Advertisement

A Third Party’s Judgment in Same-Race and Cross-Race Crimes

  • Jungwon LeeEmail author
  • Mawia Khogali
  • Nikoleta M. Despodova
  • Steven D. Penrod
Article

Abstract

Prior studies investigating racial bias in legal decisions have involved race combinations of an observer, defendant, and victim where the observers’ race was the same as either the defendants’ or victims’ race. Because of the research designs employed in those prior studies, the effects of the three actors all being of different races have not been investigated. It is timely to investigate race effects of the three actors all being different races, given that growing racial diversity in the criminal justice system makes the race combination plausible in a trial, and that race effects observed in prior studies may not generalize to the race combination. Therefore, we examined whether observers’ punitive judgments against a defendant would differ in cross-race crimes (e.g., a white observer–black defendant–Hispanic victim) and same-race crimes (e.g., a white observer–black defendant–black victim), when the observers’ race was different from both the defendant and victim. The present research demonstrated that observers rendered more punitive judgments against the defendant in same-race (vs. cross-race) crimes, particularly when the defendant and victim knew each other. We propose that observers, whose race is different from both the defendant and victim, perceive the defendant and victim in same-race (vs. cross-race) crimes as more homogeneous out-group members. This perceived homogeneity increases punitive judgments in same-race crimes.

Keywords

Racial bias Judgment in criminal cases Homogeneity of out-group 

Notes

Supplementary material

12552_2019_9266_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (49 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 49 kb)

References

  1. Abwender, D. A., & Hough, K. (2001). Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on US participants’ judgment and sentencing recommendations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 603–615.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., Rector, N. A., & Kalemba, V. (1994). Racial prejudice in the Canadian legal system: Juror decisions in a simulated rape trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 339–350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermant, G., McGuire, M., McKinley, W., & Salo, C. (1974). The logic of simulation in jury research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1, 224–233.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009385487400100302.Google Scholar
  4. Bottoms, B. L., Davis, S. L., & Epstein, M. A. (2004). Effects of victim and defendant race on jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02535.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brauer, M., & Er-rafiy, A. (2011). Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 871–881.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 595–602.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright, D. S. (1956). Self-consistency as a factor affecting immediate recall. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 212–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024831908377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2008). Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 364–371.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2015). The influence of a capital case defendant’s mitigating information, race and SES on death penalty decisions by European American and Hispanic venire persons. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 288–299.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feild, H. S. (1979). Rape trials and jurors’ decisions: A psycholegal analysis of the effects of victim, defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 261–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F. (1963) Statistical tables for biological. In Agricultural and Medical Research. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  13. Foley, L. A., & Chamblin, M. H. (1982). The effect of race and personality on mock jurors’ decisions. The Journal of Psychology, 112, 47–51.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1982.9923533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ForsterLee, R., ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & King, E. (2006). The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 179–198.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gächter, S., Starmer, C., & Tufano, F. (2015). Measuring the closeness of relationships: a comprehensive evaluation of the ‘inclusion of the other in the self’ scale. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0129478.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gau, J. M. (2016). A jury of whose peers? The impact of selection procedures on racial composition and the prevalence of majority-white juries. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39, 75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2015.1087149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutchess, A. H., Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Aging, self-referencing, and medial prefrontal cortex. Social Neuroscience, 2, 117–133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701399029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herzog, S. (2003). Does the ethnicity of offenders in crime scenarios affect public perceptions of crime seriousness? A randomized survey experiment in Israel. Social Forces, 82, 757–781.  https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hymes, R. W., Leinart, M., Rowe, S., & Rogers, W. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The effect of race of defendant and race of victim on white juror decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 627–634.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9713917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778–788.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Judd, C. M., Ryan, C. S., & Park, B. (1991). Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 366–379.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Juhnke, R., Vought, C., Pyszczynski, T. A., Dane, F. C., Losure, B. D., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). Effects of presentation mode upon mock jurors’ reactions to a trial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 36–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konečni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1986). Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues: Critical notes and reflections. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 117–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lands, N. E. (1986). Race and jury verdict predictions: When is race a factor in conviction proneness? (Doctoral dissertation). University of Miami.Google Scholar
  26. Lauderdale, P., Smith-Cunnien, P., Parker, J., & Inverarity, J. (1984). External threat and the definition of deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1058–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leshikar, E. D., & Duarte, A. (2014). Medial prefrontal cortex supports source memory for self-referenced materials in young and older adults. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 236–252.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0198-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maeder, E. M., Mossiere, A., & Cheung, L. (2013). Canadian mock juror attitudes and decisions in domestic violence cases involving Asian and white interracial and intraracial couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 667–684.  https://doi.org/10.1037/t00700-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Margan, R. E. (2017, October). Race and Hispanic origin of victims and offenders, 201215 (NCJ Publication No. 250747). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf
  31. Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Outgroup homogeneity as a social comparison process. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131–151). Nova Iorque: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, M., & Hewitt, J. (1978). Conviction of a defendant as a function of juror-victim racial similarity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 159–160.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). Behavior Research Methods. Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621–637.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Toole, M. J., & Sahar, G. (2014). The effects of attributions for crime on attitudes toward prison reform. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 10, 46–65.Google Scholar
  36. Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141–152.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rector, N. A., & Bagby, R. M. (1995). Criminal sentence recommendations in a simulated rape trial: Examining juror prejudice in Canada. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 13, 113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370130108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677–688.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sargent, M. J., & Bradfield, A. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: Does the defendant’s race affect how the facts are evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 995–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204265741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saucier, D. A., Hockett, J. M., Zanotti, D. C., & Heffel, S. (2010). Effects of racism on perceptions and punishment of intra-and interracial crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1767–1784.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509358386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Serbun, S. J., Shih, J. Y., & Gutchess, A. H. (2011). Memory for details with self-referencing. Memory, 19, 1004–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.626429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, 597–612.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). white juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201–229.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spears, R. (2007). Ingroup–outgroup bias. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 484–485). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.n286.Google Scholar
  46. 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, 187–201.  https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1976). black jurors’ personality trait attribution to a rape case defendant. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 4, 193–201.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1976.4.2.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vanbeselaere, N. (1991). The impact of in-group and out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity upon intergroup relations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 291–301.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1203_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilder, D. A. (1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1361–1374.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wuensch, K. L., Campbell, M. W., Kesler, F. C., & Moore, C. H. (2002). Racial bias in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual harassment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 587–600.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations