A Social Identity Approach to Understanding the Jury Decision Making Process : Race as a Social Indicator

Social identity theory (SIT) suggests that the social groups to which one belongs, define one's self-concept by providing the normative beliefs, atti­ tudes, and behaviors associated with group membership (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Such affiliations, along with the value placed on those memberships, are termed social identities (Tajfel, 1978). These social identities are used in comparisons between groups in order to promote posi­ tive self-distinctiveness (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). As such, when a specific social identity becomes salient, its characteristics provide a model of behavior that emphasizes category-based differences (Hogg et al, 1995). In order for such categorization to occur, stereotyping is inevitable. One essential specification of the stereotyping process within SIT is that stereo­ types are considered shared beliefs (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). This shared meaning allows the representative characteristics of both ingroups and out­ groups to be defined and socially understood. SIT explains the process as functioning automatically from existing internalized perceptions (inclusive of status, emotions, traits, attitudes, and behaviors) (Turner, 1982). Thus, because category memberships defined by clearly observable differences between groups are most accessible, distinctions based on race/ethnicity are highly likely (Coover & Murphy, 2000). The implications of such intergroup distinctions become increasingly con­ sequential when applied to the jury decision-making process. It is not known the extent to which participants in the justice system (i.e., jury members) might use race as a simple decision-making factor. This possibility is most dis­ concerting when considering that social judgments may be linked to racial/ethnic identities as a result of the simplicity in generating distinctions