Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 188-200

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Decision making; Experts; Irrelevant anchors; Selective accessibility; Sentencing decisions

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 31644448701     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: 15527433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167205282152     Document Type: Article

References (45)

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. Bodenhausen, G. (1990). Stereotypes as judgmental heuristics: Evidence of circadian variations in discrimination. Psychological Science, 1, 319-322.
3. Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacyjudgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
4. 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.
5. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E.J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1-39.
6. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffith, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Dhami, M. K. (2003). Psychological models of professional decision making. Psychological Science, 14, 175-180.
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. Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 14-18.
10. Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510-517.
11. 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.
12. Englich, B. (2006). Order effects in the courtroom - The reason why the prosecution and the defense should change seats. Unpublished manuscript, University of Würzburg.
13. Englich, B., &: Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the court room. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
14. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court - A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29.
15. Epley, N. (2004). A tale of tuned desks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustments. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 240-256). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16. 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.
17. Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne. J. W. (1999). Juror judgment in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-470.
19. Hogarth, J. (1971). Sentencing as a human process. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
20. Hynie, M., Schuller, R. A., & Couperthwaite, L. (2003). Perceptions of sexual intent: The impact of condom possession. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 75-79.
21. Joyce, E. J., & Biddle, G. C. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120-145.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shapingjuror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491-497.
25. 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, 91-103.
26. Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133-143.
27. Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2004). Anchoring effect. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions-A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory (pp. 183-200). London: Psychology Press.
28. 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, UK: Wiley.
29. 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.
30. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000a). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 495-518.
31. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000b). 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. (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 234-255.
33. 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.
34. Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). Approach and avoidance: The influence of proprioceptive and exterocpetive cues on encoding of affective information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 39-48.
35. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
36. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Expert, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 228-241.
37. Partridge, A., & Eldridge, W. B. (1974). The second circuit sentencing study. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
38. Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 56, 61-79.
39. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.
40. Schuller, R. A., & Stewart, A. (2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535-551.
41. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
43. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142.
44. 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.
45. Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68-82.