psychological Association.
28.
LilienfeldS. O.AmmiratiR.LandfieldK. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
29.
MaederE. M.YamamotoS.McManusL. A. (2018). Methodology matters: Comparing sample types and data collection methods in a juror decision-making study on the influence of defendant race. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24, 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1409895
MorewedgeC. K.YoonH.ScopellitiI.SymborskiC. W.KorrisJ. H.KassamK. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215600886
34.
OttoA. L.PenrodS. D.DexterH. R. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499050
35.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
RobertsA. (2018). Implicit jury bias: Are informational interventions effective?. In NajdowskiC.StevensonM. (Eds.), Criminal juries in the 21st century: Psychological science and the law (pp. 85–107). Oxford University Press.
38.
RuvaC. L. (2018). From the headlines to the jury room: An examination of the impact of pretrial publicity on jurors and juries. In BornsteinB. H.MillerM. K. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 3, pp. 1–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_1
39.
RuvaC. L.GuentherC. C. (2015). From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors’ decisions, impressions, and memory. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 294–310. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/lhb0000117
40.
RuvaC. L.GuentherC. C.YarbroughA. (2011). Positive and negative pretrial publicity: The roles of impression formation, emotion, and predecisional distortion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811400823
41.
RuvaC. L.LeVasseurM. (2012). Behind closed doors: The effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.502120
42.
RuvaC. L.McEvoyC. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 226–235. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.226
43.
RuvaC. L.McEvoyC.BryantJ. B. (2007). Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1254
44.
ShawA.KenskiK.Stromer-GalleyJ.Mikeal MarteyR.CleggB. A.LewisJ. E.FolkestadJ. E.StrzalkowskiT. (2018). Serious efforts at bias reduction: The effects of digital games and avatar customization on three cognitive biases. Journal of Media Psychology, 30, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000174
45.
SpielbergerC. D.ReheiserE. C. (2003). Measuring anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity as emotional states and personality traits with the STAI, STAXI, and STPI. In HilsenrothM. J.SegalD. L.HersenM. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (Vol. 2.: Personality assessment, pp. 70–86). John Wiley.
46.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
47.
SteblayN. M.BesirevicJ.FuleroS. M.Jimenez-LorenteB. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325019080
StudebakerC. A.RobbennoltJ. K.PenrodS. D.Pathak-SharmaM. K.GroscupJ. L.DevenportJ. L. (2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013877108082
50.
SuA. (2020). A proposal to properly address implicit bias in the jury. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 31, 79–100.
WienerR. L.KraussD. A.LiebermanJ. D. (2011). Mock jury research: Where do we go from here?Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.989
55.
WilsonT.BrekkeN. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
