Abstract:Objective: Use of risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system is controversial. Advocates emphasize that risk assessments are more transparent, consistent, and accurate in predicting re-offending than judicial intuition. Skeptics worry that risk assessments will increase socioeconomic disparities in incarceration. Ultimately, judges make decisions-not risk assessments. This study tests whether providing risk assessment information interacts with a defendant's socioeconomic class to influence judges' sentencing decisions. Hypotheses: Tentatively, socioeconomic status was expected to have a main effect; without an interaction with risk assessment information. Method: Judges (N = 340) with sentencing experience were randomly assigned to review 1 of 4 case vignettes and sentence the defendant to probation, jail, or prison. Information in the vignettes was held constant, except the defendant's socioeconomic status and whether risk assessment information was provided. Results: Risk assessment information reduced the likelihood of incarceration for relatively affluent defendants, but the same information increased the likelihood of incarceration for relatively poor defendants. This finding held after controlling for the sex, race, political orientation, and jurisdiction of the judge. Conclusions: Cuing judges to focus on risk may re-frame how they process socioeconomic status-a variable with opposite effects on perceptions of blameworthiness for past crime versus perceptions of risk for future crime. Providing risk assessment information may have transformed low socioeconomic status from a circumstance that reduced the likelihood of incarceration (by mitigating perceived blameworthiness) to a factor that increased the likelihood of incarceration (by increasing perceived risk). Under some circumstances, risk assessment information may increase sentencing disparities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The judicial superego: Implicit egoism, internalized racism, and prejudice in three million sentencing decisions

Impact of risk assessment on judges' fairness in sentencing relatively poor defendants

Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality.

Discrimination in Sentencing: Showing Remorse and the Intersection of Race and Gender

An Investigation Into the Unconscious Influence of Mortality Salience Upon Sentencing Decisions

Innocent until primed: mock jurors' racially biased response to the presumption of innocence

Effects of Judicial Pre-judgment on Conviction

The role of perceived defendant criminality on attributions and case outcomes

Evidence-based sentencing: Public openness and opposition to using gender, age, and race as risk factors for recidivism.

How information about perpetrators' nature and nurture influences assessments of their character, mental states, and deserved punishment

Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges' sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis

Judges’ Perceptions of Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System

The effect of confirmation bias and racial stereotypes on perceptions of guilt and interrogation strategy decisions

Who Is Your Biggest Critic? Cultural Variation in Moral Judgments of the Self and Others

When morality opposes the law: An fMRI investigation into punishment judgments for crimes with good intentions

Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences

Race, Culpability, and Defendant Plea-Bargaining Decisions: An Experimental Simulation

Perceptions of Anti-Black Bias in the Criminal Justice System Contribute to Pro-Black (Versus White) Bias in Criminal Justice Research

Self‐Efficacy, Prosocial Impact, and Self‐Legitimacy as Psychological Predictors of Judicial Officer Performance

Dressing the part: The influence of police attire on outcomes in a simulated traffic violation case

Ascriptive Characteristics and Perceptions of Impropriety in the Rule of Law: Race, Gender, and Public Assessments of Whether Judges Can Be Impartial