The results showed evidence of bias.
When the men in the photos were white, the participants made the same
number of errors regardless of whether the men were armed or not.
However, when the men were black, they made fewer errors when they
were holding a gun, and more errors when they were not. In other
words, they were more likely to “shoot” a black man than a white
man, both when he was armed and when he was not.
This is an example of automatic or fast
thinking, which Kahneman calls “a machine for jumping to
conclusions.” Subsequent research showed that the results did not
vary with personal prejudice. However, the participants showed a
greater “shooter bias” when they were more aware of the cultural
stereotype, that is, when they gave higher estimates of the
percentage of Americans who saw black men as aggressive, dangerous
and violent. Exposure to newspaper articles about black criminals
also increases the size of the shooter bias.
The fact that this response tendency is
automatic doesn't mean it can't be controlled. The shooter bias
can be reduced through practice and with certain kinds of training,
such as instructing participants to ignore the race of the person in
the photo and to concentrate on the presence or absence of a gun.
This series of three videos (about 35
minutes total) featuring social psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt deals
with primarily unconscious racial biases. The study on weapons
stereotypes is in the second segment, but I recommend them all. (You
Tube will guide you through them.) Some of them are shocking, and
will make it clear why social psychologists are unwilling to accept
mass media assurances that prejudice is a thing of the past.
I think these studies are relevant to
the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin by Florida
neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman. Zimmerman says he
felt threatened by Martin, and so far, the Sanford, FL police have
accepted his claim that he acted in self defense. This defense is
made possible by Florida's 2005 “stand your ground” law, which
was written by the National Rifle Association. Variants of which
have been enacted in 20 other states. The relevant section of the law reads as follows:
A person who is
not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other
place he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the
right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including
deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do
so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
This law does away with the
longstanding legal doctrine that, when outside your home, there is a
“duty to retreat” when confronted with a dangerous situation. It
creates ambiguity about when a person is acting in self-defense. How
can it be objectively determined that a person “reasonably
believes” he or she is threatened? The studies of shooter bias
suggest that people might sincerely believe themselves to be in
danger when confronted with an unarmed black man. Even if the
perpetrator is wrong, he or she may escape punishment if the mistake
is “reasonable.”
The difficulty is compounded when there
are no witnesses or the witnesses are friendly to the perpetrator.
Who is able to contradict the shooter's self-report of his or her
emotional state? Not the victim. He's dead. As a result, police
and prosecutors may assume that they have little chance of obtaining
a conviction in a jury trial.
From reading the accounts or this
incident and listening to the 911 tape (see below), I doubt whether
Zimmerman sincerely felt himself to be threatened. He pursued Martin
even after the police told him not to. However, the reference in the
law to “prevent(ing) the commission of a forcible felony” seems
to encourage this type of vigilantism. When combined with Florida's
lax gun laws, the “stand your ground” law allows armed,
aggressive, and possibly paranoid people to pursue their fantasies of
law enforcement and justify their behavior with after-the-fact claims
of self-defense.
Justifiable homicides in Florida have tripled since the
law went into effect. In 93 cases in which the defendant claimed
self-defense under the new law, charges were dropped in 57 of them,
and 7 others were acquitted by a jury. This law is irresponsible and
should be repealed. If the shooter bias studies are to be taken
seriously, the equal protection claise of the Fourteenth Amendment
would seem to provide a basis for overturning them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.