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

Objective: We conducted a meta-analysis to examine whether numeric decision-making in law is susceptible the effect of (possibly arbitrary) values present decision contexts (anchoring effect) and investigate which factors might moderate this effect. Hypotheses: predicted that presence anchors would bias legal decision-makers' judgment direction anchor value. hypothesized size anchoring be moderated by several variables, we grouped into three categories: methodological (type stimuli; type sample), psychological (standard vs. basic paradigm; value; scale on participants assessed target value), (relevance anchor; area presented case belonged; any salient other than main anchor). Method: Twenty-nine studies (93 sizes; N = 8,549) met inclusion criteria. divided them two groups, depending they included control group, calculated overall using random-effects Model with robust variance estimation. influence moderators random effects metaregression. Results: The sizes for group (z .27, 95% CI [.21, .33], d .58, [.44, .73]) without .39, [.31, .47], .91, [.69, 1.12]) were both significant, although provide some evidence possible publication bias. found preliminary potential moderating legally relevant factors, such as expertise or relevance. Conclusions: Existing research indicates exist contexts. seems depend situational paves way future countering problematic settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).