Replication Data for: The Effects of Racial Diversity in Citizen Decision-Making Bodies

Many citizen decision-making bodies, from juries to boards, have the potential to represent racial minority views because they must deliberate and decide unanimously. However, little is known about the effects of racial diversity on group decisions. Existing studies use observational data, include too few people of color (POC), or cannot disentangle race and preferences. We study one such body, the civil jury, which can check economic actors whose actions disproportionately affect minoritized populations. We analyze 2,694 citizens randomly assigned to 449 mock juries tasked with deciding punitive damages against corporations. The number of POCs on a jury affects private opinions, even accounting for other group and individual characteristics. However, group decisions are less affected, because POC dissenters carry less influence than White dissenters: POCs can change minds more easily than votes. Deliberation and veto power do not eliminate racial barriers to substantive representation.从陪审团到各类委员会的诸多公民决策机构，均具备代表少数族裔观点的潜力——这类机构需通过合议达成一致决议方能作出决策。然而目前学界对种族多样性对群体决策的影响仍知之甚少。现有相关研究多采用观测数据，样本内有色人种（People of Color, POC）的占比过低，且无法剥离种族因素与个体偏好的独立影响。本研究聚焦民事陪审团这一典型决策机构，该机构可对行为对少数边缘化群体造成不成比例影响的经济主体进行规制与追责。本研究分析了2694名被随机分配至449个模拟陪审团的公民样本，这些陪审团的职责为裁定针对企业的惩罚性赔偿金额。即便在控制其他群体与个体特征变量的前提下，陪审团内有色人种的数量仍会对个体的私人意见产生显著影响。但群体最终决策受到的影响却相对有限，这是由于持异议的有色人种相较于持异议的白人陪审员，其影响力更为薄弱：相较于直接左右投票结果，有色人种陪审员更易改变他人的个人看法。合议程序与否决权均无法消除实质代表性层面的种族壁垒。