As the legal system has moved away from punishment and revenge and towards correction and rehabilitation for delinquents, mental health has fallen into the forefront. According to multiple studies, most arrested and imprisoned youth possess a mental health disorder, exhibiting a link between youth struggling with mental health and delinquency. Some of the studies conducted even estimate upwards of 70%, compared to the general youth population of less than ¼ possessing a mental health condition. As a result of these findings, youth diversion programs have developed in attempts to address mental health issues and decrease recidivism. Breaking the terms down, diversion means veering court-bound youth from the path of “formal court action” or being seen for an initial hearing. Diversion programs for delinquent youth, specifically evidence-based programs (EBP) that have conducted evaluations to prove effectiveness, have shown a recidivism reduction within the population. However, there is a research gap discussing the possibilities of racial disparities within diversion programs, despite the history of disparities within the legal system. Given the history of disparities and outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system, the current study hypothesizes that racial minority youth will recidivate at greater rates than white youth. The data that will be used for this study has originated from a larger research study that utilized a mixed methods approach. Future implications will consider cumulative risk and cumulative protection, alongside cross-analyzing racial disparities to gender disparities. Lastly, a larger pool of data to showcase the entire Midwest youth justice system.

Jurors are expected to evaluate evidence objectively to make a decision; however, external factors such as psychiatric diagnoses may influence perceptions and judgments of criminal defendants. Past literature has examined that defendants with mental illness are often viewed as more dangerous than defendants without a diagnosis. Research further suggests that mental health stigma may contribute to more negative evaluations and legal outcomes. The present study examines whether psychiatric diagnostic labels affect juror judgments when case facts are held constant. Using a randomized between-subjects experimental design, approximately 500 adults eligible for jury service in the United States were recruited through Prolific and assigned to one of three fictional criminal case vignettes in which the defendant is described as having schizophrenia, depression, or no mental health diagnosis. Participants completed measures assessing perceptions of guilt, dangerousness, credibility, and responsibility, followed by a modified Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS; O’Connor & Casey, 2015). Preliminary results demonstrate no significant differences in mental health literacy between conditions. Further, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)s will be conducted to determine differences in perceptions of guilt. It is hypothesized that defendants described as having a psychiatric diagnosis, particularly schizophrenia, will be perceived as more dangerous than defendants without a diagnosis. Additionally, participants with lower levels of mental health literacy are expected to demonstrate more negative evaluations of defendants with mental illness. This research contributes to the growing literature on mental illness stigma in legal contexts and may inform efforts to promote fair and evidence-based evaluations within the criminal justice system.

Understanding human perception and categorization is central to understanding social bias and inequality. Human perception is not merely visual, but is shaped by social knowledge, expectations, and beliefs about social hierarchy. In this research, we examine the relationships between political ideologies on the left and right and perceptions that social status is racialized. Specifically, to what extent are different ideologies related to the belief that Whiteness is associated with high status and Blackness is associated with low status? To explore these questions in our study, participants will complete a questionnaire measuring ideological frameworks, followed by a face-morphing perceptual task in which high- and low- status faces morph from being White to Black (or Black to White). We predict that participants will perceive high status faces becoming White more quickly and low status faces becoming Black more quickly. We also expect that this tendency will be pronounced among those holding leftwing political ideologies.

Colorblindness is the dominant social norm in the U.S amongst White people, driven by the concern of appearing prejudiced. Minority groups are more likely to endorse multiculturalism and use race in identification tasks. However, colorblindness can also expand to minority group members, becoming more prevalent when a social norm was established that talking about race was linked to prejudice. Research has not yet fully explored how colorblindness can affect personal preferences and perceptions of race. We aim to explore how colorblindness affects individual views of diversity and biases using a two-part experiment composed of a behavioral and survey task with a colorblind and control condition. The colorblind condition will be the facilitator establishing the social norm that talking about race is “prejudiced”. Using a sample of around 130 students from a large university in the Pacific Northwest, the first task will be the participants sorting photos into groups, taking notes of method and reasoning. The second part will be a survey where they are told to rate sets of photos based on diversity and neighborhood preference. We expect that the colorblind condition will rate the photo arrays as less diverse and to prefer a homogenous, majority White neighborhood while the control will rate the arrays as more diverse and prefer a more heterogenous, diverse neighborhood. The conclusion of this research may reveal overarching implications for how adopting the colorblind ideology can affect more than just interracial interactions but also personal biases.