Estrada-Reynolds Victoria, Freng Scott, Schweitzer Kimberly, Leki Elizabeth L
Psychology, King's College, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA.
Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2022 Jun 6;30(5):579-599. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2073283. eCollection 2023.
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.
厌恶性种族主义者主张平等主义，在未被提醒其价值观时会表现出歧视行为，而现代种族主义者并不拥护平等主义价值观，在存在非种族理由为其行为辩护时会表现出歧视行为。参与者阅读了一场刑事审判，其中对被告种族（黑人与白人）、种族显著性（存在与不存在）以及辩护理由（证据薄弱与证据确凿）进行了操控。结果显示，厌恶性种族主义者和现代种族主义者对黑人被告的定罪率相似，但厌恶性种族主义者判定白人被告有罪的可能性高于黑人被告。厌恶性种族主义者也更平等主义且社会保守程度更低。厌恶性种族主义者对黑人和白人被告的定罪存在差异而现代种族主义者没有，这一发现表明区分厌恶性种族主义者和现代种族主义者对于更全面地了解陪审员决策中的种族歧视至关重要。
