Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present research builds on previous models of jury diversity’s benefits by exploring how diversity impacts the deliberation process. In Study 1, community members (N = 433) participated in a jury decision-making study manipulating the strength of evidence (ambiguous vs. weak) and the diversity of the jury. When the evidence in the case was ambiguous, both white and black jurors made high-quality contributions to discussion in diverse juries than in nondiverse juries. In Study 2, undergraduate students (N = 369) were randomly assigned to wealth and power conditions and then deliberated in diverse and nondiverse groups. Diverse juries were less likely to convict the defendant, and jurors on diverse juries made high-quality contributions to discussion. Although previous work has documented effects of diversity on high-status jurors’ contributions to deliberations, this work suggests that diversity may relate to more complex evidence evaluation for members of low-status groups as well.

Keywords

group processes judgment and decision-making prejudice/stereotyping psychology and law

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderfer

C. P.

Smith

K. K.

(1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 35–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392545

Amiot

C. E.

Bourhis

R. Y.

(2005). Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positive and negative outcome distributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.238

Babbitt

L. G.

Sommers

S. R.

(2011). Framing matters: Contextual influences on interracial interaction outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1233–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211410070

Baldus

D. C.

Woodworth

Zuckerman

Weiner

N. A.

(2001). The use of peremptory challenges in capital murder trials: A legal and empirical analysis. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3(1), 173–178.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

Bowers

W. J.

Steiner

B. D.

Sandys

(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(1), 171–274.

Brauer

Bourhis

R. Y.

(2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.355

Clark

Boccaccini

M. T.

Caillouet

Chaplin

W. F.

(2007). Five factor model personality traits, jury selection, and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 641–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806297555

Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Jones. 366 Mass. 805 (1975).

10.

Cornwell

E. Y.

Hans

V. P.

(2011). Representation through participation: A multilevel analysis of jury deliberations. Law & Society Review, 45(3), 667–698.

11.

Doerr

Plant

E. A.

Kunstman

J. W.

Buck

(2011). Interactions in Black and White: Racial differences and similarities in response to interracial interactions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210375250

12.

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(2004). Aversive racism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36001-6

13.

Ellis

Diamond

S. S.

(2003). Race, diversity, and jury composition: Battering and bolstering legitimacy. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78(3), 1033–1058.

14.

Equal Justice Initiative. (2010). Illegal racial discrimination in jury selection: A continuing legacy. https://eji.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/illegal-racial-discrimination-in-jury-selection.pdf

15.

Fleming

M. A.

Petty

R. E.

White

P. H.

(2005). Stigmatized targets and evaluation: Prejudice as a determinant of attribute scrutiny and polarization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271585

16.

Foldy

Rivard

Buckley

T. R.

(2009). Power, safety, and learning in racially diverse groups. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.37012177

17.

Galinsky

A. D.

Magee

J. C.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Whitson

J. A.

Liljenquist

K. A.

(2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633

18.

Hannaford-Agor

Waters

N. L.

(2011). Safe harbors from fair-cross-section challenges? The practical limitations of measuring representation in the jury pool. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(4), 762–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01240.x

19.

Harvey

Bourhis

R. Y.

(2012). Discrimination in wealth and power intergroup structures. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211408364

20.

Hastie

Penrod

Pennington

(1983). Inside the jury. Harvard University Press. http://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674865945

21.

A. K.

Sidanius

Kteily

Sheehy-Skeffington

Pratto

Henkel

K. E.

. . . Stewart

A. L.

(2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033

22.

Kemmelmeier

(2005). The effects of race and social dominance orientation in simulated juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 1030–1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02158.x

23.

Kerr

N. L.

MacCoun

R. J.

(2012). Is the leniency asymmetry really dead? Misinterpreting asymmetry effects in criminal jury deliberation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(5), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212441639

24.

Kuhn

Weinstock

Flaton

(1994). How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science, 5(5), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00628.x

25.

Lynch

Haney

(2011). Mapping the racial bias of the White male capital juror: Jury composition and the “empathic divide”: Mapping the racial bias of the White male capital juror. Law & Society Review, 45(1), 69–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00428.x

26.

MacCoun

R. J.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The basis of citizens’ perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044389

27.

Melilli

(1996). Batson in practice: What we have learned about Batson and peremptory challenges. Notre Dame Law Review, 71(3), 447–503.

28.

Nemeth

C. J.

(1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23

29.

Nemeth

C. J.

(1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.273

30.

Peter-Hagene

(2019). Jurors’ cognitive depletion and performance during jury deliberation as a function of jury diversity and defendant race. Law and Human Behavior, 43(3), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000332

31.

Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972).

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(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.19

33.

Rose

M. R.

(1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one county. Law and Human Behavior, 23(6), 695–702. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022393506784

34.

Semmel

(2020). Whitewashing the jury box: How California perpetuates the discriminatory exclusion of Black and Latinx jurors. Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Whitewashing-the-Jury-Box.pdf

35.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

36.

Sommers

S. R.

(2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597

37.

Sommers

S. R.

Norton

M. I.

(2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 31(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6

38.

Sommers

S. R.

Warp

L. S.

Mahoney

C. C.

(2008). Cognitive effects of racial diversity: White individuals’ information processing in heterogeneous groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1129–1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.01.003

39.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

40.

Stevenson

M. C.

Lytle

B. L.

Baumholser

B. J.

McCracken

E. W.

(2017). Racially diverse juries promote self-monitoring efforts during jury deliberation. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000113

41.

Tajfel

Billig

M. G.

Bundy

R. P.

Flament

(1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

42.

York

Cornwell

(2006). Status on trial: Social characteristics and influence in the jury room. Social Forces, 85(1), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0150

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.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

0.01 MB

0.08 MB

0.07 MB

Diversity’s Impact on the Quality of Deliberations

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material