Abstract
Zusammenfassung: Ausgehend von bisherigen Befunden zu Ankereffekten in der richterlichen Urteilsbildung sowie dem Modell selektiver Zugänglichkeit untersucht die vorliegende Studie, inwieweit auch parteiische Zwischenrufe im Gerichtssaal einen Einfluss auf strafrechtliche Entscheidungen haben können. In einem 2 × 2-faktoriellen Experiment lasen 177 RechtsreferendarInnen vollständige und realistische Materialien zu einem Vergewaltigungsfall, bei dem ein offensichtlich parteiischer Zwischenrufer aus dem Zuschauerraum eine niedrige oder hohe Strafe forderte. Je nach Versuchsbedingung wurden die UntersuchungsteilnehmerInnen gebeten oder nicht, sich kurz mit dieser Zwischenruferforderung zu beschäftigen. Zentrale abhängige Variable war die richterliche Strafzumessung in Monaten. Die Ergebnisse belegen einen deutlichen Ankereffekt der parteiischen Zwischenruferforderung auf die richterliche Entscheidungsfindung. Notwendige Voraussetzung für diesen Einfluss war hierbei eine Beschäftigung mit der irrelevanten Zahlenvorgabe. Dieses Ergebnis wird anhand des Modells selektiver Zugänglichkeit interpretiert. Chancen und Grenzen der Korrektur solcher Ankereffekte irrelevanter Forderungen im Gerichtssaal werden beleuchtet.
Abstract: On the basis of previous results on anchoring effects in the courtroom as well as the selective accessibility model, the current study examines whether even a partisan heckler shouting into the courtroom may influence judicial sentencing decisions. In a 2 × 2 - factorial experiment, 177 junior lawyers read complete and realistic materials on a rape case, in which an obviously biased heckler from the audience demands a low or a high sentence. Participants were or were not instructed to shortly elaborate on this demand. The central dependent variable was the judge's sentencing decision in months. Results reveal a clear anchoring effect of a partisan heckler's demand on judges' sentencing decisions. A necessary precondition for this effect is elaboration on the irrelevant anchor. This result is interpreted from a selective accessibility perspective. Possibilities as well as limits for corrections of this kind of anchoring effects of irrelevant anchors in the courtroom are discussed.
References
Blair, I.V. , Judd, C.M. , Chapleau, K.M. (2004). The influence of afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15, 674– 678 .Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance . New York: Academic Press .Brewer, N.T. , Chapman, G.B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65– 77 .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 .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 .Chapman, G.B. , Johnson, E.J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223– 242 .Chapman, G.B. , Johnson, E.J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1– 39 .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 .Englich, B. (2001). Psychologische Rhetorik für Juristen - Evaluation eines sozialpsychologisch fundierten Trainingsprogramms . Hamburg: Kovac .Englich, B. , Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535– 1551 .Englich, B. , Mussweiler, T. , Strack, F. (in presshyphen;a). The last word in court - A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior,Englich, B. , Mussweiler, T. , Strack, F. (in presshyphen;b). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,Jacowitz, K.E. , Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161– 1166 .Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press .Hastie, R. , Schkade, D.A. , Payne, J.W. (1999). Juror judgement in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445– 470 .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 .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 .Martin, E.G. , Alonso, C.H. (1997). Influence of the prosecutor's plea on the judge's sentencing in sexual crimes: Hypothesis of the theory of anchoring by Tversky and Kahneman. In S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Perez & R. Barberel (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 215-226). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter .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(2), 91– 103 .Mussweiler, T. , Englich, B. (in press). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,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, England: Wiley .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 .Mussweiler, T. , Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038– 1052 .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 .Nagel, S. (1962). Judicial backgrounds and criminal cases. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science, 53, 333– 339 .Partridge, A. , Eldridge, W.B. (1974). The second circuit sentencing study . Washington D.C.: The Federal Judicial Center .Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307– 326 .Pruitt, C.R. , Wilson, J.Q. (1983). A longitudinal study of the effect of race on sentencing. Law and Society Review, 17, 613– 635 .Schmid, J. , Fiedler, K. (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language on judicial attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140– 1172 .Schmid, J. , Fiedler, K. , Englich, B. , Ehrenberger, T. , Semin, G.R. (1996). Taking sides with the defendant: Grammatical choice and the influence of implicit attributions in prosecution and defense speeches. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12, 127– 148 .Sorensen, J.R. , Wallace, D.H. (1995). Capital punishment in Missouri: Examining the issue of racial disparity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13(1), 61– 80 .Strack, F. , Hannover, B. (1996). Awareness of influence as a precondition for implementing correctional goals. In P. Gollwitzer & J. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 579-596). New York: Guilford .Strack, F. , Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437– 446 .Trope, Y. , Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239-270). New York: Guilford .Tröndle, H. , Fischer, T. (2003). Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze 51. Auflage. München: C.H. Beck .Tversky, A. , Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124– 1131 .Wegner, D.M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34– 52 .Wegner, D.M. , Ansfield, M. , Pilloff, D. (1998). The Putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of action. Psychological Science, 9, 196– 199 .Wegner, D.M. , Schneider, D.J. , Carter, S.R. , White, T.L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5– 13 .Wilson, T.D. , Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117– 142 .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 .Wong, K.F.E. , Kwong, J.Y.Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7. km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 314– 333 .
