Reports an error in "Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment" by Tara L. Mitchell, Ryann M. Haw, Jeffrey E. Pfeifer and Christian A. Meissner (Law and Human Behavior, 2005[Dec], Vol 29[6], 621-637). In the article, all of the numbers in Appendix A were correct, but the signs were reversed for z' in a number of studies, which are listed. Also, in Appendix B, some values were incorrect, some signs were reversed, and some values were missing. The corrected appendix is included. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-00971-001.) 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. (PsycINFO Database Record

中文翻译：

---

“模拟陪审员决策中的种族偏见：对被告人待遇的荟萃分析综述”：对Mitchell等人的更正。（2005）。

在Tar​​a L. Mitchell，Ryann M. Haw，Jeffrey E. Pfeifer和Christian A. Meissner撰写的“模拟偏见决策中的种族偏见：对被告人待遇的荟萃分析综述”中报告了一个错误（法律与人类行为，2005年） [Dec]，Vol 29 [6]，621-637）。在本文中，附录A中的所有数字都是正确的，但是在列出的许多研究中，z'的符号都被颠倒了。另外，在附录B中，某些值不正确，某些符号被反转，某些值丢失。包含更正的附录。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2006-00971-001中。）普遍的看法似乎表明，在陪审团的决策中存在种族偏见（定义为对少数被告的不同待遇），黑人被告受到了更为严厉的对待。陪审员比白人被告还多。然而，实证研究是不一致的-有些研究显示种族偏见，而另一些则没有。先前的两次荟萃分析发现，在陪审员决策中存在种族偏见存在矛盾的结果（Mazzella＆Feingold，1994； Journal of Applied Social Psychology，24：1315-1344； Sweeney＆Haney，1992；行为科学与法律）。 ，10，179-195）。这项研究采用荟萃分析的方法，通过将种族偏见定义为对种族外群体的不同对待（而不是只关注少数群体），进一步调查了陪审员决策中种族偏见的经验文献中的矛盾之处。我们的研究结果表明，各个研究中种族偏见对决策的影响均很小，但意义重大，但是当考虑某些主持人时，效果会更加明显。将根据这些发现讨论研究的状态。（PsycINFO数据库记录