cambridge university presscambridge... · web viewplease read each one carefully and answer...

Seeing Blue in Black and White:

Race and Perceptions of Officer-Involved Shootings

Online Appendix Materials

Online Appendix A – 2014 (Ferguson) Study Sample and Design

Online Appendix B – Full Question Wordings and Coding for 2014 Study

Online Appendix C – Additional Results from 2014 Study

Online Appendix D – 2016 (New Scenario) Study Sample and Design

Online Appendix E – Overview and full Statements for 2016 Study

Online Appendix F – Full Question Wordings and Coding for 2016 Study

Online Appendix G – Additional Results from 2016 Study

Online Appendix H – Replications of Manuscript Analyses Including Data After July 5th

Online Appendix I – Additional Assessments of Priming Effects

Online Appendix J – Influence of Race and Partisanship on Outcomes

Online Appendix K – Dynamics among Those Who Rendered Partway and Final Evaluations

Online Appendix A – 2014 (Ferguson) Study Sample and Design

Online Appendix A provides the details of the 2014 study that was in the field roughly three weeks following the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. This section includes information about the sampling strategy and study design as well as sample demographics (Table A1) and location of respondents (Figure A1).

Data

Data for the 2014 study were collected as part of an online panel survey from a sample provided by Qualtrics, which recruited subjects using ClearVoice research. ClearVoice maintains a standing panel of survey respondents who were recruited to the platform through a combination of targeted emails, advertisements, and website intercepts. These individuals then opt-in to taking surveys and are recruited to participate in individual studies either by email or by clicking on a dashboard link. ClearVoice sent emails to 61,865 panelists with the goal of recruiting a broad national sample of at least 3,667 Americans to participate in the study. The analyses presented here use only data from the first wave of the panel study. This wave consisted of 3,729 complete responses. This was larger than the targeted number because individuals who had begun to respond to the survey when the total N was reached were nonetheless allowed to complete the study. Wave 1 of the survey was fielded between August 29 and September 8, 2014.

Toward the end of the first wave of the 20-minute survey respondents answered a number of questions related to the events that had recently unfolded in Ferguson. They answered demographic questions at the very end of this wave. Because our substantive interest was in differences between Black and White respondents, we restricted all analyses to individuals who reported only one of these two races and who did not report either other racial identifications or that they were Hispanic or Latino. This yielded a sample of 3,215 eligible respondents. Data for this study were not weighted. The distributions of demographics for the sample is shown in Table A1 and the locations of respondents (based on their IP addresses) is shown in Figure A1. 13 respondents are not shown on the map either because their IPs were not available (N=4) or because they were located in Alaska or Hawaii (N=10).

Table A1 – Demographics of 2014 Study Respondents

2014 Completes

CPS Benchmark

Black

White

Black

White

Female

70%

64%

54%

51%

Male

30%

36%

46%

49%

Age 18-24

3%

2%

16%

10%

Age 25-34

19%

12%

19%

16%

Age 35-44

20%

18%

18%

15%

Age 45-54

23%

25%

18%

17%

Age 55-64

21%

22%

16%

19%

Age 65-74

12%

17%

9%

14%

Age 75 and older

1%

4%

5%

10%

Less than HS

4%

2%

13%

7%

HS Grad

17%

20%

34%

27%

Some College

46%

41%

65%

32%

College Degree

22%

24%

13%

22%

Post-College

11%

13%

2%

3%

N

253

2962

--

--

Note: CPS Benchmarks used are from 2016 to enhance comparability with new data.

Figure A1 – Locations of Black and White Respondents in 2014 Study

Online Appendix B – Full Question Wordings and Coding for 2014 Study

Online Appendix B provides full question wordings for the questions related to the Ferguson incident included in the 2014 study. We also present the distributions of these variables in Table B1.

Respondents to the study were presented with one of three brief introductions about what happened in Ferguson, MO as part of an unrelated experiment. These were:

Version 1: “As you may have heard, there was a recent controversy in Ferguson, Missouri, where Darren Wilson, a white police officer, is accused of shooting Michael Brown, an 18-year old black man.”

Version 2: “As you may have heard, there was a recent controversy in Ferguson, Missouri, where Darren Wilson, a white police officer, is accused of shooting Michael Brown, an 18-year old black man. This was later followed by large street protests and some rioting.”

Version 3: “As you may have heard, there was a recent controversy in Ferguson, Missouri, where Darren Wilson, a white police officer, is accused of shooting Michael Brown, an 18-year old black man. This was later followed by large street protests and some rioting. Police responded with military-style equipment.”

The different versions of the introduction did not influence the distributions of any outcomes. They were subsequently asked about the incident.

Heard About Ferguson

Respondents were first asked: “How much would you say you have heard about the events in Ferguson?” Response options were: “Nothing at all” (coded: 0), “A little bit” (.25), “A moderate amount” (.5), “A lot” (.75), and “A great deal” (1).

Should Be Charged

Respondents were then asked: “Given what you have heard, do you think that Darren Wilson, the police officer, SHOULD be charged with murder?” Response options were: “He definitely should be charged” (1), “He probably should be charged” (.67), “He probably should NOT be charged” (.33), and “He definitely should NOT be charged” (0).

Brown Attacked Wilson

Respondents were asked: “Given what you have heard, how likely do you think it is that Michael Brown, [the victim,] attacked Darren Wilson, the police officer?” Response options were: “Not at all likely” (0), “A little likely” (.25), “Somewhat likely” (.5), “Very likely” (.75), and “Extremely likely” (1). The bracketed text was included for half of respondents, but did not influence the distribution of responses.

Brown Had Weapon

Respondents were asked: “Do you happen to recall whether Michael Brown had a weapon?” Response options were: “He definitely did NOT have a weapon” (0), “He probably did NOT have a weapon” (.33), “He probably had a weapon” (.67), and “He definitely had a weapon” (1).

Race Role in Shooting

Respondents were asked: “How much of a role do you think race played in the shooting?” Response options were: “No role at all” (0), “A little role” (.25), “A moderate role” (.5), “A large role” (.75), and “An enormous role” (1).

Black

Respondents who reported that they were not Hispanic or Latino were asked: “Which of the following describes your race? Please select all that apply.” Respondents could select, “White or Caucasian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” “Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,” and “Other (specify).” Respondents who selected “Black or African American” and no other categories were coded 1 and respondents who selected “White or Caucasian” and no other categories were coded 0. Because we were interested only in differences between these two categories, all other respondents were excluded from the analyses.

Table B1 - Distributions of Variables in 2014 Ferguson Study

M

SD

N

Heard About Ferguson

.62

.31

3213

Wilson Should Be Charged

.47

.32

3196


.51

.32

3198

Brown Had Weapon

.29

.27

3191

Role of Race in Shooting

.49

.37

3195

Black

.08

.27

3215

Note - All variables were coded to range from 0 to 1.

Online Appendix C – Additional Results from 2014 Study

Online Appendix C provides additional information on the results from the 2014 study discussed in the manuscript. This includes demonstrating the robustness of the results presented in Table 1: showing full statistical information and adjusted p-values (Table C1) and models with controls (Table C2). It also includes the referenced plots C1 (no controls; see Table C3 for underlying models) and C2 (with controls; see Table C4 for underlying models) predicting the key outcomes when race and the amount respondents had heard about the incident were interacted. The results demonstrate that Black and White respondents who reported having heard the most about Ferguson diverged most in these opinions. Correlations between the outcomes are shown in Table C5.

Figure C1 – Plots for all Outcomes with No Controls

Figure C2 – Replication Plots for All Outcomes Controlling for Gender, Age, Education, Partisanship and Liberal/Conservative Self-Identification

31

Online Appendix D – 2016 (New Scenario) Study Sample and Design

Online Appendix D provides information about the sampling strategy, sample demographics, and attrition information for the 2016 study. Table D1 compares the sample demographics of both the wave 1 and wave 2 samples with the 2016 Current Population Survey. Figure D1 provides information on where respondents were located.

Data

Data for the current study comes from two survey waves fielded by Qualtrics Panels. Qualtrics subcontracts data collection to a series of nonprobability opt-in survey vendors who provide sample for their projects. The ROI Rocket Panel is one of a number of such providers. Individuals in the ROI Rocket Panel are recruited through a number of sources, such as targeted emails and banner advertisements, to join the panel and are then invited by email to participate in individual studies. They then collect information about panel members to use for recruitment to individual studies. Individuals in the panel were sent separate individual invitations to complete each of the two waves of the study. Qualtrics Panels was asked to recruit two waves of data with the target of 1000 wave 2 completions for which half of the wave 2 respondents were White, Non-Hispanic only, and half were Black, Non-Hispanic only. No additional quotas were used. 6.1% of respondents who were recruited by email completed the first wave of data collection.

Overall, 71% of the sample was female; the median age of the sample was 51 years. Given that the sample was split evenly between Blacks and Whites and there was near-homogeneity in the partisan makeup of the Blacks in the sample (83% Democrat to 5% Republican, including leaners), the partisan nature of the sample is skewed, with a majority of the sample identifying with the Democratic Party (61% vs. 25%). Considered separately, White respondents displayed much more heterogeneity, with 39% choosing to identify with the Democratic Party and 45% choosing to identify with the Republican Party. Despite these demographic imbalances, we decided not to weight the sample, as a considerable literature suggests that weighting nonprobability samples provides little benefit (see e.g. Pasek 2016; Yeager et al. 2011). If anything, we believe that these biases are likely to understate the racial divide we observed in this paper as compared to what might be expected with the general population.

Table D1 shows a comparison of demographics with the 2016 Current Population Survey. Table D1 also provides information about respondents who completed wave 1 but did not complete wave 2. The only significant difference observed between these two waves (either as a main effect or interacted by race) was that older respondents were slightly more likely to complete both waves of the study than younger ones. Figure D1 provides a map of respondents’ locations by IP address (one additional White respondent was not mapped because she was located in Hawaii). The median respondent took 13 minutes and 24 seconds to complete the first wave of the study (interquartile range: 9:14 to 19:43) and 32 minutes and 56 seconds to complete the second wave (interquartile range: 22:14 to 51:21).

Table D1 - Comparisons of 2016 Study Demographics with Attrition and CPS Benchmarks

2016 Study Completes

2016 Study Attrition

2016 CPS Benchmark

Black

White

Black

White

Black

White

Female

73%

69%

80%

73%

54%

51%

Male

27%

31%

20%

27%

46%

49%

Age 18-24

4%

1%

5%

1%

16%

10%

Age 25-34

14%

11%

18%

15%

19%

16%

Age 35-44

21%

15%

25%

16%

18%

15%

Age 45-54

23%

21%

21%

21%

18%

17%

Age 55-64

26%

30%

22%

25%

16%

19%

Age 65-74

12%

21%

9%

20%

9%

14%

Age 75 and older

1%

3%

1%

3%

5%

10%

Less than HS

2%

1%

2%

0%

13%

7%

HS Grad

21%

22%

20%

27%

34%

27%

Some College

42%

39%

51%

36%

34%

32%

4-year degree

21%

24%

17%

26%

13%

22%

Post-College

14%

14%

10%

11%

7%

12%

Extremely Conservative

1%

7%

1%

4%

--

--

Conservative

6%

19%

9%

19%

--

--

Slightly Conservative

21%

25%

22%

22%

--

--

Moderate

26%

18%

28%

22%

--

--

Slightly Liberal

18%

12%

18%

15%

--

--

Liberal

18%

15%

16%

13%

--

--

Extremely Liberal

9%

5%

6%

4%

--

--

Strong Democrat

55%

19%

50%

17%

--

--

Not Strong Democrat

21%

12%

28%

12%

--

--

Leans Democrat

7%

8%

4%

9%

--

--

Independent

12%

17%

12%

18%

--

--

Leans Republican

1%

10%

3%

13%

--

--

Not Strong Republican

1%

16%

2%

17%

--

--

Strong Republican

3%

19%

1%

13%

--

--

N

370

356

305

298

--

--

Figure D1 - Locations of Black and White Respondents in 2016 Study

Online Appendix E – Overview and Full Statements for 2016 Study

Online Appendix E provides an overview of the key design features of the 2016 study. Specifically, Table E1 provides a summary overview which includes information on the sequence of questions and vignettes as well as information about any manipulations. Table E2 shows balance of all possible manipulations by race. The rest of the section provides the full text of the wave 2 vignette, including the text introducing the scenario, the witness statements, and the statements used in the selective exposure task.

Table E1: Relevant Measures for 2016 Study

Introduction to Survey Wave 2

Dear Citizen,

We are writing to you on behalf of a local municipality where a police officer was recently involved in a controversial incident. As you may have heard, there has been increasing concern with police-involved shootings throughout the United States. We're looking to you and to other citizens to understand the best way to deal with the incident that has occurred. We'd like you to put yourself in the role of a local citizen who may be selected to serve on a grand jury deciding whether the officer should be indicted for acting inappropriately or whether he acted in good faith.

Over the course of this survey, we are going to ask you some questions and present you with some information that might be typical in a grand jury. First, we will ask you a few questions about yourself. We'll then present you with information about the incident in question, including an overall description of the incident and a number of witness statements. As in a real jury, we hope that you will tell us what you think of these various pieces of information and what they should contribute to our overall decision about what we should do about the incident in question. We have anonymized some details of the event as well as the city in question.

Your responses to these various pieces of information will help us better determine how to structure jury decision-making.

We appreciate your assistance. At the end of the survey, we will provide you with contact details should you have any questions.

Introduction to Statements

In this next section, we will show you seven statements regarding the event that occurred in our city. In order to preserve the anonymity of the individuals involved, we have altered their names. Brackets have been used where names have been changed or information has been omitted for confidentiality purposes.

First we will show you a brief description of events from the Chief of Police, then we will present a series of witness statements. For both the overall description and the other statements, we will ask you a few questions about what you think about those statements. Please read each one carefully and answer truthfully.

To ensure that you have an opportunity to read each of the statements closely, you'll be able to proceed only after a brief amount of time has expired.

Chief of Police, at a press conference shortly after the event:

At 6:47 PM, on the 300 block of [ ] Avenue, police were called to the scene of a heated argument between two individuals. According to the police report, when our officers arrived, one of the individuals, an African-American male in his mid-twenties, later determined to be [Mr. Taylor], fled the scene, at which point, Officer [Silver] pursued him on foot for approximately 50 yards. [Mr. Taylor] turned to confront the officer and reached into his pocket for what at the time appeared to be a weapon. In line with the training we provide all of our officers, Officer [Silver] drew his weapon and shot the subject twice at a distance of approximately 10 feet. Shortly afterwards, additional officers arrived at the scene and the individual was pronounced dead at 7:13 PM.

Officer [Silver] is a veteran police officer in the [ ] Police Department. He has served with competence for 14 years. Although he has been offered the opportunity to be promoted to detective in the past, he has chosen to remain a beat cop. Recently, in recognition of his service to the department, Officer [Silver] was awarded our annual “Officer Excellence Award”.

With respect to the deceased, we are always saddened when an incident like this occurs in our community. But while we regret that this happened, it is our job to keep our community safe. And when an individual threatens the safety of one of our officers, real or implied, we must take that threat seriously.

Regarding media reports that [Mr. Taylor] had a warrant out for his arrest, this is in fact the case. However, the warrant had nothing to do with this particular event and was for unpaid traffic tickets [Mr. Taylor] had accrued over prior months.

Excerpt from Deposition of Witness 1 - Mr. Davis:

What happened? Why were you arguing out on the street?

“Man, he came to my house complaining that I was texting his girl and said I was disrespecting him. Things got heated and we took it out to the sidewalk so my kid wouldn’t hear what was going on. Next thing I know, the cops pulling up. [Mr. Taylor] dropped his beer and just took off. I don’t know if he was worried about getting a ticket or some shit, but soon as the officer got out the car, he was gone.”

So, what happened next?

“Cop took off behind him with his gun out, shouted for him to stop, and told him he was under arrest. [Mr. Taylor] kinda big, so he started running out of breath. At some point, he stopped running, put his hands on his head. Leaned over like he was catching his breath or something. Cop’s right behind him. Next thing I know, [Mr. Taylor] turns around and boom. He’s on the ground. Blood everywhere.”

Did [Mr. Taylor] attack the police officer at all?

“Looks to me like he was just out of breath and was turning around to let the cop arrest him, but I couldn’t hear what they was saying. I ain’t see [Mr. Taylor] hit him or anything. I think he was too winded by that point.”

Excerpt from Deposition of Witness 2 - Officer Silver:

Officer [Silver], can you tell us in your own words, what happened when you arrived on the scene?

“I was in the neighborhood when I heard on the police radio that they needed someone over on [ ] Avenue. Two guys were out on the street arguing pretty loudly. A few neighbors were looking on from their porches. There were parked cars that made it difficult for me to pull up close to the house, so I got out of the car and began approaching the guys. As soon as they saw me, one of them, [Mr. Taylor], drops his beer, and takes off running. In my experience, that almost certainly implies that the suspect is up to no good. My partner, Officer [Jones], stays with the other fella and I begin pursuing [Mr. Taylor].

All of a sudden as I’m catching up, he slows down a little bit and turns as if he’s trying to confront me. He reached his hands into his pocket, looks like he was gonna pull something out and so I did what what my training and my instinct told me to do. After I shot him, he took a step toward me and continued reaching into his pocket at which time, I fired again out of fear for my life."

How close were you when you shot him the first time?

“I wanna say we were about 10 feet apart, but by the time he took a step toward me, he was within striking distance and he could have certainly shot me if he had a gun. That was a risk I could not afford to take."

Excerpt from Deposition of Witness 3 - Mrs. Walker:

[Mrs. Walker], what prompted you to call 911?

"Well, my husband and I like to sit outside on our porch in the evening to catch the breeze. You know, it’s a fairly quiet neighborhood most of the time, but it’s changed a little since these younger folks started moving in. We thought about moving to the suburbs, but at our age, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Anyway, we looked over and saw those boys out there making a fuss, one pushing the other, so I told my husband we better call 911 before somebody gets hurt."

So, you say in the call that you aren’t sure if either of the guys was armed? Can you say more about that?

"You know, I’ve called the department a few times in the past to report things like this and they don’t send a cop for an hour or two. So I told the lady on the phone that I didn’t know whether they had guns or not. Thought it might get the cops here sooner and who knows, maybe they did have a gun, or a knife. You just never know."

Did you remain on the porch when the officers arrived, and if so, what did you see?

"Right before the police arrived, my phone rang and I went back in to grab it so I missed the whole thing. Heard the loud bangs, but didn’t even realize they were gunshots til I heard all the commotion outside."

Excerpt from Deposition of Witness 4 - Mrs. Thomas:

You said you lived next to [Mr. Taylor], what can you say about him?

"He was a good boy. Never hurt anybody. Always wanted to help. I just can’t bring myself to believe he would assault a police officer. That can’t be true. He was in church every Sunday with his parents and volunteered at the old folks home with the youth group. He wasn’t no thug, that’s for sure."

Excerpt from Deposition of Witness 5 - Mrs. Williams:

Where were you when the events occurred?

"I was walking my dog on the other side of [ ] Avenue. I had gone out with the dog a few minutes earlier and noticed the two guys arguing on the street in front of the yellow house, but I didn’t make too much of it at the time. As I’m walking back to my house, a police car pulls up and the officer jumps out and starts running toward one of the guys who was arguing. He tries to get away but doesn’t get very far before the officer catches up with him. They were coming right toward me, so I moved onto the grass and got out of the way. From where I was standing, it looked like the guy was not in good shape. He was breathing heavily and started coughing as he turned around to face the officer. You know how runners look after they’ve finished running? Sweaty, hands on head…that’s what the guy was doing. And the officer just takes the gun and shoots him. I couldn’t believe it. Kid didn’t put up a struggle or anything."

Excerpt from Deposition of Witness 6 - Mr. Anthony:

Where were you when the events occurred?

"I was driving along [ ] Avenue, which is the quickest way to get home from the office, when the police car pulled in front of me with its lights flashing. I stopped and watched as the officer ran after one of the men standing on the curb. As the officer got closer to him, it looked like the guy turned around to try and confront the officer. Looked like the guy’s hands were on his hips or in his pockets. Thought I saw him lean toward the officer like he was going to go after him or something. At that point, the officer must have gotten a little nervous because that’s when I heard the first shot. As soon as that happened, I turned around and drove in the other direction and called the police to let them know I had witnessed the incident."

So, just to be clear, you saw [Mr. Taylor] challenge Officer [Silver] directly?

"Yes, but by that point it was a bit too far away for me to see whether he had a weapon or was just trying to give the officer a fright. He was clearly at least a couple inches taller and a bit heavier than Officer [Silver].

Additional Witness Statements

The witness reports you have read are only a selection of all witness statements available. Next, we are trying to understand what types of additional witness statements you think would provide important information.

Here are some excerpts from additional witness statements. For each of these excerpts, a full statement is available. Please select the ones you would be interested in reading (select as many as you wish).

[Respondents were randomly assigned to receive either all 8 excerpts below or a randomly assigned set of 4 of those excerpts]

· “Officer [Silver] was clearly distraught after what happened. His partner who was on the scene consoled him and I heard him say, 'You did what you had to do.'”

· “There’s no way [Mr. Taylor] turned around to confront the officer. He looked like was going to collapse.”

· “If he was trying to surrender to the officer, the way he turned around is not the way to do it.”

· “I’ve known Officer [Silver] for more than 15 years. He’s a family man who is committed to serving his community and I trust his judgment.”

· “All I know is that when [Mr. Taylor] left for [Mr. Davis]’s house, he was pissed. Looked like he was ready to hurt somebody.”

· “[Mr. Taylor] had shown so much promise in my classes. He was very proud of what he’d accomplished at the community college and had plans to transfer to [ ] State University in the fall.”

· “This isn’t the first time Officer [Silver] has done something racist. He rides around here all the time giving out tickets, harassing people for standing around minding their own business.”

· “I’m a person of color and so I understand the anger in the community following this incident, but all of my interactions with Officer [Silver] have been positive. He does more to keep this community safe than any other cop I know.”

Online Appendix F – Full Question Wordings and Coding for 2016 Study

Online Appendix F includes the full question wordings for all variables included in the 2016 study analyses. Descriptive statistics for these variables including Cronbach’s alphas for any scales are shown in Table F1. Correlations between the racial variables are shown in Table F2.

Race. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Please indicate your racial identification (check all that apply).” Response options were, “White,” “Hispanic,” “Black, African American,” “Asian,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,” and “Other.” Respondents who did not select either “White” or “Black, African American,” or who selected both categories were dropped from the study.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Among Black respondents who completed both waves, seven also identified as Hispanic, four identified as native American, and two identified as some other race. Among White respondents who completed both waves, two also identified as Hispanic and two identified as native American.]

Party identification. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?” Response options were, “a Republican,” “a Democrat,” and “an Independent.” Respondents who answered “a Republican” or “a Democrat” were asked, “Would you consider yourself a strong [Republican/Democrat] or a not very strong [Republican/Democrat]?” Response options were, “Strong [Republican/Democrat]” or “not very strong [Republican/Democrat].” Respondents who answered that they were an independent were asked, “Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican or Democratic party?” Response options were, “Closer to Republican party,” “Closer to Democratic party,” and “neither.” Responses were coded as “Strong Democrat” (coded: 0), “Not Strong Democrat” (.17), “Leans Democrat” (.33), “No Lean” (.5), “Leans Republican” (.67), “Not Strong Republican” (.83), and “Strong Republican” (1).

Officer’s actions appropriate. Following the scenario in wave 2, respondents were asked, “Given what you have read, how appropriate do you think Officer Silver’s actions were?” Response options were, “Not at all appropriate,” “A little appropriate,” “Somewhat appropriate,” “Very appropriate,” and “Completely appropriate.” To calculate means, these were coded to range from 0 to 1 (“Not at all appropriate”=0, “A little appropriate”=.25 “Somewhat appropriate”=.5, “Very appropriate”=.75, “Completely appropriate”=1).

Should be charged. Following the scenario in wave 2, respondents were asked, “Given what you have read, do you think that Officer Silver should be charged with a crime?” Response options were, “He definitely should NOT be charged,” “He probably should NOT be charged,” “He probably should be charged,” and “He definitely should be charged.” (Coding: “He definitely should NOT be charged”=0, “He probably should NOT be charged”=.33, “He probably should be charged”=.67, “He definitely should be charged”=1).

Taylor attacked officer. Following the scenario in wave 2, respondents were asked, “Given what you have read, how likely do you think it is that Mr. Taylor attacked Officer Silver?” Response options were, “Not at all likely,” “A little likely,” “Somewhat likely,” “Very likely,” and “Extremely likely.” (Coding: “Not at all likely”=0, “A little likely”=.25 “Somewhat likely”=.5, “Very likely”=.75, “Extremely likely”=1).

Had a weapon. Following the scenario in wave 2, respondents were asked, “Do you happen to recall whether Mr. Taylor had a weapon?” Response options were, “He definitely did NOT have a weapon,” “He probably did NOT have a weapon,” “He probably did have a weapon,” and “He definitely did have a weapon.” (Coding: “He definitely did NOT have a weapon”=0, “He probably did NOT have a weapon”=.33, “He probably did have a weapon”=.67, “He definitely did have a weapon”=1).

Race role in shooting. Following the scenario in wave 2, respondents were asked, “How much of a role do you think race played in the shooting?” Response options were, “No role at all,” “A little role,” “A moderate role,” “A large role,” and “An enormous role.” (Coding: “No role at all”=0, “A little role”=.25 “A moderate role”=.5, “A large role”=.75, “An enormous role”=1).

Weighting of statements. Following each of the seven statements in wave 2, respondents were asked, “How much weight do you think the jury should place on the information provided in this statement?” Response options were, “None at all,” “A little,” “A moderate amount,” “A lot,” and “A great deal.” (Coding: “None at all”=0, “A little”=.25 “A moderate amount”=.5, “A lot”=.75, “A great deal”=1).

Accuracy of statements. Following each of the seven statements in wave 2, respondents were asked, “How accurate do you think the statement is?” Response options were, “Not at all accurate,” “A little accurate,” “Somewhat accurate,” “Very accurate,” and “Extremely accurate.”

Objective vs. biased. Following each of the seven statements in wave 2, respondents were asked to rate the statement on an 11-point scale, with endpoints labeled “Completely objective” and “Completely biased.” Responses were recoded to range from 0 to 1 (Coding: (response-1)/10).

Desire to read excerpts. Respondents saw excerpts from statements that they did not fully read (see Online Appendix E). For each of these excerpts, respondents were asked, “For each of these excerpts, a full statement is available. Please select the ones you would be interested in reading (select as many as you wish).” Excerpts that were seen by respondents were coded as 1 if they were selected and 0 if they were not selected.

Racial Identification

Group importance. Respondents in wave 2 who reported that they were [White/Black] were asked, “How important is being [White/Black] to your identity?” Response options were, “Extremely important” (coded: 1), “Very important” (coded: .75), “Somewhat important” (coded: .5), “A little important” (coded: .25), “Not at all important” (coded: 0).

Group closeness. Respondents in wave 2 who reported that they were [White/Black] were asked, “In general, how close do you feel to most [White/Black] Americans?” Response options were, “Extremely close” (coded: 1), “Very close” (.75), “Somewhat close” (.5), “A little close” (.25), “Not at all close” (0).

Linked fate. Respondents in wave 2 who reported that they were [White/Black] were asked, “Do you think that what happens generally to [White/Black] people in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life?” Response options were, “Yes” and “No.” Respondents who answered “No” to the first question were coded 0. Respondents who answered, “Yes” were asked “Will it affect you a lot, some, or not very much?” Responses were “A lot” (coded 1), “Some” (.67), and “Not very much” (.33).

Experiences with Police and the Criminal Justice System

The following experiences with police question battery constitutes the experiences prime that respondents in Group C answer prior to the scenario (respondents in Groups A and B answered them after the scenario – see Table E1). The question asked “Another thing that prosecutors are interested in are the experiences that people have had prior to serving on a jury. Please tell us if the following things have ever happened to you or if they have never happened (remember that your answers will be kept confidential).” The experiences listed were: (1) You were stopped or questioned by a police officer, (2) You were arrested, (3) You were charged with a crime, (4) You spent 1 or more nights in jail or prison, (5) You were convicted of any misdemeanor or felony, (6) Any of your family members were stopped or questioned by the police. For each experience, response options were “Has happened” and “Has never happened”.

Perceptions of Police Bias

Perceptions of police bias were assessed using a series of six questions. Each question was coded such that respondents received higher scores if they believed that police were less fair and/or more anti-Black. The questions were then averaged to generate an index (=.77).

Police fairness. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “How fair is the criminal justice system in how it treats people?” Response options were, “Not at all fair” (coded 0), “Slightly fair” (.25), “Somewhat fair” (.5), “Very fair” (.75), and “Completely fair” (1).

Police treatment of Blacks vs. Whites. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “In general, do the police treat Whites better than Blacks, treat Blacks better than Whites, or treat them both the same?” Response options were, “Police treat Whites much better” (coded 1), “Police treat Whites moderately better” (.83), “Police treat Whites a little better” (.67), “Police treat both the same” (.5), “Police treat Blacks a little better” (.33), “Police treat Blacks moderately better” (.17), and “Police treat Blacks much better” (0).

Relative frequency of police stops for Blacks and Whites. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Sometimes the police stop people to conduct random checks or because they have a hunch, without evidence of a crime. When this happens, do the police stop Whites more than Blacks, Blacks more than Whites, or do they stop them both equally?” Response options were, “Police stop Whites much more” (coded 0), “Police stop Whites moderately more” (.17), “Police stop Whites a little more” (.33), “Police stop both equally” (.5), “Police stop Blacks a little more” (.67), “Police stop Blacks moderately more” (.83), and “Police stop Blacks much more” (1).

Police use of excessive force for Whites. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “How often do you think the police use more force than is necessary under the circumstances when dealing with White people?” Response options were, “Never” (coded 1), “Rarely” (.75), “Sometimes” (.5), “Usually” (.25), and “Always” (0).

Police use of excessive force for Blacks. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “How often do you think the police use more force than is necessary under the circumstances when dealing with Black people?” Response options were, “Never” (coded 0), “Rarely” (.25), “Sometimes” (.5), “Usually” (.75), and “Always” (1).

Prevalence of police prejudice. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “How common do you think racial or ethnic prejudice is among police officers?” Response options were, “Not at all common” (coded 0), “Slightly common” (.25), “Somewhat common” (.5), “Very common” (.75), and “Extremely common” (1).

Racial Resentment

Racial resentment was used to assess prejudice toward Blacks in the current study. Four questions were used to assess this concept. Each question was coded such that respondents received higher scores if they expressed more resentful attitudes (=.82).

Work way up. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Irish, Italians, Jews and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.” Response options were, “Agree strongly” (coded 1), “Agree somewhat” (.75), “Neither agree nor disagree” (.5), “Disagree somewhat” (.25), and “Disagree strongly” (0).

Generations of slavery. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out of the lower class.” Response options were, “Agree strongly” (coded 0), “Agree somewhat” (.25), “Neither agree nor disagree” (.5), “Disagree somewhat” (.75), and “Disagree strongly” (1).

Less than they deserve. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten less than they deserve.” Response options were, “Agree strongly” (coded 0), “Agree somewhat” (.25), “Neither agree nor disagree” (.5), “Disagree somewhat” (.75), and “Disagree strongly” (1).

Try harder. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as Whites.” Response options were, “Agree strongly” (coded 1), “Agree somewhat” (.75), “Neither agree nor disagree” (.5), “Disagree somewhat” (.25), and “Disagree strongly” (0).

Demographics

Self-Identification. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Please indicate your racial identification (check all that apply):” Response options were “White,” “Hispanic,” “Black, African American”, “Asian,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,” and “Other.” Individuals who did not select at least one of either “White” or “Black” were considered ineligible for the survey and were excluded by quota. Individuals who selected multiple categories could complete the study, but were not included in our analyses (N=13). Remaining respondents were either “White” or “Black.”

Male. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “What is your gender?” Response options were “Male” and “Female.”

Education. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received?” Response options were “Less than High School” (coded 0), “High School / GED” (.14), “Some College” (.29), “2-year College Degree” (.43), “4-year College Degree” (.57), “Masters Degree” (.71), “Doctoral Degree” (1), and “Professional Degree (e.g. JD, MD)” (.86).

Income. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Now we would like to know the approximate family income of all those living in your household in 2015, before taxes.” Response options were “Less than $25,000” (coded 0), “$25,000 – $49,999” (.2), “$50,000 – $74,999” (.4), “$75,000 – $99,999” (.6), “$100,000 – $149,999” (.8), “$150,000 or more” (1).

Age. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “What year were you born?” Responses were subtracted from 2016 to generate an age estimate. For analyses, they were then were recoded to range from 0 (19) to 1 (89).

Partisanship. Respondents in wave 1 were asked, “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?” Response options were, “Republican,” “Democrat,” and “Independent.” Respondents who reported that they were a Democrat or Republican were asked, “Would you consider yourself a strong [Republican/Democrat] or a not very strong [Republican/Democrat]?” Response options were, “Strong [Republican/Democrat]” and “Not very strong [Republican/Democrat].” Respondents who reported that they were an Independent were asked, “Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican or Democratic party?” Response options were, “Closer to Republican party,” “Closer to Democratic party” and “Neither.” Coding: "Strong Democrat"=0, "Not Strong Democrat"=.17, "Leans Democrat"=.33, "Independent"=.5, "Leans Republican"=.67, "Not Strong Republican"=.83, "Strong Republican"=1.

Online Appendix G – Additional Results from 2016 Study

Online Appendix G includes a number of additional analyses that test the robustness of the findings from the 2016 study. First, this includes analyses of the robustness of specific tables and figures: Figure G1 replicates Figure 1 by breaking down the group salience measure into its three constitutive components. Tables G1 and G2 replicate Table 2 with adjusted p-values and when controls are included. Tables G3 and G4 replicate Table 3 with adjusted p-values, when controls are included, and using alternative dependent variables (statement accuracy and bias). Tables G7 and G8 replicate Table 4 by breaking the scales down into their constitutive parts and when controls are included. Tables G9 and G10 replicate Table 5 with adjusted p-values and when controls are included. The results replicate those in the manuscript.

Second, it includes Tables used to construct Table 6 in the manuscript. Here, Tables G6A-H are the underlying models where each Table is for a specific outcome (e.g., whether the officer should be charged). Each Table includes models predicting that outcome using (1) race and controls, (2) adding the racial salience variable and its interaction with race, (3) adding the prior belief and expectations variables, and (4) adding both elements (2) & (3) to baseline model (1). In addition, Table G11 presents the bootstrapped estimates for the total, direct, and indirect effects reported in Table 6. These models thus accompany the discussion of Table 6.

Third, this section includes additional supporting analyses. Table G12 demonstrates that race is the key factor affecting the prior beliefs and expectations regarding the fairness of the criminal justice system and the likely culpability of Black victims. Figure G2 shows how these variables are distributed by race. Table G5 shows the relationship between statement weights and summary judgments, demonstrating that these weights are correlated as expected with the outcomes.

Figure G1 - Summary Judgments and Beliefs by Condition and Racial Identification with Group Salience Items Separated

Figure G2 – Distributions of Racial Priors by Racial Self-Categorization

Online Appendix H – Replications of Manuscript Analyses Including Data After July 5th

Online Appendix H replicates the main analyses presented in the manuscript among all respondents who completed the second wave of the study. Recall that the analyses in the manuscript are restricted to respondents who completed the second wave before July 5, 2016, when Alton Sterling was shot by a police officer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We believe that this incident, alongside subsequent widely publicized shootings, had the potential to alter attitudes on our outcome measures and thus decided a priori to exercise caution and exclude respondents who responded to the survey after July 5 (n=169). For transparency and as a robustness check, we replicate the main analyses among the full sample (n=895). The results are entirely consistent with everything presented in the manuscript and, if anything, the results are slightly stronger when these respondents are included.

Figure H1 - Summary Judgments and Beliefs by Condition and Racial Identification with No Date Cutoff

Online Appendix I – Additional Assessments of Priming Effects

Online Appendix I provides an additional robustness check to examine whether responses to the racial identification measures (i.e. racial importance, group closeness, and linked fate) differ by priming condition. Recall that the placement of these variables in the survey differed based on respondents’ random assignment as part of the priming manipulation and thus we wanted to be sure that these measures themselves did not differ as a function of where they appeared in the survey. Results of this test are presented in Table I, where we ran a series of regressions predicting identification measures either with racial self-categorization alone or with racial self-categorization interacted with condition. We assessed whether the inclusion of condition (and its interaction with categorization) improved the goodness of fit of these models. As shown below, they were never close to statistically significant and thus we are confident that the variables can be used in the observational analyses.

Table I - Predicting Racial Identification with Self-Categorization and Experimental Condition

Racial Importance

Group Closeness

Linked Fate

Coef.

s.e.

Coef.

s.e.

Coef.

s.e.

(Intercept)

.45

(.03)

***

.49

(.02)

***

.37

(.03)

***

Racial Dummy (Black)

.37

(.04)

***

.18

(.03)

***

.25

(.05)

***

Identity Prime Condition

.06

(.04)

.01

(.03)

.03

(.05)

Identity and Experience Condition

.01

(.04)

.00

(.03)

.01

(.04)

Identity Prime x Black

-.07

(.06)

-.04

(.05)

-.01

(.07)

Identity and Experience x Black

-.02

(.05)

-.04

(.05)

-.02

(.06)

F-test difference from Racial Dummy Only Model

.58 (4)

.52 (4)

.18 (4)

N

719

725

723

R-squared

.25

.08

.07

*** p<.001 two-tailed.

Online Appendix J - Influence of Race and Partisanship on Outcomes in Regression Models

Online Appendix J provides additional analyses to examine whether the partisan distribution of Black and White respondents was imbalanced (i.e. that most Black respondents identify as Democrats) and whether partisanship, instead of race, might be the principal variable. To test the possibility that partisanship moderated the relationship between race and our outcomes of interest, we ran a series of models where we interacted partisanship with race. The results of these models are plotted in Figure J1. The results suggest that there is, at most, minimal support for an interaction when predicting only one of the outcomes and only when racial priors were not controlled. Further, it is clear that the partisan breakdown of Blacks vs. Whites is not principally responsible for the racial divide we observe. Of course, it is true that partisans sometimes differ on these outcomes, but the story is clearly a racial one, not simply a partisan one.

Figure J1: Influence of Race and Partisanship on Outcomes in Regression Models

Online Appendix K –Dynamics among Those Who Rendered Partway and Final Evaluations

Online Appendix K examines the subset of respondents who were randomly assigned to receive two sets of summary judgment measures about the appropriateness of the officer’s actions and judged whether the officer should be charged. This manipulation provides us with additional leverage to examine whether respondents incorporated new information into their summary judgments after having rendered an initial judgment. Evidence that individuals continue to update their beliefs would be inconsistent with a pure motivated reasoning account. For these respondents, one set of measures was asked after the first three statements and the other was asked at the conclusion of all statements.

The results in Table K1 demonstrate that a moderate number of respondents did change their evaluations between the partway judgments and the final judgments, and that these changes were not uniformly to reinforce their initial judgments. As Table K2 illustrates, correlations are slightly weaker for Blacks respondents than for White respondents for the “should be charged” outcome. That is, Blacks polarized more between partway and final for this outcome than Whites did. Figure K1 shows the influence of subsequent witness statements on final judgments by respondents’ partway evaluations. As the figure demonstrates, individuals, irrespective of their partway judgment, continue to update their beliefs in line with new information.

Table K1: Movement from Partway to Final Judgment

Appropriate

White

Black

Overall

Less Appropriate

21.6%

21.8%

21.7%

Same

59.5%

63.6%

61.4%

More Appropriate

18.9%

14.5%

16.9%

N

185

165

350

Should Be Charged

White

Black

Overall

Less Likely

12.4%

9.7%

11.1%

Same

74.6%

71.5%

73.1%

More Likely

13.0%

18.8%

15.7%

N

185

165

350

Table K2: Predicting Summary Judgments by Race and Partway Judgment

Office Actions Appropriate

Officer Should be Charged

Coef.

s.e.

Coef.

s.e.

(Intercept)

.06

(.03)

*

.03

(.02)

Partway Judgment

.86

(.05)

***

.91

(.05)

***

Race Dummy (Black)

-.01

(.04)

.17

(.04)

***

Partway Judgment x Black

-.09

(.07)

-.15

(.07)

*

N

350

350

R-squared

.65

.72

***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05

Figure K1: Influence of Subsequent Information on Summary Judgments by Race and Partway Evaluation

Note: Gray dots represent White respondents and Black dots represent Black respondents

Appendix References

Pasek, Josh. 2016. “When Will Nonprobability Surveys Mirror Probability Surveys? Considering Types of Inference and Weighting Strategies as Criteria for Correspondence.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28(2): 269–91.

Yeager, David S. et al. 2011. “Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(4): nfr020–nfr747.

a) Wilson Should Be ChargedBy Amount Heard About Ferguson and Race

Amount Heard About Ferguson

Sho

uld

Wils

on B

e C

harg

ed (

Mea

n af

ter

Rec

odin

g fr

om 0

−1)

Nothing A little Moderate Amt. A lot Great Deal

Def

. Not

Pro

b. N

otP

roba

bly

Def

inite

ly

WhiteBlackWhiteBlack

b) Brown Attacked WilsonBy Amount Heard About Ferguson and Race


How

Lik

ely

Bro

wn

Atta

cked

Wils

on (

Mea

n af

ter

Rec

odin

g fr

om 0

−1)


Not

at a

llA

littl

eS

omew

hat

Ver

yE

xtre

mel

y


c) Brown Had a WeaponBy Amount Heard About Ferguson and Race


Bro

wn

Had

Wea

pon

(Mea

n af

ter

Rec

odin

g fr

om 0

−1)


Def

. Not

Pro

b. N

otP

roba

bly

Def

inite

ly


d) Perceptions of Race Role in ShootingBy Amount Heard About Ferguson and Race


Rac

e R

ole

in S

hoot

ing

(Mea

n af

ter

Rec

odin

g fr

om 0

−1)


Non

eA

littl

eM

oder

ate

Larg

eE

norm

ous


a) Wilson Should Be Char ged

By Amount Hear d About Ferguson and Race

Amount Heard About F erguson

S

h

o

u

l

d

W

i

l

s

o

n

B

e

C

h

a

r

g

e

d

(

M

e

a

n

a

f

t

e

r

R

e

c

o

d

i

n

g

f

r

o

m

0

−

1

)

Nothing A littleModerate Amt. A lotGreat Deal

D

e

f

.

N

o

t

P

r

o

b

.

N

o

t

P

r

o

b

a

b

l

y

D

e

f

i

n

i

t

e

l

y

White

Black

White

Black

b) Brown Attacked Wilson



H

o

w

L

i

k

e

l

y

B

r

o

w

n

A

t

t

a

c

k

e

d

W

i

l

s

o

n

(

M

e

a

n

a

f

t

e

r

R

e

c

o

d

i

n

g

f

r

o

m

0

−

1

)


N

o

t

a

t

a

l

l

A

l

i

t

t

l

e

S

o

m

e

w

h

a

t

V

e

r

y

E

x

t

r

e

m

e

l

y

White

Black

White

Black

c) Brown Had a Weapon



B

r

o

w

n

H

a

d

W

e

a

p

o

n

(

M

e

a

n

a

f

t

e

r

R

e

c

o

d

i

n

g

f

r

o

m

0

−

1

)


D

e

f

.

N

o

t

P

r

o

b

.

N

o

t

P

r

o

b

a

b

l

y

D

e

f

i

n

i

t

e

l

y

White

Black

White

Black

d) Perceptions of Race Role in Shooting



R

a

c

e

R

o

l

e

i

n

S

h

o

o

t

i

n

g

(

M

e

a

n

a

f

t

e

r

R

e

c

o

d

i

n

g

f

r

o

m

0

−

1

)


N

o

n

e

A

l

i

t

t

l

e

M

o

d

e

r

a

t

e

L

a

r

g

e

E

n

o

r

m

o

u

s

White

Black

White

Black

White Mean Black Mean Difference s.e. t Statistic p Adjusted p White N Black NWilson Should Be Charged (Probably or Definitely) .42 .91 -.49 .02 -23.9 .000 .000 2944 252Brown Attacked Wilson (Very or Extremely Likely) .37 .12 .26 .02 11.7 .000 .000 2946 252Brown Had Weapon (Probably or Definitely) .23 .04 .18 .02 12.3 .000 .000 2939 252Role of Race In Shooting (Large or Enormous) .36 .74 -.38 .03 -12.9 .000 .000 2945 250Note - All t-tests are calculated as two sample Welch's t-tests. Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments were calculated on a by-column basis.

Table C1 - Additional Information on Ferguson Perception T-Tests By Race

White MeanBlack MeanDifferences.e.t StatisticpAdjusted pWhite NBlack N

Wilson Should Be Charged (Probably or Definitely).42.91-.49.02-23.9.000.0002944252

Brown Attacked Wilson (Very or Extremely Likely).37.12.26.0211.7.000.0002946252

Brown Had Weapon (Probably or Definitely).23.04.18.0212.3.000.0002939252

Role of Race In Shooting (Large or Enormous).36.74-.38.03-12.9.000.0002945250

Note - All t-tests are calculated as two sample Welch's t-tests. Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli

(2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments were calculated on a by-column basis.

Table C1 - Additional Information on Ferguson Perception T-Tests By Race

Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj(Intercept) .34 .02 .000 .000 .69 .02 .000 .000 .43 .02 .000 .000 .21 .03 .000 .000Black .27 .02 .000 .000 -.19 .02 .000 .000 -.18 .02 .000 .000 .24 .02 .000 .000Age (0-1) .02 .01 .058 .176 -.06 .01 .000 .000 .02 .01 .036 .108 .03 .01 .008 .026Education (0-1) -.20 .03 .000 .000 .06 .03 .039 .101 -.13 .03 .000 .000 .10 .03 .003 .015Female -.03 .02 .112 .290 .06 .02 .009 .026 -.06 .02 .002 .007 .03 .03 .238 .618Party (Democrat = 1) .14 .02 .000 .000 -.13 .02 .000 .000 -.07 .02 .000 .000 .06 .02 .007 .025Liberal-Coservative Ideology (Liberal=1) .27 .02 .000 .000 -.26 .03 .000 .000 -.02 .02 .433 1.000 .29 .03 .000 .000NR-SquaredNotes - Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments were calculated on a by-column basis.

3184318031873185.23 .16 .06 .11

Table C2 - OLS Regressions Predicting Ferguson Outcomes With ControlsWilson Should Be

Charged Brown Attacked

Wilson Brown Had WeaponRole of Race in

Shooting

CoefSEppadjCoefSEppadjCoefSEppadjCoefSEppadj

(Intercept) .34.02.000.000.69.02.000.000.43.02.000.000.21.03.000.000

Black .27.02.000.000-.19.02.000.000-.18.02.000.000.24.02.000.000

Age (0-1) .02.01.058.176-.06.01.000.000.02.01.036.108.03.01.008.026

Education (0-1) -.20.03.000.000.06.03.039.101-.13.03.000.000.10.03.003.015

Female -.03.02.112.290.06.02.009.026-.06.02.002.007.03.03.238.618

Party (Democrat = 1) .14.02.000.000-.13.02.000.000-.07.02.000.000.06.02.007.025

Liberal-Coservative Ideology (Liberal=1).27.02.000.000-.26.03.000.000-.02.02.4331.000.29.03.000.000

N

R-Squared

Notes - Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments

were calculated on a by-column basis.

3184318031873185

.23 .16 .06 .11

Table C2 - OLS Regressions Predicting Ferguson Outcomes With Controls

Wilson Should Be

Charged

Brown Attacked

WilsonBrown Had Weapon

Role of Race in

Shooting

Table C3 - Full OLS Regressions Predicting Ferguson Outcomes Without Controls

Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj(Intercept) .53 .01 .000 .000 .38 .01 .000 .000 .44 .01 .000 .000 .43 .01 .000 .000Black .17 .05 .001 .003 -.08 .05 .110 .230 -.15 .04 .001 .002 .17 .06 .005 .023Heard About Ferguson -.14 .02 .000 .000 .24 .02 .000 .000 -.22 .02 .000 .000 .05 .02 .011 .030Black x Heard About Ferguson .29 .07 .000 .000 -.29 .07 .000 .000 -.03 .06 .637 1.000 .17 .08 .033 .069NR-Squared

Brown Had WeaponWilson Should Be


WilsonRole of Race in

Shooting

Notes - Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments were calculated on a by-column basis.

.053190

.103196 3194

.103197

.11

Table C3 - Full OLS Regressions Predicting Ferguson Outcomes Without Controls


(Intercept) .53.01.000.000.38.01.000.000.44.01.000.000.43.01.000.000

Black .17.05.001.003-.08.05.110.230-.15.04.001.002.17.06.005.023

Heard About Ferguson -.14.02.000.000.24.02.000.000-.22.02.000.000.05.02.011.030

Black x Heard About Ferguson.29.07.000.000-.29.07.000.000-.03.06.6371.000.17.08.033.069

N

R-Squared

Brown Had Weapon

Wilson Should Be

Charged

Brown Attacked

Wilson

Role of Race in

Shooting

Notes - Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P

adjustments were calculated on a by-column basis.

.05

3190

.10

3196 3194

.10

3197

.11

Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj Coef SE p padj(Intercept) .39 .02 .000 .000 .59 .02 .000 .000 .52 .02 .000 .000 .19 .03 .000 .000Black .10 .05 .038 .139 -.02 .05 .618 1.000 -.13 .04 .004 .019 .13 .06 .032 .116Heard About Ferguson -.12 .02 .000 .000 .23 .02 .000 .000 -.21 .02 .000 .000 .05 .02 .021 .088Age (0-1) -.17 .03 .000 .000 .00 .03 .979 1.000 -.07 .02 .003 .019 .08 .03 .013 .068Education (0-1) -.02 .02 .378 1.000 .02 .02 .246 .894 -.03 .02 .149 .540 .02 .03 .422 1.000Female .02 .01 .136 .432 -.05 .01 .000 .000 .01 .01 .134 .540 .04 .01 .006 .040Party (Democrat = 1) .14 .02 .000 .000 -.13 .02 .000 .000 -.07 .02 .000 .000 .07 .02 .006 .040Liberal-Coservative Ideology (Liberal=1) .27 .02 .000 .000 -.26 .02 .000 .000 -.01 .02 .543 1.000 .29 .03 .000 .000Black x Heard About Ferguson .26 .06 .000 .000 -.27 .06 .000 .000 -.03 .06 .628 1.000 .15 .08 .053 .169NR-Squared

3185 3186 3179 3183

Table C4 - Full OLS Regressions Predicting Ferguson Outcomes With ControlsWilson Should Be


Wilson Brown Had WeaponRole of Race in

Shooting

.24 .20 .11 .11Notes - Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments were calculated on a by-column basis.


(Intercept) .39.02.000.000.59.02.000.000.52.02.000.000.19.03.000.000

Black .10.05.038.139-.02.05.6181.000-.13.04.004.019.13.06.032.116

Heard About Ferguson -.12.02.000.000.23.02.000.000-.21.02.000.000.05.02.021.088

Age (0-1) -.17.03.000.000.00.03.9791.000-.07.02.003.019.08.03.013.068

Education (0-1) -.02.02.3781.000.02.02.246.894-.03.02.149.540.02.03.4221.000

Female .02.01.136.432-.05.01.000.000.01.01.134.540.04.01.006.040

Party (Democrat = 1) .14.02.000.000-.13.02.000.000-.07.02.000.000.07.02.006.040

Liberal-Coservative Ideology (Liberal=1).27.02.000.000-.26.02.000.000-.01.02.5431.000.29.03.000.000

Black x Heard About Ferguson .26.06.000.000-.27.06.000.000-.03.06.6281.000.15.08.053.169

N

R-Squared

3185 3186 3179 3183

Table C4 - Full OLS Regressions Predicting Ferguson Outcomes With Controls

Wilson Should Be

Charged

Brown Attacked

WilsonBrown Had Weapon

Role of Race in

Shooting

.24 .20 .11 .11

Notes - Adjusted p-values computed using the method proposed by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) to control for the false discovery rate. P adjustments

were calculated on a by-column basis.

Wilson Should Be Charged


Brown Had Weapon

Brown Attacked Wilson -.61Brown Had Weapon -.21 .22Role of Race In Shooting .42 -.33 -.11

Table C5 - Pearson's Correlations Between Ferguson Outcomes

Wilson

Should Be

Charged

Brown

Attacked

Wilson

Brown Had

Weapon

Brown Attacked Wilson-.61

Brown Had Weapon-.21.22

Role of Race In Shooting.42-.33-.11

Table C5 - Pearson's Correlations Between Ferguson Outcomes

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

BlackWhite

Question Description of measures used in study Administration Notes / RandomizationWave 1 (N=1430) June 15-20 2016Demographics sex; race; age; educationIdeology/Partisanship party identificationFairness of Police and Criminal Justice System criminal justice system fair; police treatment of Blacks vs Whites (5)

Questions About Ferguson -[Note: these were a replication of the results from the 2014 Ferguson study]

Racial ResentmentOthers overcame prejudice without special favors; generations of slavery created current conditions; Blacks gotten less than deserve; Blacks not trying hard enough

Wave 2 (N=895; 726 before cutoff) June 27-August 5 2016 (July 5 cutoff used)Introduction to ScenarioNon-Racial Demographics -Racial Identification Measures importance of race; linked fate; group closeness Groups A and B OnlyExperiences with Police - Group B OnlyPolice Chief Statement Pro-Officer - Overview of Events

Mr. Davis Statement Pro-Taylor - Was in a heated argument with Mr. Taylor when events transpiredOfficer Silver Statement Pro-Officer - Statement from the officer involved in shootingPartway Summary Judgments Officer's actions appropriate; should officer be charged Randomly assigned to 1/2 of respondents

Mrs. Walker Statement Pro-Officer - Woman who called police to report argument, did not see shootingMrs. Thomas Statement Pro-Taylor - Character witness for Mr. Taylor, did not see shootingMrs. Williams Statement Pro-Taylor - Was walking dog and saw events transpireMr. Anthony Statement Pro-Officer - Was driving home and stopped to watch events transpire

Selective Exposure TaskIdentify which additional statements respondent would like to read from one-sentence excerpts

1/2 of respondents see all 8 statements, 1/2 see a randomly assigned set of 4

Summary Judgments Officer's actions appropriate; should officer be chargedSummary Beliefs Taylor attacked officer; officer had weapon; race role in shootingRacial Identification Measures importance of race; linked fate; group closeness Group C OnlyExperiences with Police - Groups A and C Only

Notes - Scenario statements are bolded; each was followed with an open-ended response and three questions about how the statement should be weighted by a jury, how accurate the statement was, and how biased/objective the statement was. Only measures used in the current study are described. Descriptions with "-" are not evalutaed in the current study. See Online Appendix F for question wording, response options, and coding of all measures.

Table 2 - Overview of Relevant Measures from 2016 Study

Question Description of measures used in study Administration Notes / Randomization

Wave 1 (N=1430) June 15-20 2016

Demographics sex; race; age; education

Ideology/Partisanship party identification

Fairness of Police and Criminal Justice Systemcriminal justice system fair; police treatment of Blacks vs Whites (5)

Questions About Ferguson -

[Note: these were a replication of the

results from the 2014 Ferguson study]

Racial Resentment

Others overcame prejudice without special favors; generations of slavery created

current conditions; Blacks gotten less than deserve; Blacks not trying hard enough

Wave 2 (N=895; 726 before cutoff) June 27-August 5 2016 (July 5 cutoff used)

Introduction to Scenario

Non-Racial Demographics -

Racial Identification Measures importance of race; linked fate; group closeness Groups A and B Only

Experiences with Police - Group B Only

Police Chief Statement Pro-Officer - Overview of Events

Mr. Davis Statement Pro-Taylor - Was in a heated argument with Mr. Taylor when events transpired

Officer Silver Statement Pro-Officer - Statement from the officer involved in shooting

Partway Summary Judgments Officer's actions appropriate; should officer be charged Randomly assigned to 1/2 of respondents

Mrs. Walker Statement Pro-Officer - Woman who called police to report argument, did not see shooting

Mrs. Thomas Statement Pro-Taylor - Character witness for Mr. Taylor, did not see shooting

Mrs. Williams Statement Pro-Taylor - Was walking dog and saw events transpire

Mr. Anthony Statement Pro-Officer - Was driving home and stopped to watch events transpire

Selective Exposure Task

Identify which additional statements respondent would like to read from one-

sentence excerpts

1/2 of respondents see all 8 statements,

1/2 see a randomly assigned set of 4

Summary Judgments Officer's actions appropriate; should officer be charged

Summary Beliefs Taylor attacked officer; officer had weapon; race role in shooting

Racial Identification Measures importance of race; linked fate; group closeness Group C Only

Experiences with Police - Groups A and C Only

Notes - Scenario statements are bolded; each was followed with an open-ended response and three questions about how the statement should be weighted by a jury, how

accurate the statement was, and how biased/objective the statement was. Only measures used in the current study are described. Descriptions with "-" are not evalutaed in

the current study. See Online Appendix F for question wording, response options, and coding of all measures.

Table 2 - Overview of Relevant Measures from 2016 Study

Table E2 - Tests of Balance Across Experimental ConditionsRespondent RacePartway Question# of Statements Four Eight Four Eight Four Eight Four Eight

Control 30 26 36 21 39 40 27 32Identity 32 25 29 26 27 31 27 28IDandExp 29 29 40 33 30 38 31 20

Chisq 9.88 df 14 p 0.77

BlackWhiteNoNo YesYes

Table E2 - Tests of Balance Across Experimental Conditions

Respondent Race

Partway Question

# of StatementsFourEightFourEightFourEightFourEight

Control 3026362139402732

Identity 3225292627312728

IDandExp 2929403330383120

Chisq9.88 df14 p0.77

BlackWhite

NoNo YesYes

M SD # Missing M SD # Missing M SD # Missing AlphaPerceptions of Police Fairness .65 .16 1 .56 .13 0 .74 .15 1 .77Racial Resentment .51 .27 4 .65 .25 3 .37 .22 1 .82Importance of Racial Identity .64 .35 7 .47 .35 1 .81 .25 6Closeness to Racial Group .57 .26 1 .50 .25 1 .65 .26 0Linked Fate .49 .37 3 .39 .35 1 .59 .36 2Salience (Combined Racial Identification) .57 .24 11 .45 .22 3 .68 .21 8 .60Age (0-1) .46 .20 11 .49 .19 5 .42 .19 6Female .71 .45 1 .69 .46 0 .73 .45 1Education (0-1) .40 .21 0 .40 .21 0 .39 .21 0Party Identification (Democrat = 1) .34 .35 2 .52 .36 1 .16 .24 1Liberal-Conservative Identification (Liberal = 1) .51 .27 0 .45 .27 0 .58 .24 0Officer’s Actions Appropriate .40 .33 0 .52 .31 0 .28 .29 0Officer Should Be Charged .51 .35 2 .35 .32 0 .67 .30 2Likely That Victim Attacked Officer .23 .28 2 .31 .29 0 .15 .26 2Victim Had A Weapon .29 .25 3 .36 .23 1 .22 .26 2Race Role in Shooting .46 .35 3 .32 .31 1 .59 .33 2Partway Assessment of Officer’s Actions Appropriate .42 .31 376 .54 .28 171 .30 .30 205Partway Assessment of Officer Should Be Charged .49 .34 376 .35 .30 171 .65 .31 205Chief Weight (Pro-Officer) .58 .28 1 .62 .28 0 .54 .28 1Mr. Davis Weight (Pro-Victim) .59 .27 0 .51 .24 0 .66 .28 0Officer Silver Weight (Pro-Officer) .56 .28 2 .61 .24 0 .51 .31 2Mrs. Walker Weight (Pro-Officer) .43 .32 0 .41 .30 0 .46 .34 0Mrs. Thomas Weight (Pro-Victim) .46 .30 0 .36 .27 0 .55 .31 0Mrs. Williams Weight (Pro-Victim) .69 .29 0 .62 .28 0 .76 .28 0Mr. Anthony Weight (Pro-Officer) .47 .29 1 .52 .27 0 .43 .31 1All Pro-Officer Weights .51 .21 2 .54 .19 0 .49 .22 2 .66All Pro-Victim Weights .58 .23 0 .49 .20 0 .66 .23 0 .72All Pro-Officer Weights Excluding Walker .54 .22 2 .58 .21 0 .49 .23 2 .70Chief Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .55 .25 2 .64 .21 1 .46 .25 1Mr. Davis Accuracy (Pro-Victim) .52 .25 0 .44 .21 0 .59 .26 0Officer Silver Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .49 .28 4 .59 .23 0 .40 .29 4Mrs. Walker Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .55 .29 1 .56 .27 0 .54 .31 1Mrs. Thomas Accuracy (Pro-Victim) .52 .27 0 .45 .25 0 .59 .28 0Mrs. Williams Accuracy (Pro-Victim) .66 .28 2 .58 .26 1 .73 .27 1Mr. Anthony Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .45 .28 1 .51 .25 0 .39 .29 1All Pro-Officer Accuracies .51 .20 6 .58 .17 1 .45 .20 5 .69All Pro-Victim Accuracies .56 .22 2 .49 .19 1 .64 .22 1 .73All Pro-Officer Accuracies Excluding Walker .50 .22 6 .58 .19 1 .42 .22 5 .74Chief Biased (Pro-Officer) .48 .29 1 .37 .27 0 .58 .28 1Mr. Davis Biased (Pro-Victim) .47 .27 0 .51 .24 0 .43 .29 0Officer Silver Biased (Pro-Officer) .53 .30 1 .43 .27 0 .62 .31 1Mrs. Walker Biased (Pro-Officer) .44 .30 2 .41 .28 0 .47 .31 2Mrs. Thomas Biased (Pro-Victim) .55 .30 1 .61 .28 0 .50 .32 1Mrs. Williams Biased (Pro-Victim) .37 .30 0 .41 .29 0 .33 .31 0Mr. Anthony Biased (Pro-Officer) .45 .29 1 .37 .26 0 .53 .30 1All Pro-Officer Biases .48 .22 2 .40 .20 0 .55 .21 2 .74All Pro-Victim Biases .46 .23 1 .51 .21 0 .42 .24 1 .67All Pro-Officer Biases Excluding Walker .49 .25 2 .39 .22 0 .58 .23 2 .77Excerpt 1 Pro-Officer .31 .46 190 .33 .47 95 .30 .46 95Excerpt 2 Pro-Taylor .46 .50 179 .43 .50 105 .49 .50 74Excerpt 3 Pro-Officer .41 .49 193 .49 .50 95 .33 .47 98Excerpt 4 Pro-Officer .19 .39 184 .20 .40 94 .18 .38 90Excerpt 5 Pro-Officer .30 .46 189 .37 .48 104 .25 .43 85Excerpt 6 Pro-Taylor .20 .40 175 .15 .36 96 .25 .43 79Excerpt 7 Pro-Taylor .48 .50 188 .42 .49 92 .55 .50 96Excerpt 8 Pro-Officer .37 .48 210 .41 .49 103 .33 .47 107All Pro-Officer .37 .36 6 .42 .36 4 .33 .35 2 .49All Pro-Taylor .35 .33 6 .31 .34 3 .38 .32 3 .41

BlacksAll Respondents WhitesTable F1 - Descriptive Information For All Measures in 2016 Study

MSD# MissingMSD# MissingMSD# MissingAlpha

Perceptions of Police Fairness .65.161.56.130.74.151.77

Racial Resentment .51.274.65.253.37.221.82

Importance of Racial Identity .64.357.47.351.81.256

Closeness to Racial Group .57.261.50.251.65.260

Linked Fate .49.373.39.351.59.362

Salience (Combined Racial Identification) .57.2411.45.223.68.218.60

Age (0-1) .46.2011.49.195.42.196

Female .71.451.69.460.73.451

Education (0-1) .40.210.40.210.39.210

Party Identification (Democrat = 1) .34.352.52.361.16.241

Liberal-Conservative Identification (Liberal = 1).51.270.45.270.58.240

Officer’s Actions Appropriate .40.330.52.310.28.290

Officer Should Be Charged .51.352.35.320.67.302

Likely That Victim Attacked Officer .23.282.31.290.15.262

Victim Had A Weapon .29.253.36.231.22.262

Race Role in Shooting .46.353.32.311.59.332

Partway Assessment of Officer’s Actions Appropriate.42.31376.54.28171.30.30205

Partway Assessment of Officer Should Be Charged.49.34376.35.30171.65.31205

Chief Weight (Pro-Officer) .58.281.62.280.54.281

Mr. Davis Weight (Pro-Victim) .59.270.51.240.66.280

Officer Silver Weight (Pro-Officer) .56.282.61.240.51.312

Mrs. Walker Weight (Pro-Officer) .43.320.41.300.46.340

Mrs. Thomas Weight (Pro-Victim) .46.300.36.270.55.310

Mrs. Williams Weight (Pro-Victim) .69.290.62.280.76.280

Mr. Anthony Weight (Pro-Officer) .47.291.52.270.43.311

All Pro-Officer Weights .51.212.54.190.49.222.66

All Pro-Victim Weights .58.230.49.200.66.230.72

All Pro-Officer Weights Excluding Walker .54.222.58.210.49.232.70

Chief Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .55.252.64.211.46.251

Mr. Davis Accuracy (Pro-Victim) .52.250.44.210.59.260

Officer Silver Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .49.284.59.230.40.294

Mrs. Walker Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .55.291.56.270.54.311

Mrs. Thomas Accuracy (Pro-Victim) .52.270.45.250.59.280

Mrs. Williams Accuracy (Pro-Victim) .66.282.58.261.73.271

Mr. Anthony Accuracy (Pro-Officer) .45.281.51.250.39.291

All Pro-Officer Accuracies .51.206.58.171.45.205.69

All Pro-Victim Accuracies .56.222.49.191.64.221.73

All Pro-Officer Accuracies Excluding Walker .50.226.58.191.42.225.74

Chief Biased (Pro-Officer) .48.291.37.270.58.281

Mr. Davis Biased (Pro-Victim) .47.270.51.240.43.290

Officer Silver Biased (Pro-Officer) .53.301.43.270.62.311

Mrs. Walker Biased (Pro-Officer) .44.302.41.280.47.312

Mrs. Thomas Biased (Pro-Victim) .55.301.61.280.50.321

Mrs. Williams Biased (Pro-Victim) .37.300.41.290.33.310

Mr. Anthony Biased (Pro-Officer) .45.291.37.260.53.301

All Pro-Officer Biases .48.222.40.200.55.212.74

All Pro-Victim Biases .46.231.51.210.42.241.67

All Pro-Officer Biases Excluding Walker .49.252.39.220.58.232.77

Excerpt 1 Pro-Officer .31.46190.33.4795.30.4695

Excerpt 2 Pro-Taylor .46.50179.43.50105.49.5074







All Pro-Officer .37.366.42.364.33.352.49

All Pro-Taylor .35.336.31.343.38.323.41

BlacksAll RespondentsWhites

Table F1 - Descriptive Information For All Measures in 2016 Study

All Respondents

Police BiasRacial

ResentmentGroup

ImportanceGroup

Closeness Linked

cambridge university presscambridge... · web viewplease read each one carefully and answer...

Documents