Real-world data show juror bias but lab studies often fail to replicate it

Evidence

Archival analyses provide a strong, consistent case for juror bias against minority defendants (e.g., Baldus et al., 2001; Mustard, 2001; Williams et al., 2001). 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: The archival-vs-lab discrepancy parallels the general ‘replication gap’ in social psychology and the difference between field and lab findings in Milgrom’s law-merchant work on real vs. simulated behavior.
• SEED: Article angle: why the strongest evidence of juror bias comes from real court records while controlled mock-jury studies keep failing to find it — methodological, moral, or both?