On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations.

Abstract

This research examines the multiple effects of racial diversity on group decision making. Participants deliberated on the trial of a Black defendant as members of racially homogeneous or heterogeneous mock juries. Half of the groups were exposed to pretrial jury selection questions about racism and half were not. Deliberation analyses supported the prediction that diverse groups would exchange a wider range of information than all-White groups. This finding was not wholly attributable to the performance of Black participants, as Whites cited more case facts, made fewer errors, and were more amenable to discussion of racism when in diverse versus all-White groups. Even before discussion, Whites in diverse groups were more lenient toward the Black defendant, demonstrating that the effects of diversity do not occur solely through information exchange. The influence of jury selection questions extended previous findings that blatant racial issues at trial increase leniency toward a Black defendant.

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

“…Prior studies have shown that social category diversity can also have a positive impact on decision-making performance (Homan et al 2007;Phillips et al 2009;Sommers 2006). Taken together, our arguments suggest a model where pre-meeting elaboration mediates the relationship between social category diversity and decision-making performance.…”

“…Research has praised social category diversity's positive benefits for group performance (Antonio et al 2004;McLeod et al 1996;Sommers 2006;Sommers et al 2008), while lamenting its negative impact on interpersonal relationships. Our findings suggest that in decision-making situations, rather than lamenting the relatively lower levels of interpersonal attraction in diverse groups compared to homogeneous groups, we may want to lament the higher levels of interpersonal attraction in homogeneous groups for their detrimental impact on cognition and performance (Phillips and Apfelbaum 2012).…”

“…On the 'upside,' the potential cognitive benefits of having a group with socially diverse members are well-documented. Heterogeneous groups, compared to homogeneous groups, share more information (Janis 1982), exhibit increased creativity (Amabile 1994), and may ultimately demonstrate increased group performance (Homan et al 2007;Sommers 2006). However, reviews of the social category diversity literature also suggest a 'downside' to diversity in the form of relationship costs.…”

“…Various forms of social category diversity have been explored by researchers including race, gender, and political party affiliation (e.g., Chen and Kenrick 2002;Jehn et al 1999;Pelled et al 1999;Sommers 2006;Thomas-Hunt and Phillips 2004). Social category diversity in small groups has also been created via the minimal group paradigm, where categorical distinctions (e.g., red group vs. blue group) are created by the experimenter (e.g., Kane 2010; Kane et al 2005;Lount and Phillips 2007).…”

Teamwork in Health Care: Maximizing Collective Intelligence via Inclusive Collaboration and Open Communication

“…For example, research on group diversity suggests that looking different from others in a group might increase a member's influence. When a person is different from other teammates, he or she is expected to have different knowledge or perspectives to add to the group, and, if that person speaks up, others are more receptive than they would be to a similar group member [27,28]. This biased attention to status and categorical cues that are unrelated to expertise and should be irrelevant can lead to undue influence for some members while leaving relevant knowledge of members with low status or from certain subgroups less likely to be considered and, therefore, less likely to influence the group's work.…”