Jurors may be biased toward defendants because of their group status or similarities/differences. Deliberation may minimize bias by forcing jurors to rationalize their decisions. In two experiments, mock jurors read that, at the time of the crime, the defendant was: engaged in Christian prayers, Islamic prayers, or TV watching (control). Study 1 described a crime stereotypically associated with Muslims (bombing a transportation center); Study 2 used a crime associated with fundamentalist Christians (bombing an abortion clinic). Participants gave predeliberation and postdeliberation verdicts. Findings for both studies are similar, despite the stereotypicality of the crime. There was a general leniency effect—the more participants saw themselves as similar to the defendant, the less certain they were of guilt. Deliberation made jurors less likely to convict Muslim and Christian defendants, but not control-group defendants. Religious identity of the defendant had no direct effect on verdicts. Findings have implications for juror bias, crime stereotypicality, and the effects of jury deliberation.
AllenC.NielsenJ. S. (2002). Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001. Vienna, Austria: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
2.
BaileyF. L.RothblattH. B. (1985). Successful techniques for criminal trials. Rochester, NY: Lawyers Co-operative.
3.
BernardJ. L. (1979). Interaction between the race of the defendant and that of the jurors in determining verdicts. Law and Psychological Review, 5, 103–111.
4.
BornsteinB. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.
5.
BornsteinB. H.McCabeS. G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 443–467.
6.
BornsteinB. H.MillerM. K. (2009). God in the courtroom: Religion’s role at trial. New York, NY: Oxford.
7.
CarlsonK. A.RussoJ. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91–103.
8.
ChampagneA.NagelS. (1982). The psychology of judging. In KerrN. L.BrayR. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York, NY: Academic Press.
CoopermanA. (2003, June2). Is terrorism tied to the Christian sect? Religion may have motivated bombing suspect. The Washington Post, p. A03.
11.
DahlJ.EnemoI.DrevlandG. C. G.WesselE.EilertsenD. E.MagnussenS. (2007). Displayed emotions and witness credibility: A comparison of judgements by individuals and mock juries. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1145–1155.
12.
DavisJ. H.KerrN. L.StasserG.MeekD.HoltR. (1977). Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 346–365.
13.
DevineD. J.ClaytonL. D.DunfordB. B.SeyingR.PryceJ. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–727.
14.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
FeigensonN. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
FieldH. S. (1979). Rape trials and jurors decisions: A psycholegal analysis of the effects of victim, defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 261–284.
17.
FriedC. B. (1998). Hypocrisy and identification with transgressions: A case of undetected dissonance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 145–154.
18.
GordonR. A.BindrimT. A.McNicholasM. L.WaldenT. L. (1988). Perceptions of blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 191–197.
19.
GriffittW.JacksonT. (1973). Simulated jury decisions: The influence of jury–defendant attitude similarity–dissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 1–7.
20.
HaganJ. (1974). Extralegal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 8, 357–383.
21.
JohnsonS. D. (1985). Religion as a defense in a mock-jury trial. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 213–220.
22.
KaplanM.MillerL. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.
23.
KalvenH.ZeiselH. (1966). The American jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
24.
KerrN. L. (1981). Social transition schemes: Charting the group’s road to agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 684–702.
25.
KerrN. L.HymesR. W.AndersonA. B.WeathersJ. E. (1995). Defendant–juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545–567.
26.
KerrN. L.NerenzD.HerrickD. (1979). Role playing and the study of jury behavior. Sociological Methods and Research, 7, 337–355.
27.
KerrN. L.NiedermeierK. E.KaplanM. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs bias in juries: New evidence in the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86.
28.
MacCounR. J. (2005). Comparing legal factfinders: Real and mock, amateur and professional. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 1–5.
29.
MacCounR. J.KerrN. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.
30.
MarquesJ. M. (1990). The black sheep effect. Outgroup homogeneity in social comparison settings. In AbrahamsD.HoggM. (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London, United Kingdom: Harvester Wheatsheaf, p. 131–151.
31.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y.LeyensJ. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.
32.
MillerM. K.BornsteinB. H. (2006). The use of religion in death penalty sentencing trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 675–684.
33.
PettigrewT. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476.
ReddyM. (2007, November11). Muslims on TV, no terror in sight. The New York Times, p. 30.
36.
Runnymede Trust. (1997). Islamophobia: A challenge for us all. London, United Kingdom: Author.
37.
SczesnyS.KühnenU. (2004). Meta-cognition about biological sex and gender-stereotypic physical appearance: Consequences for the assessment of leadership competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 13–21.
38.
ShawJ. I.SkolnickP. (1995). Effects of prohibitive and informative judicial instructions on jury decisionmaking. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 23, 319–325.
39.
SheridanL. P. (2006). Islamophobia pre- and post-September 11th, 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(3), 317–336.
40.
SommersS. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision-making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597–612.
41.
SommersS. R.EllsworthP. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379.
42.
SommersS. R.EllsworthP. C. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201–229.
43.
StalansL. J.DiamondS. S. (1990). Formation and change in lay evaluations of judicial leniency: Misperceptions and discontent. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 199–214.
44.
SumnerW.G. (1906). Folkways. New York, NY: Ginn.
45.
StasserG.KerrN. L.BrayR. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In KerrN. L.BrayR. M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press, p. 221–256.
46.
StephanC. (1974). Sex prejudice in jury simulation. Journal of Psychology, 88, 305–312.
47.
StoneA. (2009, June5). Wichita readies for funeral of doctor; no massive protest of abortion likely. USA Today, p. 3A.
48.
SunnafrankM.FontesN. E. (1983). General and crime related racial stereotypes and influence on juridic decisions. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 17, 1–15.
49.
TanfordS.PenrodS. (1986). Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 322–347.
50.
USA Today. (2008, September11). Seven years after the attacks, the enemy faces repudiation. USA Today, p. 12A.
51.
VitaM. (2003, June1). A look at four bombing attacks. The Washington Post, p. A11.
52.
WegenerD. T.CarlstonD. E. (2008). Cognitive processes in attitude formation and change. In AlbarracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 493–542). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
