The Catalyst

Too many trees have been sacrificed on commentary in the wake of the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin verdict. It seems clear that an unconscious racial bias—shared by the perpetrator, the police, the prosecution and the jury—that unfairly associates young black men with violence was partially responsible for this miscarriage of justice. But Florida's Stand Your Ground (SYG) law, which tips the scales of justice in favor of the defendant, especially if there are no credible witnesses, also played a role. If a person is justified in using 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,” this law comes perilously close to suggesting that a racial stereotype shared by the culture can be a legitimate defense against a murder charge. Who would have thought that an armed man could attack an unarmed man, and when he starts to lose the fight, shoot him, and successfully claim self-defense? Would a black shooter with a white victim have been acquitted with the same defense?

An interaction (in statistics) occurs when two variables have an effect in combination that is not predictable on the basis of the effects of both of them alone. One type is a catalytic interaction. It occurs when two variables both have the same effect, but their combined influence is much greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example, both alcohol and barbiturates are depressants, but taken together their physiological effect is extremely severe and has resulted in accidental suicides. The one acts as a catalyst for the other.

John Roman of the Urban Institute gathered FBI homicide data from 2005 to 2010 (the last year available), a total of 82,986 cases. The primary variables of interest were the race of the perpetrator and the race of the victim, so unsolved crimes were excluded. The outcome of interest was whether the homicide was ruled justified. Cases involving law enforcement—usually an automatic acquittal—were omitted. Roman also examined whether the case occurred in one of the 23 states having SYG laws. Other control variables available in the data base were the number of perpetrators and victims, whether they were strangers, the weapon used, the year, the region, and the age and gender of the parties. Here are the data:

If we look at all cases, it is clear that both the race of the perpetrator and the race of the victim have significant effects. A homicide is more likely to be declared justified if the shooter is white and if the victim is black. However, the most important effect is a catalytic interaction between these two variables. The shooter is much more likely to be exonerated when a white perpetrator kills a black victim than with the other three combinations, which don't differ very much.

SYG laws also increase the likelihood that homicides will be ruled justified. However, the evidence that they act as a catalyst of racial bias is mixed, since SYG laws increase the number of exonerations in three of the four racial combinations—all but the case when the shooter is black and the victim white.

Would a critic be persuaded by these data? Probably not. It's possible that other variables not recorded in the FBI data base are influencing the outcome, variables such as the location of the incident or the immediately preceding events. A critic might claim, for example, that the white shooter-black victim category includes more home (or business) invasions where standing one's ground is justified. In such cases, we would expect the shooter and the victim to be strangers. As you can see, homicides are more likely to be ruled justified when the perpetrator and the victim are strangers, but lack of acquaintance seems to increase perceived justification in all four racial combinations, not just the white perpetrator-black victim case, as this explanation would suggest. (I drew this conclusion by eyeballing the charts; Roman does not present an analysis of these data.)

Laboratory experiments might help to eliminate some of the ambiguity inherent in the FBI data by creating scenarios which vary the races of the perpetrator and victim and hold other characteristics constant. For example, Birt Duncan showed subjects an ambiguous incident in which one man may or may not have shoved another and asked subjects whether an act of violence occurred. The results were similar to Roman's data; the incident was most likely to be judged violent with a black perpetrator and a white victim. If we are only interested in homicide, we might present participants with written descriptions of killings which vary the races of the shooters and victims and ask them to play the role of jurors. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if social psychologists around the country are doing that very thing right now.

You may also be interested in reading:

Blaming the Victim

Breathing While Black

Open Carry

Blaming the Victim

My two previous posts about the killing of Trayvon Martin focused on social influences on the perpetrator—the tendency of whites to assume that black people are a threat and the tendency to perceive others as threatening when you are carrying a gun. This one focuses on the attitudes of third parties. You have no doubt heard news reports suggesting Mr. Martin was a less-than-perfect person. When faced with inexplicable tragedy, there is a tendency to blame the victim—to hold the victim responsible for his own victimization.

Blaming the victim is supported by many studies. For example, Janoff-Bulman and her colleagues had participants read a detailed narrative about a young woman spending an evening out on the town. At the end of the night, a man escorts her home. In one version, he rapes her. In the other, nothing happens. Her behavior and personality are the same. In fact, the two stories were completely identical with the exception of the final sentence. The woman was blamed more by participants who read the rape outcome than those who read the neutral outcome. Behaviors that took on no particular significance in the neutral condition, such as mild flirting or wearing a short skirt, were seized on in hindsight by participants in the rape condition as evidence that she brought the rape on herself. Studies using this and other similar paradigms have found evidence of both behavioral blame (she engaged in risky actions) and characterological blame (she is a bad person). Needless to say, the most common strategy used by defense attorneys at trial is to attempt to persuade the jury to blame the victim.

In the Martin case, victim blaming is merged with our stereotypes of young black men. Instead of a short skirt, we are encouraged to think it's significant that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie. To associate him with drugs, it is leaked that marijuana residue was found among his possessions. And since young black men are supposed to be hostile, some news organizations were deceived by a photograph of a young man flipping the bird at the camera—which turned out a photo of someone else.

Blaming the victim is one of several examples of our belief in a just world. Fritz Heider, the founder of modern attribution theory, wrote that in order for our attitudes toward other people to be in balance, happiness and goodness ought to go together. In a just world, good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished. Seeing one, we assume the other. It follows that if all we know about a person is that he has suffered some accident, illness or other misfortune, we assume that he is a bad person who deserved the negative outcome he received.

Why do we believe in a just world despite so much obvious evidence to the contrary? It is functional for the individual, since it facilitates the illusion that we can control our own fate. The alternative belief, that there is no relationship between our behavior and our outcomes, is known as learned helplessness, and people who believe that tend to be chronically depressed. At the societal level, the just world hypothesis serves as a mechanism of social control. If children can be taught to believe in a just world, they will presumably be encouraged to work hard, obey the law, treat others well, etc., in the expectation of leading a long and happy life.

Breathing While Black

Beginning ten years ago, social psychologists did a series of studies looking at the consequences of our cultural stereotypes about African-American men and violence. A study by Joshua Corell and others called “The Police Officer's Dilemma” is typical. White participants were shown slides of young men standing in public places, such as a park or a city sidewalk. Half of the pictures were of black men and half of white men. Within each racial group, half of the men were holding handguns and the others were holding some innocuous object, such as a cell phone or a soda can. The participants had a half-second to press one of two keys labeled “shoot” or “don't shoot.” The researchers counted the number of errors—either not shooting an armed man or shooting an unarmed man.

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.