Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making

Birte Englich · Thomas Mussweiler · Fritz Strack

553 citations0/0 files storedPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Legal processes and jurisprudence Jury Decision Making Processes

Abstract

Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Study 1), they were informed that this demand was randomly determined (Study 2), or they randomly determined this demand themselves by throwing dice (Study 3). Expertise and experience did not reduce this effect. This sentencing bias appears to be produced by a selective increase in the accessibility of arguments that are consistent with the random sentencing demand: The accessibility of incriminating arguments was higher if participants were confronted with a high rather than a low anchor (Study 4). Practical and theoretical implications of this research are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 553 citations exist upstream.

References

1974Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases 1975Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases 1994Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.1987Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions 1997Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility.2004Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making 1996A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents.2001Putting Adjustment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: Differential Processing of Self-Generated and Experimenter-Provided Anchors

Cited by

2019The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making 2014Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences 2013Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance 2010The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?2017The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.