Stereotypes
In order to explore racial bias in the US justice system it is essential to understand what stereotypes are. They were first introduced into social science by Lippman in 1922, who defined stereotypes as ‘picture in our head’. This definition is arguably reductionist, however, as the process of stereotyping has been condemned by psychologists for both false and illogical. Lippman himself described them as ‘selective, self-fulfilling and ethnocentric, constituting a ‘very partial and inadequate way of representing the world’. The process of stereotyping begins by assigning someone to a particular group (i.e. on their physical appearance), before bringing into play the belief that all members of the group share certain characteristics . From this, one infers that any particular individual who seemingly fits into a social dimension (i.e has similar physical features) must possess these characteristics – and it is this very inference, the construction of cognitive categories, that makes ignorance so dangerous, as it is linked to both attitudes and the decision making process for both individuals and groups by providing a cognitive framework for evaluations – what’s known as ‘attitude influence’.
The construction of schemas (mental images) is believed to be a ‘subconscious effort to streamline cognitive processing in response to an ambiguous social environment’. Stereotypes and sub-sequential attitudes are triggered by environmental cues and the evaluation of issues, often without an individual realising that those cognitive associations are being made. For example, the words “White, young male,” or “Black, young male” elicit mental images, alongside related attitudes and beliefs. This is done through a process called categorical conjunction, in which multiple mental concepts are cognitively merged (i.e young – Black – male). This mental image then undergoes further dysphoria when placed in different contexts, which moulds the image into the most ‘appropriate’ form. In the context of this essay, when placed before a capital jury, an image of race is tied to criminality.
According to Krosnick and Petty (1995) “Attitudes can bias the evaluation of scientific data: evidence supporting our attitudes is seen as more compelling than evidence that disagrees with our attitudes.” Attitudes also have been found to influence our perceptions of others and shape memory (e.g., we “remember attitude-consistent information [more] than attitude-challenging information”). This is essential to note when eye-witness testimony and the judgement of juries is taken into account.
“Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events. It examines what information is gathered and how it is combined to form a causal judgment” (Fiske, & Taylor, 1991)
Put simply, attribution theory is the attempt to understand behaviour by attaching meaning to it. In 1958, Heider developed the idea that this can take place both internally and externally. When attempting to explain the behaviour of others, we accredit internal traits as the cause, rather than seeking an external cause such as environment (i.e. ‘their behaviour is simply a reflection of their personality’). In contrast, when designating a cause to our own behaviour we seek external attributions, rather than a personality trait (i.e. ‘this action can be distinguished from my norm as it was due to this specific situational factor).
Social Learning
In 1977, Albert Bandura established the social learning theory, which states that “behaviour is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning”. It is Bandura’s belief that “humans are active information processors and think about the relationship between their behaviour and its consequences”. Furthermore, unless cognitive processes are at work, observational learning cannot occur. Therefore, as by virtue of functionality cognitive processes are always active, the same way a child can learn aggression from observation, as seen by Bandura’s bobo-doll experiment, they can also learn prejudice, as they internalise and model the attitudes and behaviour displayed by their role-models.