Racial diversity in juries, meant to ensure representation of minority voices, can also reduce racial bias in verdicts and improve group performance during deliberation (Sommers, 2006). Although jury diversity might increase cognitive depletion because it involves interracial interactions (Richeson & Shelton, 2003), it might also reduce racial disparity in verdicts and deliberation quality by improving the quality of deliberation for Black defendants. In 6-person juries that included 2 White or 2 Black confederates, White jurors viewed trial evidence including a defendant race manipulation (White, Black) and completed measures of cognitive depletion and case facts recall. Deliberation transcripts were coded for the number of total, correct, and new case facts mentioned by jurors. As predicted, jurors in diverse versus all-White juries were more depleted after deliberation, but depletion was not related to deliberation performance. For the Black defendant, jurors on diverse (vs. homogeneous) juries discussed more case facts; for the White defendant, the effect was not significant. Jurors on all-White juries discussed more case facts when they judged a White (vs. Black) defendant, but this difference was not significant for jurors on diverse juries. Thus, jury diversity reduced racial disparity in the quality of deliberation. Before and after deliberation, jurors were less likely to convict the Black (vs. White) defendant regardless of jury composition. These findings reinforce the importance of constructing racially diverse juries, given that they may be better equipped to evaluate trial evidence for both Black and White defendants despite the cognitive demand of deliberating within a diverse group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

陪审团审议过程中陪审员的认知耗竭和表现是陪审团多样性和被告人种族的函数。

陪审团中的种族多样性，旨在确保少数群体声音的代表性，还可以减少判决中的种族偏见，并提高审议过程中的团体表现（Sommers，2006）。尽管陪审团的多样性由于涉及种族间的相互作用而可能增加认知能力的丧失（Richeson＆Shelton，2003），但它也可以通过提高黑人被告的审议质量来减少判决中的种族差距和审议质量。在包括2个白人或2个黑人同盟的6人陪审团中，白人陪审员查看了包括被告种族操纵（白人，黑人）在内的审判证据，并完成了对认知耗竭和案件事实回想的措施。审议记录被编码为陪审员提到的全部，正确的和新的案件事实的数量。如预期的那样 各种陪审团与全白人陪审团的陪审员经过审议后更加枯竭，但枯竭与审议绩效无关。对于黑人被告，不同（相对于同类）陪审团的陪审员讨论了更多案件事实。对于白人被告，影响并不明显。全白人陪审团的陪审员在判断白人（与黑人）被告时讨论了更多的案件事实，但是这种差异对不同陪审团的陪审员而言并不重要。因此，陪审团的多样性减少了审议质量方面的种族差异。审议前后，无论陪审团的组成如何，陪审员都不太可能将黑人（对白人）被告定罪。这些发现加强了构建种族多元化的陪审团的重要性，鉴于他们有更好的条件去评估黑人和白人被告的审判证据，尽管他们有在不同群体中进行审议的认知需求。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。