Is all prejudice created equal? The role of modern and aversive racism in mock juror decisions.

The current study examined whether aversive and modern racists would convict Black defendants differently based on theoretical differences: aversive racists are egalitarian and discriminate when not reminded of their values, whereas modern racists do not espouse egalitarian values and discriminate when a non-racial reason exists to justify their behavior. Participants read a criminal trial where defendant race (Black vs. White), race salience (present vs. absent), and justification (weak vs. strong evidence) were manipulated. Results showed that aversive and modern racists convicted the Black defendant at similar rates, but aversive racists were more likely to convict the White than the Black defendant. Aversive racists were also more egalitarian and less socially conservative. The finding that aversive racists convict Black and White defendants differently, but modern racists did not, suggests the importance of distinguishing aversive and modern racists to obtain a more complete picture of racial discrimination in juror decision making.

Geographic distribution of prejudice toward African Americans: Applying the two-dimensional model.

Using the two-dimensional model of prejudice as a theoretical framework, we examined the geographic distribution of prejudice toward African Americans in the United States (N = 10,522). We found the East South Central, West South Central, and South Atlantic regions were associated with modern racism, principled conservatism characterized the Mountain region, aversive racism was prevalent in the East North Central region, and finally, low in prejudice was found in the Pacific, West North Central, Mid Atlantic, and New England regions. Additional analyses on political conservatism, social conservatism, and egalitarianism generally supported the distinctions between prejudice types made by the two-dimensional model. We believe mapping regional prejudice may have implications for testing theoretical differences between distinct types of prejudice as well as for implementing prejudice reduction strategies.

Release or Denial: Evaluating the Roles of Emotion and Risk in Parole Decisions.

Parole boards often incorporate numerous factors when making release decisions. These factors are typically related to the inmates' case files. However, in some instances, parole boards' decisions are influenced by factors outside of the case files, sometimes referred to as extra-legal factors. According to the emotion as social information model, emotion can communicate specific messages to others, and in this case, parole board members might unknowingly incorporate their own emotions and inmates' emotional displays into their decisions. The current study examines the role of parole board member and inmate emotional expressions as predictors of parole release decisions. Parole hearings were coded for emotion, parole board and inmate gender, supporter presence, and risk scores. Overall, risk scores and parole board members' emotions predicted release decisions. Higher risk scores were associated with a lower likelihood of release, and inmates' negative emotion was related to a lower likelihood of release. Implications are discussed.

Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards Police Legitimacy Scale.

Although there is a substantial body of work examining attitudes towards the police, no measure has been developed to consistently capture citizens' beliefs regarding police legitimacy. Given that police conduct has garnered a great deal of attention, particularly in the last few years, the current research sought to develop a scale measuring perceptions of police legitimacy. Across multiple studies, items were created and the scale's factor structure explored (Study 1 and Study 2), the factor structure was confirmed (Study 3a), and the predictive validity of the scale was tested (Studies 3b-3d). Results provided evidence for a reliable and valid 34-item scale with a single-factor solution that predicted multiple outcomes, including justification of a police shooting (Study 3b) and resource allocation to a police charity (Study 3c), as well as correlations with self-reported criminal activity, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation (Study 3d). We hope this scale will be useful in the study of police legitimacy, expanding the current literature, and improving police-community relations. (PsycINFO Database Record

I Don't Like the Cut of your Jib: Perceived Facial Masculinity as a Cue to Criminality.

Previous research has established that the appearance of criminal suspects and defendants can affect subsequent legal decisions. Specifically, researchers have proposed that (1) masculine suspects are believed to commit more stereotypically male crimes (e.g., burglary), (2) masculine suspects are believed to commit more violent crimes (e.g., assault), and (3) masculinity is a general cue for committing crime. The current study sought to test these competing hypotheses regarding masculine appearance and perceived criminality. Across three studies, participants read a brief crime scenario and were asked to select out of a lineup the suspect they believed had committed the crime. Suspect masculinity and type of crime were manipulated to determine whether the degree of masculinity influenced whether participants believed they had committed the crime. Results showed that participants consistently associated masculinity with committing violent crime and showed some evidence for the general criminality hypothesis on secondary measures. These findings have important implications regarding law enforcement, eyewitness and juror bias, and legal decisions.