Counterintuitive race effects in legal and nonlegal contexts.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Laura Smalarz, Rose E Eerdmans, Megan L Lawrence, Kylie Kulak, Jessica M Salerno
{"title":"Counterintuitive race effects in legal and nonlegal contexts.","authors":"Laura Smalarz,&nbsp;Rose E Eerdmans,&nbsp;Megan L Lawrence,&nbsp;Kylie Kulak,&nbsp;Jessica M Salerno","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 1","pages":"119-136"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","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/lhb0000515","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: 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).

法律和非法律背景下反直觉的种族效应。
目的:尽管在刑事司法系统的各个方面都记录了种族差异,但最近实验室试图调查法律环境中的种族偏见,结果没有产生任何效果或种族偏见的逆转。这些违反直觉的发现可能是实验室参与者试图表现出无偏见的人为产物,以回应禁止对黑人表达种族偏见的社会规范。此外,考虑到将黑人与犯罪联系在一起的普遍刻板印象,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在研究黑人在法律背景下与非法律背景下的判断时,试图表现得不带偏见。假设:我们预测反直觉的种族效应(零效应和亲黑人效应)更有可能发生在实验室研究中,在法律背景下,而不是在非法律背景下。方法:我们对过去四十年来三种主要的社会心理学和法律心理学期刊(Personality and social psychology Bulletin [PSPB];法律与人类行为[LHB];心理学、公共政策与法律[PPPL])。然后我们进行了两个实验,其中学生(N = 314;实验1)和机械土耳其工人(N = 695;实验2)阅读白人和黑人目标在法律或非法律背景下的描述,并根据不同的特征(例如,危险的,值得信赖的)给每个目标打分。结果:我们对文献的分析表明,在法律背景下的种族研究中,与非法律背景下的种族研究相比,反直觉的种族效应更常见。我们的实验同样表明,亲黑人种族效应在法律环境下比在非法律环境下更强。结论:针对黑人的种族偏见的实验室研究——尤其是在法律背景下——可能会产生关于种族对现实世界重要结果影响的误导性结论。研究种族偏见的方法创新是必要的。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 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