Most legal systems are based on the premise that defendants are treated as innocent until proven guilty and that decisions will be unbiased and solely based on the facts of the case. The validity of this assumption has been questioned for cases involving racial minority members, in that racial bias among jury members may influence jury decisions. The current research shows that legal professionals are adept at identifying jurors with levels of implicit race bias that are consistent with their legal interests. Using a simulated voir dire, professionals assigned to the role of defense lawyer for a Black defendant were more likely to exclude jurors with high levels of implicit race bias, whereas prosecutors of a Black defendant did the opposite. There was no relation between professionals’ peremptory challenges and jurors’ levels of explicit race bias. Implications for the role of racial bias in legal decision making are discussed.
BagbyR. M.ParkerJ. D.RectorN. A.KalembaV. (1994). Racial prejudice in the Canadian legal system: Juror decisions in a simulated rape trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 339-350.
2.
BarghJ. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
4.
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, 149-171.
5.
BlairI. V.JuddC. M.ChapleauK. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15, 674-679.
6.
BlantonH.JaccardJ. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27-41.
7.
BluemkeM.FiedlerK. (2009). Base rate effects on the IAT. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 1029-1038.
8.
BluemkeM.FrieseM. (2006). Do irrelevant features of stimuli influence IAT effects?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 163-176.
9.
BowersW. J.SteinerB. D.SandysM. (2001). Death sentencing in Black and White: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 171-275.
10.
ClarkJ. W.CramerR. J.PercoskyA.RufinoK. A.MillerR. S.JohnsonS. M. (2013). Juror perceptions of African American- and Arabic-named victims. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 781-794.
11.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.GaertnerS. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68.
12.
FazioR. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603-637.
13.
FazioR. H.JacksonJ. R.DuntonB. C.WilliamsC. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
14.
FellnerJ. (2009). Race, drugs, and law enforcement in the United States. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 20, 257-291.
15.
FrieseM.HofmannW.SchmittM. (2008). When and why do implicit measures predict behavior? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 285-338.
GaldiS.GawronskiB.ArcuriL.FrieseM. (2012). Selective exposure in decided and undecided individuals: Differential relations to automatic associations and conscious beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 559-569.
18.
GawronskiB.De HouwerJ. (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 283-310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GawronskiB.EhrenbergK.BanseR.ZukovaJ.KlauerK. C. (2003). It’s in the mind of the beholder: The impact of stereotypic associations on category-based and individuating impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 16-30.
20.
GawronskiB.GaldiS.ArcuriL. (2015). What can political psychology learn from implicit measures? Empirical evidence and new directions. Political Psychology, 36, 1-17.
21.
GawronskiB.GeschkeD.BanseR. (2003). Implicit bias in impression formation: Associations influence the construal of individuating information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 573-589.
22.
GawronskiB.HofmannW.WilburC. J. (2006). Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious?Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 485-499.
23.
GawronskiB.PayneB. K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 553-561.
25.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
26.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
27.
HahnA.JuddC. M.HirshH. K.BlairI. V. (2014). Awareness of implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1369-1392.
28.
HansV. P.VidmarN. (1982). Jury selection. In KerrN. L.BrayR. M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 39-82). New York, NY: Academic Press.
29.
HawkinsC. B.NosekB. A. (2012). Motivated independence? Implicit party identity predicts political judgments among self-proclaimed independents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1437-1452.
30.
HofmannW.GawronskiB.GschwendnerT.LeH.SchmittM. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
31.
HoxJ. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
HugenbergK.BodenhausenG. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14, 640-643.
33.
HugenbergK.BodenhausenG. V. (2004). Ambiguity in social categorization: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race categorization. Psychological Science, 15, 342-345.
34.
KangJ.BennettJ. M.CarbadoD.CaseyP.DasguptaN.FaigmanD.. . . MnookinJ. (2012). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1124-1186.
35.
KnowlesE. D.LoweryB. S.SchaumbergR. L. (2010). Racial prejudice predicts opposition to Obama and his health care reform plan. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 420-423.
36.
LaneK. A.KangJ.BanajiM. R. (2007). Implicit social cognition and law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 427-451.
37.
LevinsonJ. D.CaiH.YoungD. (2010). Guilty by implicit racial bias: The guilty/not guilty Implicit Association Test. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 8, 187-208.
38.
LevinsonJ. D.SmithR. D. (Eds.). (2012). Implicit racial bias across the law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
LundbergK. B.PayneB. K. (2014). Decisions among the undecided: Implicit attitudes predict future voting behavior of undecided voters. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85680.
40.
MazzellaR.FeingoldA. (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.
41.
MoorsA.De HouwerJ. (2006). Automaticity: A conceptual and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297-326.
42.
MustardD. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts. Journal of Law & Economics, 64, 285-314.
43.
OswaldF. L.MitchellG.BlantonH.JaccardJ.TetlockP. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171-192.
44.
PageA. (2005). Batson’s blind-spot: Unconscious stereotyping and the peremptory challenge. Boston University Law Review, 85, 155-262.
45.
SmithR. J.LevinsonJ. D. (2011). The impact of implicit racial bias on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Seattle University Law Review, 35, 795-826.
46.
SommersS. R.NortonM. I. (2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 261-273.
47.
SommersS. R.NortonM. I. (2008). Race and jury selection: Psychological perspectives on the peremptory challenge debate. American Psychologist, 63, 527-539.
48.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247.
49.
WilliamsM.HolcombJ. (2001). Racial disparity and death sentences in Ohio. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 207-218.
Supplementary Material
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.
