"Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment": Correction to Mitchell et al. (2005).

Reports an error in "Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment" by Tara L. Mitchell, Ryann M. Haw, Jeffrey E. Pfeifer and Christian A. Meissner (Law and Human Behavior, 2005[Dec], Vol 29[6], 621-637). In the article, all of the numbers in Appendix A were correct, but the signs were reversed for z' in a number of studies, which are listed. Also, in Appendix B, some values were incorrect, some signs were reversed, and some values were missing. The corrected appendix is included. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-00971-001.) Common wisdom seems to suggest that racial bias, defined as disparate treatment of minority defendants, exists in jury decision-making, with Black defendants being treated more harshly by jurors than White defendants. The empirical research, however, is inconsistent--some studies show racial bias while others do not. Two previous meta-analyses have found conflicting results regarding the existence of racial bias in juror decision-making (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344; Sweeney & Haney, 1992, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 179-195). This research takes a meta-analytic approach to further investigate the inconsistencies within the empirical literature on racial bias in juror decision-making by defining racial bias as disparate treatment of racial out-groups (rather than focusing upon the minority group alone). Our results suggest that a small, yet significant, effect of racial bias in decision-making is present across studies, but that the effect becomes more pronounced when certain moderators are considered. The state of the research will be discussed in light of these findings. (PsycINFO Database Record