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.
Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927.
2.
Batha, E. (1994, December 7). Robbery trial halted as juror nods off. South China Morning Post, p. 3-3.
3.
Battaglioli, L. C. (2002). The effect of alibi strength and defendant race on the perceptions of White jurors. Unpublished senior thesis, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine.
4.
Belser, A. (1997, July 20). Many break jury rules, few in contempt. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,p. B1-B1.
5.
Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
6.
Bornstein, B. H., Rung, L. M., & Miller, M. K. (2002). The effects of defendant remorse on mock juror decisions in amalpractice case. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 393-409.
7.
Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 581-594.
8.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium(Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology(pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford.
10.
Chow, M. (2000, May 13). Sleeping juror brings murder trial to a halt. South China Morning Post, p. 1-1.
11.
Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316-326.
12.
Dyer, C. (2002, June 25). Jurors behaving badly: The right of a jury to keep its deliberations secret is sacrosanct. But what happens when it threatens to cause a miscarriage of justice?The Guardian, p. 8-8 (Section G2).
13.
Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L.,& Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.
14.
Fleming, M. A., White, P. H.,& Petty, R. E. (1995, May). The Black target information processing effect. Paper presented at theMidwestern Psychological Association Conference, Chicago.
15.
Fried, J. P. (1984, February 26). Reporter’s notebook: A napping juror and plodding detail at Olmedo’s trial. The New York Times, p. 36-36.
16.
Goldinger, S. D., Kleider, H. M., Azuma, T., & Beike, D. R. (2003). “Blaming the victim” undermemory load. Psychological Science, 14, 81-85.
17.
Griffin, C. W. (1996, December 11). Warning: Scientific evidence can be soporific. The Washington Post, p. A25-A25.
18.
Johnson, J. D., Whitestone, E., Jackson, L. A., & Gatto, L. (1995). Justice is still not colorblind: Differential racial effects of exposure to inadmissible evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 893-898.
19.
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1455.
20.
Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-99.
21.
MacCoun, R. J. (1990). The emergence of extralegal bias during jury deliberation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 303-314.
22.
Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.
23.
Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344.
24.
Moore, P. J., & Gump, B. B. (1995). Information integration in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2158-2179.
25.
Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2002). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
26.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1980). Effects of issue involvement on attitudes in an advertising context. In G. Gorn & M. Goldberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Division 23 program(pp. 75-79). Montreal, Canada: Division 23 of the American Psychological Association.
28.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown Company.
29.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
30.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer- Verlag.
31.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
32.
Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 19-34.
33.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology(pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
34.
Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
35.
Pfeifer, J. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1713-1725.
36.
Pfeifer, J. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2003). Mock juror ratings of guilt in Canada: Modern racism and ethnic heritage. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 301-312.
37.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.
38.
Shaver, K. (1999, December 22). Any Md. juror may be asked about bias: Court expands right to probe for prejudice. The Washington Post, p. A1-A1.
39.
Shepard, S. (2002, March 7). Appeals court nominee faces close vote: Judge’s prospects could survive defeat, however. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p. B1-B1.
40.
Sommers, S. R. (2002). Race and juries: The effects of race-salience and racial composition on individual and group decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
41.
Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367-1379.
42.
Sweeney, L. T., & Haney, C. (1992). The influence of race on sentencing: Ameta-analytic review of experimental studies. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 179-195.
43.
Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.
44.
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2001). The other-race effect in eyewitness identification: What do we do about it?Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 230-246.
45.
White, P. H., & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 790-807.
46.
Williams, M. (1993, May 10). Can juries be colorblind? Officer’s case raises issue; Retrial begins today: Charges in the fatal shooting will be heard in Orlando because of that city’s racial mix. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p. A1-A1.
47.
Wuensch, K. L., Campbell, M. W., Kesler, F. C.,& Moore, C. H. (2002). Racial bias in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 587-600.
