Diverse juries erase the disparity in how carefully evidence is weighed

Evidence

In one study, participants interacted online with confederates (who provided predetermined responses from the researchers). The researchers manipulated the race of those confederates. Participants who believed they were in diverse juries deliberated in a fundamentally different manner than did those who believed they were deliberating in homogenous juries (Stevenson, Lytle, Baumholser, & McCracken, 2017). … Based on theories of regulating one’s responses to reduce prejudice (e.g., Fleming et al., 2005; Monteith, 1993), the authors predicted that deliberating in diverse juries would induce more self-focus and more self-regulatory behavior. Jurors deliberating in diverse juries used more terms indicating that they were selfregulating than did those deliberating in nondiverse juries (Stevenson et al., 2017). The results, however, suggested a different overall impact of diversity on jury deliberations. Participants, although they were more likely to think carefully when developing their responses, communicated less in diverse as opposed to nondiverse juries. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 906 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Jury trials divide fact-finding to jurors and law-determination to judges. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1401; The jury evolved from self-informing locals into disinterested evidence-weighers — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1405; Criminal juries systematically convict less often than judges would in identical cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1439 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Merely believing juries are racially diverse changes how jurors deliberate #complicates (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 906