Gutenberg Open Science: Combined anchoring : prosecution and defense claims as sequential anchors in the courtroom

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8086

Full metadata record

DC Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Imhoff, Roland	-
dc.contributor.author	Nickolaus, Christoph	-
dc.date.accessioned	2022-11-14T09:55:13Z	-
dc.date.available	2022-11-14T09:55:13Z	-
dc.date.issued	2021	-
dc.identifier.uri	https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/8101	-
dc.description.abstract	Purpose When making judgements under uncertainty not only lay people but also professional judges often rely on heuristics like a numerical anchor (e.g., a numerical sentencing demand) to generate a numerical response. As the prosecution has the privilege to present its demand first, some scholars have speculated about an anchoring-based unfair disadvantage for the defence (who has the last albeit less effective word in court). Despite the plausibility of this reasoning, it is based on a hitherto untested assumption that the first of two sequential anchors exerts a greater influence on a later judgement (a primacy effect). We argue that it is also conceivable that the last word in court has a recency advantage (a recency effect) or that order does not matter as both demands even each other out (a combined anchor). Methods We report a pre-registered experiment with German law students (N = 475) who were randomly assigned to six experimental conditions in a study on legal decision-making order to test these three possibilities. Results Results indicate an influence of both the prosecution and the defence recommendation, but no effect of order. Conclusion This provides strong support for combined anchoring even for knowledgeable participants and rich case material. Specifically, the data are best compatible with the notion that both anchors exert an influence but each on different individuals. The implications of this finding for theory and legal decision-making are discussed.	en_GB
dc.language.iso	eng	de
dc.rights	CC BY-NC	*
dc.rights.uri	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/	*
dc.subject.ddc	150 Psychologie	de_DE
dc.subject.ddc	150 Psychology	en_GB
dc.title	Combined anchoring : prosecution and defense claims as sequential anchors in the courtroom	en_GB
dc.type	Zeitschriftenaufsatz	de
dc.identifier.doi	http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8086	-
jgu.type.dinitype	article	en_GB
jgu.type.version	Published version	de
jgu.type.resource	Text	de
jgu.organisation.department	FB 02 Sozialwiss., Medien u. Sport	de
jgu.organisation.number	7910	-
jgu.organisation.name	Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz	-
jgu.rights.accessrights	openAccess	-
jgu.journal.title	Legal and criminological psychology	de
jgu.journal.volume	26	de
jgu.journal.issue	2	de
jgu.pages.start	215	de
jgu.pages.end	227	de
jgu.publisher.year	2021	-
jgu.publisher.name	Wiley	de
jgu.publisher.place	Hoboken, NJ u.a.	de
jgu.publisher.issn	2044-8333	de
jgu.organisation.place	Mainz	-
jgu.subject.ddccode	150	de
jgu.publisher.doi	10.1111/lcrp.12192	de
jgu.organisation.ror	https://ror.org/023b0x485	-
Appears in collections:	JGU-Publikationen

Files in This Item:

	File	Description	Size	Format
	combined_anchoring__prosecuti-20221017155112153.pdf		301.57 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Show simple item record