Ongoing Projects
Testing the Effectiveness of Implicit Bias Jury Instructions
Racial bias remains prevalent in the criminal justice system. It has been shown to influence the decision making of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and juries, leading to higher conviction rates and harsher punishments for racial minorities. Some lawyers, judges, and other advocates for racial justice believe that informing juries about the harmful nature of bias and asking them to avoid letting bias influence their judgement can reduce the prevalence of disparate outcomes. However, the use of implicit bias jury instructions remains a highly controversial topic. It is unclear whether such instructions are effective and if so, which types of instructions are the most likely to yield more equitable outcomes. Some argue that the instructions are a constitutional violation if they explicitly refer to race, some argue they can harm white parties in a case, while others argue such instructions may backfire and increase negative bias toward racial minorities involved in a case. In a series of randomized experiments, I empirically examine how alternative types of implicit bias jury instructions influence juror perceptions, case outcomes, and the jury decision making process.
Bystander Intervention Training: Alternatives and Outcomes
With Elizabeth Tippett, University of Oregon School of Law
Scholars, consultants, and policy makers increasingly recommend bystander intervention training to help organizations combat harassment. This project reviews the numerous types of bystander intervention trainings being implemented by organizations and offers an experimental study that examines the relative effectiveness of these alternatives compared to traditional harassment/discrimination trainings and no training at all. Outcomes of interest include: Harassment/Intervention Attitudes; Perceived Behavioral Control; Behavioral Intentions; and Actual Harassment/Reporting Behaviors. In addition to testing existing theory, results can be used by organizational leaders to evaluate and improve nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies and practices.
#MeToo Law & Social Change
Collaboration with the Mass Data Institute and Gender+ Justice Initiative
This big data project sponsored by the Mass Data Institute on main campus involves mining and analysis of over 8.1 million tweets since October 2017. We are currently coding and designing algorithms to look for patterns in the data to better understand the demographics of participants as well as the nature, stance, and tone of the tweets. This analysis involves a combination of manual coding, data mining, and machine learning techniques. The unique interdisciplinary research team is working on range of projects with this dataset. My specific projects using these data generally deal with (1) race and gender intersectionality among participants; (2) how occupational status and education influence participation; and (3) how the movement may influence law and social change.
Harassment: Predicting Outcomes in Federal & State Courts
With Elizabeth Tippett, University of Oregon School of Law
This empirical analysis of workplace harassment cases filed in state and federal court, examines: (1) what predicts outcomes of harassment cases; and (2) whether courts have changed their standards for what constitutes “severe or pervasive” harassment over time. We have collected a random sample of about 200 cases that we have coded for protected category, race/gender of parties, outcome (did plaintiff survive summary judgement), were discrimination and/or retaliation claims also asserted, employer characteristics (public, private, unionized), pro se plaintiff, and judge characteristics. We will compare whether the average independent rating of severe and pervasiveness changes over time, whether these ratings are consistent with judicial determinations of severity/pervasiveness, and how these ratings correlate with surviving summary judgment. For example, do cases that independent raters identify as high on severe/pervasiveness win on summary judgment more in earlier time periods compared to recent time periods? With the data we have collected on cases, we can also examine how the standard shifts depending on race/gender of the target/harasser and how this affects summary judgement outcomes. We will also examine differences by jurisdiction, race/gender of the judges, alleged target/perpetrator characteristics, etc.