Sentencing under uncertainty¶
Enough, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1535-1551.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Anchoring
- Structural tension: Domain expertise provides more information for anchor-independent judgment, but empirically does not eliminate anchoring effects; trained judges, appraisers, and clinicians show anchoring comparable to novices on well-constructed measures.
This sourceExperienced trial judges' sentencing recommendations were pulled toward high vs. low prosecutorial-demand anchors; judicial experience did not eliminate the effect.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The paper's own abstract shows sentencing anchoring persisted regardless of judges' experience, supporting only the judges clause of a claim that also names appraisers and clinicians.
“Study 3 demonstrates that this influence is also independent of judges' experience.”
- Structural tension: Domain expertise provides more information for anchor-independent judgment, but empirically does not eliminate anchoring effects; trained judges, appraisers, and clinicians show anchoring comparable to novices on well-constructed measures.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b4b703b2492c · see in the full table