OBJECTIVE Despite documented racial disparities in all facets of the criminal justice system, recent laboratory attempts to investigate racial bias in legal settings have produced null effects or racial-bias reversals. These counterintuitive findings may be an artifact of laboratory participants' attempts to appear unprejudiced in response to social norms that proscribe expressions of racial bias against Black individuals. Furthermore, given pervasive stereotypes linking Black people with crime and heightened attention to issues of racial injustice in the legal system, laboratory participants may be especially likely to attempt to appear unprejudiced in studies examining judgments of Black individuals in legal as opposed to nonlegal contexts. HYPOTHESES We predicted that counterintuitive race effects (null and pro-Black effects) are more likely to occur in laboratory research examining race in legal than in nonlegal contexts. METHOD We conducted a quantitative review of race effects in three leading social psychology and legal psychology journals over the last four decades (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin [PSPB]; Law and Human Behavior [LHB]; Psychology, Public Policy, and Law [PPPL]). We then conducted two experiments in which students (N = 314; Experiment 1) and Mechanical Turk workers (N = 695; Experiment 2) read descriptions of White and Black targets in either legal or nonlegal contexts and rated each target along various characteristics (e.g., dangerous, trustworthy). RESULTS Our analysis of the literature indicated that counterintuitive race effects were more frequent in studies examining race in legal compared with nonlegal contexts. Our experiments likewise revealed that pro-Black race effects were stronger in legal than in nonlegal contexts. CONCLUSIONS Laboratory research on racial bias against Black people-especially in legal settings-may produce misleading conclusions about the effects of race on important real-world outcomes. Methodological innovations for studying racial bias are needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

在法律和非法律背景下违反直觉的种族效应。

目标 尽管在刑事司法系统的各个方面都记录了种族差异，但最近实验室在法律环境中调查种族偏见的尝试产生了无效效果或种族偏见逆转。这些违反直觉的发现可能是实验室参与者试图表现出不带偏见以回应禁止对黑人表达种族偏见的社会规范的产物。此外，考虑到普遍存在的将黑人与犯罪联系起来的刻板印象，以及对法律体系中种族不公正问题的高度关注，实验室参与者可能特别有可能试图在研究审查黑人个人在法律而非非法律背景下的判断时显得不带偏见。假设 我们预测，与非法律背景下相比，在法律背景下检查种族的实验室研究更有可能发生违反直觉的种族效应（无效和亲黑人效应）。方法 我们对过去 40 年中三种主要的社会心理学和法律心理学期刊（人格与社会心理学公报 [PSPB]；法律与人类行为 [LHB]；心理学、公共政策和法律 [PPPL]）中的种族效应进行了定量审查]). 然后我们进行了两个实验，其中学生（N = 314；实验 1）和 Mechanical Turk 工人（N = 695；实验 2）在法律或非法律背景下阅读白色和黑色目标的描述，并根据各种特征（例如，危险，值得信赖）。结果 我们对文献的分析表明，与非法律背景相比，在法律背景下检查种族的研究中违反直觉的种族效应更为常见。我们的实验同样表明，支持黑人的种族效应在法律背景下比在非法律背景下更强。结论 关于针对黑人的种族偏见的实验室研究——尤其是在法律环境中——可能会得出关于种族对重要现实世界结果的影响的误导性结论。需要研究种族偏见的方法创新。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。结论 关于针对黑人的种族偏见的实验室研究——尤其是在法律环境中——可能会得出关于种族对重要现实世界结果的影响的误导性结论。需要研究种族偏见的方法创新。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。结论 关于针对黑人的种族偏见的实验室研究——尤其是在法律环境中——可能会得出关于种族对重要现实世界结果的影响的误导性结论。需要研究种族偏见的方法创新。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。