Let’s face it, we all stereotype. We all make assumptions about others based on visual information alone. These could be conjectures about grey hair, obesity, a tight skirt, or a body piercing; but people continually make visual judgments of others founded only on personal biases and prior experiences. Think of the last time you were forced to stand in line (the DMV, the bank, the post office, etc.). Did you notice the people around you? What did you think of them? What basis did you have?
While I do not endorse the practice of stereotyping, I accept it as an evolved part of the human condition. Without these assumptions, the world would be a chaotic place where every new person would be an outright enigma (and even a potential threat). Stereotyping provides order and a sense of security, even if it is often highly inaccurate.
Stereotypic predictions about individuals on looks alone come with three major downfalls:
1. Making assumptions about individuals based on broad demographic stereotypes is simply not a reliable method. Studies and analyses (Debunking Stereotypes, Objective Reality, Fourteenth Amendment) have shown that trying to apply large group characteristics (gender, race, age, hair color) to specific questions about an individual (Are they intelligent? Are they dangerous? Are they likely to convict?) is a generally ineffective technique. Typically, the larger the group, the more flawed the assumption.
For example, it is popular for some people make stereotypic assumptions about the automobile driving ability of particular demographic groups. Let’s take a hard look at the stereotypes. Which group reference do you think would likely be a good predictor for spotting an unsafe driver?
- Asian drivers (racial stereotype, approximately 4.5 billion people);
- Women drivers (gender stereotype, approximately 3.5 billion people);
- Drivers who have received speeding tickets (very common experience, certainly in the tens of millions);
- Drivers who have rear-ended another vehicle (less common experience, no data available); or
- Drivers who self-report on a questionnaire that they tend to speed and/or engage in “risky behavior” on the road (small group that is limited by how many are asked).
Notice that the smaller and more focused the pool, the more comfortable we feel in our assumption?
2. It’s easy to be right when one never knows the correct answer. For the most part, none of us are typically able to test our stereotyping hypotheses. These broad generalizations are only maintained for those people who we never get to know (the stranger in the DMV line will always remain a stranger). Those who we actually meet (strangers who become new friends or acquaintances) will give us more individual information, thus making the stereotype unnecessary. For everyone else (strangers who remain strangers), we simply get to move on with our lives assuming that we were right (which reinforces the stereotype).
3. In several key areas of our society, we are specifically prohibited from depending on particular stereotypes (race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.) to make particular decisions (housing, employment, education, peremptory challenges, etc.). This is generally because we have found that faulty decision making based on inaccurate stereotypes can have drastic consequences.
Recently, there has been a fervent discussion about the removal of peremptory challenges from the jury selection process. The primary reason for this outcry is the belief that despite the Batson v. Kentucky ruling, attorneys depend too heavily on racially-based stereotyping when utilizing strikes (which this research suggests is likely). As a result, some assert that minority criminal defendants are being placed at a disadvantage at trial, violating their 6th Amendment right. .
Banning peremptory challenges would remove racial prejudice through the restriction of information, rather than the promotion of openness and honesty. While it’s true that this solution would limit race-based strikes, it would also come at the cost of increasing many other types of juror bias. Without the presence of peremptory challenges, the courts would likely perform even less voir dire than the limited amount we see today. By further reducing potential jurors’ ability to speak during voir dire, we would see even more serious cause and bias issues influencing our jury deliberations and verdicts (as the Mize study demonstrated).
Rather than denying the existence of stereotyping or asking people to continually suppress a basic human instinct, there is a better way to help reduce demographic profiling in forbidden areas. The simple answer is to increase the time for voir dire and utilize jury questionnaires. The minimal cost associated with these processes will exponentially increase the amount of information provided by individual jurors. As we have seen, the best weapon against stereotyping is simply allowing a person to talk about their opinions and life experiences (something many of us are happy to do).
Blogger: Matt McCusker
