The last word in court - A hidden disadvantage for the defense

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 705-722

  Englich, Birte ^a   Mussweiler, Thomas ^b   Strack, Fritz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anchoring effect; Judicial decision making; Legal professionals; Sentencing bias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LAWYER; LEGAL ASPECT; STANDARD; ADULT; FEMALE; GERMANY; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; VICTIM;

ADULT; CRIME VICTIMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE;

EID: 31644434812     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-005-8380-7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742). New York: Guilford.
3. 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.
4. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1-39.
5. Dhami, M. K. (2003). Psychologicalmodels of professional decisionmaking. Psychological Science, 14(2), 175-180.
6. Diamond, S. S. (1981). Exploring sources of sentence disparity. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), The trial process (pp. 387-411). New York: Plenum.
7. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1981). The process of sentencing adult felons. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), The trial process (pp. 413-458). New York: Plenum.
8. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
9. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (in press). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
10. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
11. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 669-677.
12. 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.
13. 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(4), 445-470.
14. Hinsz, V. B., & Indahl, K. E. (1995). Assimilation to anchors for damage awards in a mock civil trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(11), 991-1026.
15. Hogarth, J. (1971). Sentencing as a human process. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
16. Insko, C. A. (1964). Primacy versus recency in persuasion as a function of the timing of arguments and measures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 381-391.
17. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
18. Kohlberg, L. (1975). Moral Education for a society in moral transition. Educational Leadership, 33, 46-54.
19. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
20. Krahé, B. (1991). Social psychological issues in the study of rape. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 279-309). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
21. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
22. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
23. Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(4), 491-497.
24. 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.
25. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
26. Miller, N., & Campbell, D. T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 1-9.
27. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489.
28. Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
29. 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. 135-168). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Peake, P. K., & Cervone, D. (1989). Sequence anchoring and self-efficacy: Primacy effects in the consideration of possibilities. Social Cognition, 7(1), 31-50.
34. Partridge, A., & Eldridge, W. B. (1974). The second circuit sentencing study. Washington, DC: The Federal Judicial Center.
35. Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 353-373.
36. Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F. (1980). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review, 15, 123-160.
37. Schuller, R. A., & Stewart, A. (2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 535-551.
38. Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 125-162) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
39. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(2), 148-162.
40. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
41. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
43. Trope, Y., & Bassok, M. (1982). Confirmatory and diagnostic strategies in social information gathering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 22-34.
44. Wegner, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62-69.
45. Whyte, G., & Sebenius, J. K. (1997). The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 75-85.
46. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387-402.