ABSTRACT

Because they involve important decisions, should actual trials involve less or more discrimination than trial simulations? Does discrimination occur when defendant and juror both belong to underprivileged groups? In two experiments employing a 2 (decision importance) X 2 (defendant ingroup/outgroup status) design, Black and Hispanic (and some White) college students read a robbery/murder trial transcript. The defendant belonged to participants’ racial/ethnic group or one of the others. Low-decision-importance instructions asked mock-jurors to consider the case carefully. High-decision-importance instructions emphasized the study was a government-sponsored assessment of jurors’ reasoning about a real trial with known guilt/innocence. In Experiment 1 (n = 118), outgroup discrimination – judging outgroup defendants more likely guilty – was evident only under high importance. In Experiment 2 (n = 135), which presented weaker prosecution of the trial and included processing-motivation measures, outgroup discrimination occurred regardless of importance. Black and Hispanic mock-jurors discriminated against defendants of the other group. Greater identity-related processing motivation was reported under high importance. High importance may reduce bias associated with heuristic processing, but promote bias through processing infused with evaluative associations involving social identity and race/ethnicity. The defendant outgroup discrimination regardless of importance suggests prejudice observed in trial simulations may generalize to actual trials.

摘要

因为它们涉及重要的决定，实际试验应该比试验模拟更少或更多的歧视？当被告和陪审员都属于弱势群体时，是否会发生歧视？在采用 2（决策重要性）X 2（被告内/外群体身份）设计的两个实验中，黑人和西班牙裔（以及一些白人）大学生阅读了抢劫/谋杀审判记录。被告属于参与者的种族/族裔群体或其他人之一。低决策重要性指示要求模拟陪审员仔细考虑案件。高决策重要性指示强调该研究是政府赞助的评估陪审员对已知有罪/无罪的真实审判的推理。在实验 1 ( n = 118），外群体歧视——判断外群体被告更有可能有罪——只有在高度重视的情况下才明显。在实验 2 ( n  = 135) 中，对试验的起诉较弱，并包括处理动机措施，无论重要性如何，都会发生外群歧视。黑人和西班牙裔模拟陪审员歧视另一组的被告。在高度重要性下报告了更大的与身份相关的处理动机。高重要性可以减少与启发式处理相关的偏见，但通过注入涉及社会身份和种族/民族的评估关联的处理来促进偏见。无论重要性如何，被告外群体歧视表明在审判模拟中观察到的偏见可能会推广到实际审判中。