Juries with two minority group members have higher quality deliberations than do all-White juries. Does jury diversity per se improve the quality of jury deliberations or is it merely the inclusion of jurors from underrepresented groups that improves deliberation quality? The proposed dissertation research consists of three studies manipulating jury diversity and evidence strength to examine whether diverse juries make better decisions than homogenous juries. In each study, mock jurors will watch a trial simulation video (which varies the strength of the evidence presented at trial), deliberate, and render verdicts, allowing the PIs to examine whether more diverse juries are better able to evaluate evidence strength. The three studies vary the method of manipulating jury diversity. In Study 1, the deliberations of mock juries comprised of all Hispanic jurors will be compared with the deliberations of juries with a majority of Hispanic members and two White members to examine whether the findings of previous research are dependent upon a privileged majority (Whites) creating the homogenous jury. In Study 2, the deliberations of all-White juries, all-Black juries, and mixed juries will be coded to evaluate the extent to which jury diversity influences whether juries engage in more complex reasoning. The third study will use a minimal groups paradigm to explore whether the impact of diversity on deliberation quality extends to diversity created through a characteristic other than race or ethnicity, specifically the distribution of wealth among jury members. The intellectual merit of this proposal stems from its investigation of the mechanism by which jury diversity improves jury deliberations. U.S. courts have repeatedly recognized the importance of the presence of minority jurors on juries. The proposed research will provide evidence regarding what types of diversity are necessary to achieve the courts? goal of improving justice.
