Diverse juries produce fewer but more thoughtful juror responses

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)

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). Stevenson et al. (2017) predicted that White jurors deliberating in diverse juries would experience anxieties typical of interracial interactions (e.g., Plant & Devine, 2003; Richeson & Shelton, 2003; Trawalter, et al., 2009). 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: Research confirms that unanimous twelve-member juries deliberate more thoroughly and inclusively. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 876; The past century’s chief jury reform was making juries more representative — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1418; 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 (0.78) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 906
• Merely believing a jury is diverse makes White jurors self-regulate more and speak less #complicates (0.76) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 906