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

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.

[1]  J. Payne,et al.  Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards , 1999 .

[2]  S. Diamond.  Exploring Sources of Sentence Disparity , 1981 .

[3]  F. Strack,et al.  The Semantics of Anchoring , 2001 .

[4]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. , 1999 .

[5]  William F. Wright,et al.  Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment , 1989 .

[6]  Regina A. Schuller,et al.  Police Responses to Sexual Assault Complaints: The Role of Perpetrator/Complainant Intoxication , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[7]  D. Cervone,et al.  Anchoring, Efficacy and Action: The Influence of Judgmental Heuristics on Self-Efficacy Judgments a , 1986 .

[8]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[9]  A. Tenbrunsel,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 2013 .

[10]  F. Strack,et al.  The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms , 2005 .

[12]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring , 1999 .

[13]  John M. Malouff,et al.  Shaping juror attitudes: effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials , 1989 .

[14]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility , 2000 .

[15]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions , 1987 .

[16]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  E. Ebbesen,et al.  The Process of Sentencing Adult Felons , 1981 .

[18]  Mandeep K. Dhami,et al.  Psychological Models of Professional Decision Making , 2003, Psychological science.

[19]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  The Last Word in Court—A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense , 2005, Law and human behavior.

[20]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[21]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  C. Judd,et al.  The Influence of Afrocentric Facial Features in Criminal Sentencing , 2004, Psychological science.

[23]  Brian H. Bornstein,et al.  The More You Ask For, the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts , 1996 .

[24]  M. Brewer,et al.  A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. , 1979 .

[25]  D. Dutton,et al.  Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. , 1974, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. , 1990 .

[27]  Edward B. Royzman,et al.  Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion , 2001 .

[28]  B. Krahé.  Social Psychological Issues in the Study of Rape , 1991 .

[29]  Nicholas Epley,et al.  A Tale of Tuned Decks? Anchoring as Accessibility and Anchoring as Adjustment , 2008 .

[30]  N. Epley,et al.  Putting Adjustment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: Differential Processing of Self-Generated and Experimenter-Provided Anchors , 2001, Psychological science.

[31]  G. Bodenhausen.  Stereotypes as Judgmental Heuristics: Evidence of Circadian Variations in Discrimination , 1990 .

[32]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .

[33]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Numeric Judgments under Uncertainty: The Role of Knowledge in Anchoring , 2000 .

[34]  Edward J. Joyce,et al.  Anchoring and Adjustment In Probabilistic Inference in Auditing , 1981 .

[35]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom1 , 2001 .

[36]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[37]  Roselle L. Wissler,et al.  Be careful what you ask for: the effect of anchors on personal injury damages awards. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[38]  M. Clark,et al.  Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology , 1990 .

[39]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[40]  Joel D. Lieberman,et al.  Head Over the Heart or Heart Over the Head? Cognitive Experiential Self‐Theory and Extralegal Heuristics in Juror Decision Making1 , 2002 .

[41]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value , 2002 .

[42]  M. Hynie,et al.  Perceptions of Sexual Intent: The Impact of Condom Possession , 2003 .

[43]  F. Strack,et al.  Approach and avoidance: the influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.