The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts

Gretchen B. Chapman, Brian H. Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

130 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The 'anchoring and adjustment' bias was demonstrated in a personal injury case using mock jurors. In Experiment 1, the ad damnum, or requested compensation, was manipulated across participants. In Experiment 2, anchors were operationalized as the strength of the legal evidence. Both monetary and causal anchors systematically influenced judgments of the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff;s injuries, compensation awarded, and perceptions of the litigants. These results indicate that anchoring occurs in legal applications, and that plaintiffs would do well to request large compensation awards. In addition, anchors expressed on one scale affected judgments expressed on another scale. This cross-modality anchoring stands in contrast to previous studies. Finally, these anchoring effects are unlikely to be explained by either demand effects or perceived relevance of the anchor.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)519-540
Number of pages22
JournalApplied Cognitive Psychology
Volume10
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1996

Fingerprint

Social Adjustment
Wounds and Injuries
Verdict
Anchoring
Anchor
Experiment
Causal
Modality
Jurors

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

The more you ask for, the more you get : Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. / Chapman, Gretchen B.; Bornstein, Brian H.

In: Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 6, 12.1996, p. 519-540.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{36e41a10023e4fb68f73d9556c598dcd,
title = "The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts",
abstract = "The 'anchoring and adjustment' bias was demonstrated in a personal injury case using mock jurors. In Experiment 1, the ad damnum, or requested compensation, was manipulated across participants. In Experiment 2, anchors were operationalized as the strength of the legal evidence. Both monetary and causal anchors systematically influenced judgments of the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff;s injuries, compensation awarded, and perceptions of the litigants. These results indicate that anchoring occurs in legal applications, and that plaintiffs would do well to request large compensation awards. In addition, anchors expressed on one scale affected judgments expressed on another scale. This cross-modality anchoring stands in contrast to previous studies. Finally, these anchoring effects are unlikely to be explained by either demand effects or perceived relevance of the anchor.",
author = "Chapman, {Gretchen B.} and Bornstein, {Brian H.}",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "519--540",
journal = "Applied Cognitive Psychology",
issn = "0888-4080",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The more you ask for, the more you get

T2 - Anchoring in personal injury verdicts

AU - Chapman, Gretchen B.

AU - Bornstein, Brian H.

PY - 1996/12

Y1 - 1996/12

N2 - The 'anchoring and adjustment' bias was demonstrated in a personal injury case using mock jurors. In Experiment 1, the ad damnum, or requested compensation, was manipulated across participants. In Experiment 2, anchors were operationalized as the strength of the legal evidence. Both monetary and causal anchors systematically influenced judgments of the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff;s injuries, compensation awarded, and perceptions of the litigants. These results indicate that anchoring occurs in legal applications, and that plaintiffs would do well to request large compensation awards. In addition, anchors expressed on one scale affected judgments expressed on another scale. This cross-modality anchoring stands in contrast to previous studies. Finally, these anchoring effects are unlikely to be explained by either demand effects or perceived relevance of the anchor.

AB - The 'anchoring and adjustment' bias was demonstrated in a personal injury case using mock jurors. In Experiment 1, the ad damnum, or requested compensation, was manipulated across participants. In Experiment 2, anchors were operationalized as the strength of the legal evidence. Both monetary and causal anchors systematically influenced judgments of the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff;s injuries, compensation awarded, and perceptions of the litigants. These results indicate that anchoring occurs in legal applications, and that plaintiffs would do well to request large compensation awards. In addition, anchors expressed on one scale affected judgments expressed on another scale. This cross-modality anchoring stands in contrast to previous studies. Finally, these anchoring effects are unlikely to be explained by either demand effects or perceived relevance of the anchor.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001067196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0001067196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-5

DO - 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-5

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0001067196

VL - 10

SP - 519

EP - 540

JO - Applied Cognitive Psychology

JF - Applied Cognitive Psychology

SN - 0888-4080

IS - 6

ER -