Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making
Englich, Mussweiler and Strack demonstrate that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by sentencing demands that are irrelevant and, in the strongest version, openly random. Across four studies, legal experts anchored their sentences on a given demand and assimilated towards it when the demand came from an irrelevant source, when they were told it had been randomly determined, and when they generated it themselves by throwing dice. Expertise and experience did not reduce the effect, which is the sentence to quote whenever somebody claims professional judgment is immune. A fourth study identifies the mechanism as a selective increase in the accessibility of arguments consistent with the anchor: incriminating arguments came to mind more readily after a high anchor than a low one. This publication credits Englich first, since the study is usually cited as Mussweiler's.
Englich, Mussweiler and Strack demonstrate that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by sentencing demands that are irrelevant and, in the strongest version, openly random. Across four studies, legal experts anchored their sentences on a given demand and assimilated towards it when the demand came from an irrelevant source, when they were told it had been randomly determined, and when they generated it themselves by throwing dice. Expertise and experience did not reduce the effect, which is the sentence to quote whenever somebody claims professional judgment is immune. A fourth study identifies the mechanism as a selective increase in the accessibility of arguments consistent with the anchor: incriminating arguments came to mind more readily after a high anchor than a low one. This publication credits Englich first, since the study is usually cited as Mussweiler's.
Written from the abstract, OpenAlex.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). 'Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making.' Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188-200. Study 3 had legal professionals throw the dice themselves; the paper states that expertise and experience did not reduce the effect. doi:10.1177/0146167205282152
Where we use it
- Why the First Price You See Decides What You Pay, Why We Act
Reliability of this reference
The link below was matched against the publisher's record on title, first author and year, and all three agree.
The source
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152
DOI: 10.1177/0146167205282152