Diversity improves group decisions partly by making majority members try harder

Evidence

Traditional models of diversity attribute the higher quality performance of diverse groups to the number of different backgrounds of the individuals in those groups, suggesting that diversity increases the number of perspectives introduced during discussion (e.g., Nemeth, 1986). Specifically, information exchange models presumed that group members would make the same contributions to diverse and nondiverse groups; therefore, increasing diversity leads to a change in the contributions to the group through the introduction of different types of group members and not by changing the contributions of any individual member. However, White jurors actually make more high-quality contributions (e.g., discussion of more case facts, more errors corrected) to discussion when deliberating in groups with minorities present (diverse groups; Sommers, 2006). Additionally, deliberating in diverse juries can make White jurors more likely to use self-referential language (Stevenson et al., 2017) and experience cognitive depletion (Peter-Hagene, 2019). Thus, the enhanced quality of deliberations in diverse juries appeared to be the result of both a typical information exchange model and higher quality contributions to discussion from White mock jurors (i.e., more case facts, more corrections of errors; Sommers, 2006). White jurors—possibly because of increased information-processing levels in an effort to avoid prejudice (Petty, Fleming, & White, 1999)—produced higher quality contributions to the deliberation discussion when they deliberated in diverse juries. Possibly jury diversity resulted in a “watchdog effect” through which White jurors engaged in a higher level of information processing because they were deliberating on a jury with Black mock jurors deciding the verdict for a Black defendant in an effort to guard against the potential for prejudice (Fleming, et al., 2005; Sargent & Bradfield, 2004; Sommers, 2006; White & Harkins, 1994). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 910

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader social-psych literature on stereotype threat and vigilance; also resonates with Milgrom-style insights that institutions (here, diversity composition) change participant behavior rather than only inputs. Could also connect to Sommers’ own prior work on legal bias. — connects to: Broad inclusion in decisions improves outcomes and fairness — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse,…, 330
• SEED: Article angle: the ‘watchdog effect’ as a mechanism by which diversity improves group decisions — not through new perspectives but through raising the effort of the majority. A counterintuitive case for why diverse juries/teams work.