Laboratory mock-jury out-group bias is inconsistent while archival data show strong juror bias

Evidence

In mock juror decision-making studies (e.g., Devine & Caughlin, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2005), however, the out-group bias effects are less consistent. One of the meta-analyses performed on the mock jury literature did not find an out-group bias effect (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994), and the most recent meta-analysis only found the out-group bias effect for specific racial/ ethnic groups (e.g., White jurors evaluating Hispanic defendants; Devine & Caughlin, 2014). Some studies have even documented reverse-discrimination effects with mock jurors favoring out-group over in-group defendants (e.g., Foley & Pigott, 2002). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 853

Categorization

• XREF: This experimental-vs-archival divergence echoes the reader’s conviction-vs-measured-bias theme: what professed/measured settings show may diverge from real institutional outcomes.
• QUESTION: Why does the out-group bias appear robustly in archival records yet inconsistently in mock jury studies — including reverse discrimination favoring out-groups? This is directly relevant to measured-bias validity.
• 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…, 853