Two studies examined the effectiveness of two implicit bias remedies at reducing racial bias in Black and White mock-jurors’ decisions. Participants were recruited through a Qualtrics Panel Project. Study 1 (murder trial; N = 554): Mage = 46.53; 49.1% female; 50% Black; 50.0% White. Study 2 (battery trial; N = 539): Mage = 46.46; 50.5% female; 49.5% Black; 50.5% White. Half of the participants viewed the UBJ video. Then participants read pretrial instructions (general or UBJ), trial summary, posttrial instructions (general or UBJ), and completed measures. Mock-juror race was expected to moderate the effect of defendant race (Black vs. White) on verdicts, sentences, culpability, and credibility, with jurors being more lenient toward same-race defendants. This interaction would be moderated by the unconscious bias juror (UBJ) video and instructions, reducing bias for White jurors only. Mock-jurors’ counterfactual endorsements would mediate race effects on verdicts. In Study 1, juror race moderated the effect of defendant race on verdicts, culpability, and credibility—White, but not Black, jurors demonstrated greater leniency for Black versus White defendants. The UBJ video moderated the effect of defendant race on murder counterfactual endorsement—when the video was present defendant race did not significantly affect endorsement. This endorsement mediated the effect of defendant race on White jurors’ verdicts. In Study 2, juror race influenced verdicts and sentences—White jurors were more lenient regardless of defendant race. The effect of juror race on sentence was qualified by the UBJ video—when present the effect of race was no longer significant. The UBJ remedies increased all mock jurors’ defendant credibility ratings. In conclusion, the debiasing interventions were ineffective in reducing racial bias in jurors’ verdicts. However, they do impact aspects of juror attribution and may be effective with modification.
Battling Bias: Can Two Implicit Bias Remedies Reduce Juror Racial Bias?
