«Give him five years!» - Influences of partisan hecklers on judges' sentencing decisions;«Geben sie ihm doch einfach fünf jahre!» einflüsse parteiischer zwischenrufer auf richterliche urteile

Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 215-225

  Englich, Birte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anchoring effect; Extreme anchors; Irrelevant anchors; Judicial decision making; Processing; Selective accessibility; Sentencing decisions

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144514718     PISSN: 00443514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/0044-3514.36.4.215     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M. & Chapleau K. M. (2004). The influence of afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15, 674-678.
2. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
3. Brewer, N. T. & Chapman, G. B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65-77.
4. Cervone, D. & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
5. Chapman, G. B. & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519-540.
6. Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242.
7. Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1-39.
8. Diamond, S. S. (1981). Exploring sources of sentence disparity. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), The trial process: Perspectives in law and psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 387-411). New York: Plenum.
9. Englich, B. (2001). Psychologische Rhetorik für Juristen - Evaluation eines sozialpsychologisch fundierten Trainingsprogramms. Hamburg: Kovac.
10. Englich, B. & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
11. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (in press-a). The last word in court - A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior.
12. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (in press-b). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
13. Jacowitz, K. E. & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
14. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
15. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A. & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror judgement in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-470.
16. Lieberman, J. L. (2002). Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2526-2553.
17. Malouff, J. & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491-497.
18. Martin, E. G. & Alonso, C. H. (1997). Influence of the prosecutor's plea on the judge's sentencing in sexual crimes: Hypothesis of the theory of anchoring by Tversky and Kahneman. In S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Ferez & R. Barberel (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 215-226). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
19. Marti, M. W. & Wissler, R. L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: The effects of anchors on personal injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(2), 91-103.
20. Mussweiler, T. & Englich, B. (in press). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
21. Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (1999a). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 135-167)). Chichester, England: Wiley.
22. Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (1999b). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
23. Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038-1052.
24. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F. & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150.
25. Nagel, S. (1962). Judicial backgrounds and criminal cases. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science, 53, 333-339.
26. Partridge, A. & Eldridge, W. B. (1974). The second circuit sentencing study. Washington D. C: The Federal Judicial Center.
27. Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326.
28. Pruitt, C. R. & Wilson, J. Q. (1983). A longitudinal study of the effect of race on sentencing. Law and Society-Review, 17, 613-635.
29. Schmid, J. & Fiedler, K. (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language unjudicial attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140-1172.
30. Schmid, J., Fiedler, K., Englich, B., Ehrenberger, T. & Semin, G. R. (1996). Taking sides with the defendant: Grammatical choice and the influence of implicit attributions in prosecution and defense speeches. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12, 127-148.
31. Sorensen, J. R. & Wallace, D. H. (1995). Capital punishment in Missouri: Examining the issue of racial disparity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13(1), 61-80.
32. Strack, F. & Hannover, B. (1996). Awareness of influence as a precondition for implementing correctional goals. In P. Gollwitzer & J. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 579-596). New York: Guilford.
33. Strack, F. & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
34. Trope, Y. & Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239-270). New York: Guilford.
35. Tröndle, H. & Fischer, T. (2003). Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze. 51. Auflage. München: C. H.Beck.
36. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
37. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.
38. Wegner, D. M., Ansfield, M. & Pilloff, D. (1998). The Putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of action. Psychological Science, 9, 196-199.
39. Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., III & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.
40. Wilson, T. D. & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142.
41. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C., Etling, K. M. & Brekke, N. (1996). Anew look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387-402.
42. Wong, K. F. E. & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 314-333.