Prejudice awareness makes jurors evaluate evidence more thoroughly

Evidence

The race salience findings stem from aversive racism theory, the theory that making people aware of their potential to express bias can reduce their tendency to make discriminatory decisions (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Complicating the moderating effects of race salience even further, the watchdog hypothesis suggests that raising the potential for prejudice may cause jurors to evaluate evidence more thoroughly (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004), which could potentially benefit minority defendants (or disadvantage them) depending on the strength of the evidence in the case. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 871

Categorization

• XREF: The watchdog hypothesis’s dual-edged effect mirrors the backfire effect in giving warnings about misinformation — increased alertness can cut either way depending on message strength.
• 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…, 871