Even trivial group distinctions produce in-group favoritism in juror verdicts

Evidence

The main premise of social identity theory is that even trivial distinctions between groups can elicit strong loyalties to one’s own group. In essence, to protect their own in-group status, people are more likely to favor in-group members and derogate outgroup members. Social identity theory predicts that verdict decisions should reveal a similarity-leniency pattern (Kerr, Hymes, Anderson, & Weathers, 1995). In sum, if jurors express in-group favoritism, they should be more likely to render a verdict or suggest a sentence that favors an in-group member and disadvantages an out-group member. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 856

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines social identity theory and its similarity-leniency prediction in the legal-judgment context.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 856
• XREF: connects to: Jurors decide cases based on personal sympathy rather than facts — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1451