Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: A meta-analysis

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Legal Psychology
• Behavioral Economics

Background:

• The anchoring effect, a cognitive bias, occurs when individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions.
• This bias is well-documented in general decision-making but its specific impact and moderators within legal contexts require further investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To conduct a meta-analysis examining the susceptibility of numeric legal decision-making to anchoring effects.
• To identify factors that may moderate the magnitude of the anchoring effect in legal settings.

Main Methods:

• A meta-analysis synthesizing data from 29 studies comprising 93 effect sizes and 8,549 participants.
• Analysis employed random-effects models with robust variance estimation to calculate overall effect sizes.
• Metaregression was used to assess the influence of methodological, psychological, and legal moderators.

Main Results:

• Significant anchoring effects were observed in legal decision-making, both in studies with (d = .58) and without (d = .91) control groups.
• Preliminary evidence suggests that legal expertise and the relevance of the anchor may moderate the anchoring effect.
• Potential publication bias was noted as a limitation.

Conclusions:

• The findings confirm that anchoring effects are prevalent in legal decision-making.
• Situational factors, particularly those related to legal practice, appear to influence the strength of these effects.
• Further research is warranted to explore strategies for mitigating the impact of anchoring bias in legal contexts.