The Effects of Racially Stereotypical Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and Information-Processing Strategies

Abstract

Research suggests that certain races are associated with certain crimes. This race-crime congruency effect has been shown to bias juror verdicts more than general negative racial stereotypes. This study traces the mechanisms of the effect via attributions about the defendant. In addition, it extends the potential consequences of the congruence effect to the amount and type of information that is sought to resolve the case. When defendant's race was congruent with crime stereotype (e.g., Black defendant charged with auto theft) compared to non-congruent (e.g., Black defendant charged with embezzlement), verdicts and attributions were more negative, a more limited information search was conducted, and more confirmatory evidence was sought. Strict standards of reasonable doubt did not attenuate the race-crime congruency effect. Racial effects in judgments of trial defendants are not evidenced by simple evaluative biases, but are heuristics based on congruence of defendant race with stereotypes ascribed to the crime and are likely mediated by dispositional attributions elicited by race-crime congruence. In turn, the strong hypothesis of guilt that is engendered by congruence limits subsequent information search.