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.
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-efficacy judgments 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). Shaping juror 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, 86, 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.
