The effects of implicit bias interventions on mock jurors' civil trial decisions and perceptions of the courts.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Megan L Lawrence, Kristen L Gittings, Valerie P Hans, John C Campbell, Jessica M Salerno
{"title":"The effects of implicit bias interventions on mock jurors' civil trial decisions and perceptions of the courts.","authors":"Megan L Lawrence, Kristen L Gittings, Valerie P Hans, John C Campbell, Jessica M Salerno","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In an attempt to reduce juror bias, courts across the United States are educating jurors about how implicit bias impacts decision making. We tested whether novel implicit bias interventions-in the form of educational videos or judicial instructions-reduce the relationship between mock jurors' explicit racial biases and their case decisions for Black plaintiffs and/or increase mock jurors' trust in the courts to deliver fair outcomes.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that mock jurors' increased explicit racial biases would predict less favorable case outcomes for Black plaintiffs but not for White plaintiffs (Studies 1 and 2). We presented competing hypotheses about whether an implicit bias intervention would mitigate, exacerbate, or have no effect on this relationship and explored whether they improved mock jurors' trust in the courts' ability to produce fair outcomes (Study 2).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 407) and Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 1,016), White mock jurors were randomly assigned to judge a civil case with a Black or White plaintiff and then completed measures capturing their implicit and explicit racial biases. In Study 2, mock jurors were also randomly assigned to watch an implicit bias educational video, watch a video of a judge delivering implicit bias instructions, or neither (i.e., control condition).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As hypothesized, mock jurors' increased explicit racial biases predicted less favorable verdicts for Black plaintiffs but not for White plaintiffs. Implicit bias judicial instructions increased pro-plaintiff verdicts and mock jurors' trust in the courts in cases with Black plaintiffs. However, we did not find evidence that educational videos impacted these outcomes, which warrants further study. Neither intervention reduced the relationship between explicit racial bias and verdicts for Black plaintiffs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anti-bias judicial instructions might hold some promise but need further testing; implicit bias videos had no impact. In the meantime, court systems must explore additional remedies to achieve an impartial jury. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000610","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In an attempt to reduce juror bias, courts across the United States are educating jurors about how implicit bias impacts decision making. We tested whether novel implicit bias interventions-in the form of educational videos or judicial instructions-reduce the relationship between mock jurors' explicit racial biases and their case decisions for Black plaintiffs and/or increase mock jurors' trust in the courts to deliver fair outcomes.

Hypotheses: We predicted that mock jurors' increased explicit racial biases would predict less favorable case outcomes for Black plaintiffs but not for White plaintiffs (Studies 1 and 2). We presented competing hypotheses about whether an implicit bias intervention would mitigate, exacerbate, or have no effect on this relationship and explored whether they improved mock jurors' trust in the courts' ability to produce fair outcomes (Study 2).

Method: In Study 1 (N = 407) and Study 2 (N = 1,016), White mock jurors were randomly assigned to judge a civil case with a Black or White plaintiff and then completed measures capturing their implicit and explicit racial biases. In Study 2, mock jurors were also randomly assigned to watch an implicit bias educational video, watch a video of a judge delivering implicit bias instructions, or neither (i.e., control condition).

Results: As hypothesized, mock jurors' increased explicit racial biases predicted less favorable verdicts for Black plaintiffs but not for White plaintiffs. Implicit bias judicial instructions increased pro-plaintiff verdicts and mock jurors' trust in the courts in cases with Black plaintiffs. However, we did not find evidence that educational videos impacted these outcomes, which warrants further study. Neither intervention reduced the relationship between explicit racial bias and verdicts for Black plaintiffs.

Conclusions: Anti-bias judicial instructions might hold some promise but need further testing; implicit bias videos had no impact. In the meantime, court systems must explore additional remedies to achieve an impartial jury. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

内隐偏见干预对模拟陪审员民事审判决定和法院认知的影响。
目的:为了减少陪审员的偏见,美国各地的法院都在教育陪审员,让他们了解隐性偏见是如何影响决策的。我们测试了新颖的隐性偏见干预——以教育视频或司法指导的形式——是否减少了模拟陪审员的显性种族偏见与他们对黑人原告的案件裁决之间的关系,以及/或增加了模拟陪审员对法院提供公平结果的信任。假设:我们预测,模拟陪审员明显的种族偏见的增加会预测对黑人原告不利的案件结果,而对白人原告则不会(研究1和2)。我们提出了关于内隐偏见干预是否会减轻、加剧或没有影响这种关系的竞争性假设,并探讨了它们是否提高了模拟陪审员对法院产生公平结果的能力的信任(研究2)。方法:在研究1 (N = 407)和研究2 (N = 1016)中,白人模拟陪审员被随机分配到一个由黑人或白人原告组成的民事案件中,然后完成测量他们的隐性和显性种族偏见的测量。在研究2中,模拟陪审员也被随机分配观看内隐偏见教育视频,观看法官提供内隐偏见指导的视频,或者两者都不观看(即控制条件)。结果:正如假设的那样,模拟陪审员明显的种族偏见增加预示着对黑人原告不利的判决,而对白人原告不利。在黑人原告的案件中,隐性偏见的司法指示增加了有利于原告的判决,并增加了模拟陪审员对法院的信任。然而,我们没有发现教育视频影响这些结果的证据,这需要进一步研究。两种干预都没有减少明显的种族偏见与对黑人原告的判决之间的关系。结论:反偏见司法指令可能有一定的前景,但需要进一步检验;隐性偏见视频没有影响。与此同时,法院系统必须探索更多的补救办法,以实现公正的陪审团。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信