WHITES MAKE BETTER JURORS ON RACIALLY DIVERSE PANELS

By Elizabeth Moreno

Thurgood Marshall's observations imply that diversity influences group performance. More than 30 years later recent research has proven that there is truth to that statement. Researchers have now found that more diverse juries + specifically ones that include black and white members + are more likely to share information, make fewer errors in evaluating the facts and perhaps reach fairer verdicts than all-white juries.

The research study performed by Samuel R. Sommers of Tufts University was published in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The study was used to examine the processes through which racial diversity influences group decision making. Mock jurors were shown the trial of a Black defendant, and the decision making of racially heterogeneous and homogeneous 6-person mock juries was compared. Groups were randomly assigned to receive either a race-relevant pretrial jury selection questionnaire- which included questions about institutional racism in the legal system and provided a racially charged context for the subsequent trial-or a race neutral questionnaire. The use of the questionnaire not only served a conceptual purpose but also addressed the important practical consideration of how to address previous findings that juror racial bias is most likely to occur in run-of-the-mill trials without blatant racial issues.

Ideally, trial attorneys use voir dire to identify jurors who are likely to demonstrate biases. Jurors are usually asked the question; do you harbor any prejudice or bias toward my client who is of a certain race? All jurors simultaneously shake their head like bobble dolls with an affirmative `no'. However, most jurors often conceal socially undesirable tendencies and erroneously report that they would not be influenced by potential biases. But even if the race related question to diagnose biases is limited, race-related voir dire may still be useful.

The study found that compared with participants in the race-neutral condition, participants who answered race-relevant jury selection questions were less likely to find not guilty before deliberating and gave lower estimates of the likelihood of the Black defendant's guilt. From a practical standpoint, these findings suggest that even if voir dire is limited in its ability to identify biased individuals, it may influence prospective jurors by reminding them of the importance to render judgments free from prejudice.

Diverse juries had clear effects on deliberation content, supporting the prediction that diversity would lead to broader information exchange. These effects were partially attributable to the points of view raised by Black participants in diverse groups, especially with regard to discussion of race-related issues. Group racial composition influenced information exchange, but surprisingly White participants were just as, if not more, responsible for these effects as were Black participants.

In diverse juries, Whites in exchanging information made few inaccurate statements versus all-White groups, despite the fact they actually contributed more information when deliberating in a diverse setting. The result suggested that White jurors processed the trial information more systematically when they expected to deliberate with a heterogeneous group. This was consistent with previous findings that motivations to avoid prejudice lead Whites to a more systematic and thorough processing of information conveyed by or about Black individuals. Race as a message target and/or source activates Whites' motivational concern about avoiding prejudice and which leads to deeper information processing.

White participants deliberation judgments also varied by racial composition, as jurors were less likely to believe the defendant was guilty when they were in a diverse group. Therefore, group racial composition not only affected White's information-processing style but also led to a significant shift in how they interpreted and weighed the evidence. The fact that these effects emerged before deliberations began lends support to the assertion that information exchange alone cannot account for the entire influence of group composition. The mere expectation of deliberation with a racially heterogeneous group is sufficient to influence judgments. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that membership in a racially diverse group can activate Whites' concerns about avoiding prejudice. Knowing that they would have to justify their judgments to a diverse group may very well have increased Whites' sense of accountability, an experience which previous research suggests would lead to more complex thought processes and affect how individuals weighed the trial evidence.

Effects of diversity are not limited to the performance of minority group members nor are they limited to information exchange processes. Diversity also affects issues that are discussed during deliberations. The study found that participants in all-White groups seemed surprised, were made uncomfortable and changed the topic by the mention of racism during deliberations. Whites in diverse groups, on the other hand, reacted differently. They did not automatically change the topic when racism came up, but rather engaged in substantive conversation about it. Members of diverse groups did disagree while deliberating, at times vociferously, but they devoted time to discussing even polarizing and uncomfortable topic.

By every deliberation measure examined, heterogeneous groups outperformed homogeneous groups. First, diverse groups spent more time deliberating than did all-White groups. Even though they deliberated longer and discussed more information, diverse groups made fewer factual errors than all-White groups. Moreover, inaccuracies were more likely to be corrected in diverse groups. Racially heterogeneous groups had discussions that were more comprehensive and remained truer to the facts of the case. Diverse groups were also more open-minded in that they were less resistant to discussions of controversial race-related topics.

The study also leads to a more important conclusion about group homogeneity. Compared with racially diverse groups, homogeneous groups were lazy information processors, prone to inaccuracies, unwilling to consider uncomfortable topics and superficial in their discussions. Homogeneity was associated with performance decrements. In many circumstances, racially diverse groups may be more thorough and competent than homogenous ones.

In terms of the legal system, these findings emphasize the importance of efforts to ensure racially representative juries, including jury pool selection procedures that do not under sample minority citizens and stricter enforcement of the prohibition against race-based preemptory challenges. A diverse jury can be more than a moral or constitutional idea: it is an ingredient for superior performance.