Merely believing juries are racially diverse changes how jurors deliberate

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

Categorization

• QUESTION: Forced-communication reduction under diversity could have real-world costs to deliberation quality that this study’s inconclusiveness papers over.
• CANDY: Mere perception of diversity among online confederates changes deliberation behavior — no actual interracial contact needed.
• 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…, 906