1. Most research on race in the courtroom now centers around modern racism. Today, racism is loaded with social stigma. It is no longer socially acceptable for Whites to hold negative attitudes toward African Americans, and even less acceptable for these attitudes to influence Whites’ actions and decision-making. This may be why a new form of racism—modern racism—has developed. Modern racism theory postulates that many Caucasians still hold prejudices toward African Americans, but they conceal them until they are in a state of situational ambiguity (Pfeifer & Bernstein 2003). Situational ambiguity: A situation where racial concerns are not prominent, and actions can be accounted for by some factor other than race. Whites are more likely to let their biases come out in ambiguous situations (Pfeifer & Bernstein, 2003). The blatant presence of racial issues is referred to as “racial saliency.” In a criminal proceeding, a jury member is inundated with conflicting arguments and countless influences that he or she can attribute decisions to. A Caucasian juror may honestly believe that he is convicting an African American of a crime because he did not find their alibi sufficient or he was more impressed by the arguments of the prosecution—but research has shown that given the same set of circumstances a Caucasian would not find another Caucasian guilty as often as he would an African American (Sommers and Ellsworth, 2000). Participants 137 St. Mary’s students participated, data from 104 was included in analysis Data from African American participants was excluded Materials and Procedure Demographic info. of defendant and victim (sex, age, height, weight, occupation, race)  White man assaulting a Black man or vice versa Case vignettes  Case of second degree assault.  One version racially salient and one non-racially salient  4 experimental conditions After reading the case information participants were asked to: 1. Return a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” 2. Rate on a scale of 1-7 how guilty they believed the defendant to be 3. Rate on a scale of 1-7 how leniently or harshly the defendant should be sentenced 4. Recommend an appropriate sentence from four possible choices 5. Report if they believed the defendant had a prior criminal record Modern Racism Scale (McConahay 1986)  6-item scale  Participants rate their level of agreement with statements regarding feelings toward African Americans.  “Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.”  This measure creates a subject variable to include in analysis. Introduction Hypotheses When race is salient, conviction rates and sentence recommendations should be equal, regardless of the race of the defendant. When race is not salient, the conviction rates and sentence recommendations for the African American defendant should be elevated. Participants will rate the African American defendant as more likely to have a past criminal record. Participants with high scores on the MRS should be more likely to convict and should make harsher sentence recommendations against the African American defendant. Modern Racism and Juror Decision-Making: The Impact of Racial Saliency in a Mock Criminal Trial Jacqueline Caminiti & David Finkelman, PhD Department of Psychology, St. Mary’s College of Maryland Methods Main effect of race on:  Guilt rating, F(1,98)=5.135, p=.026. (See Figure 1)  Verdict, F(1,98)=7.473, p=.007.  Harshness/leniency of sentencing, F(1,98)=7.391, p=.008. (See Figure 2)  Sentencing recommendations, F(1,98)=4.639, p=.034. Results Figure 1: Mean guilt ratings as a function of race. Higher guilt rating indicates higher perceived levels of guilt. Figure 2: Mean recommendation for harshness of punishment as a function of race. Higher recommendation indicates a belief that harsher punishment is deserved. African American defendants were more likely to be found guilty, were rated as guiltier, and were believed to be deserving of harsher punishments. No interactions between race and saliency. Correlations:  Higher MRS score was positively correlated with higher guilt ratings of the African American defendant r(43)=.340, p=.022.  Higher MRS score was positively correlated with higher harshness of punishment recommendations for the African American defendant r(42)=.409, p=.006.  Higher MRS score was negatively correlated with guilt ratings of the Caucasian defendant, r(48)=-.343, p=.015. Pfeifer, J.E., & Bernstein, D.J. (2003). Expressions of modern racism in the judgment of others: The role of task and target specificity on attributions of guilt. Behavior and Personality, 31(8), 749-766. Sommers, S.R. & Ellsworth, P.C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1367-1379. McConahay, J. B. (1986) Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. [Chapter] Dovidio, John F. & Gaertner, Samuel L. (Eds.). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. (pp. 91-125). References Conclusions Results were more consistent with “old fashioned” racism rather than modern racism. Racial saliency appeared to have no impact on the decisions of the mock- jurors.  It is possible that the saliency manipulation was not satisfactory. There was no significant difference between the believed prior criminal records of the African American and Caucasian defendants.  Providing info. about the socioeconomic status of the victim/defendant may have mitigated much of the effect that race may have had on the assumptions of participants about the African American defendant’s criminal record. As prejudice levels increased among participants so did the recommendations for how guilty the African American defendant was as well as how harshly he should be punished for his crime. The more prejudiced a participant was the lower was the guilt rating he or she assigned to the Caucasian defendant.  Participants’ prejudice against African Americans may have made the claims asserted by the African American victim seem less valid, thereby decreasing the perceived guilt of the Caucasian defendant.