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

Gretchen B. Chapman, Brian H. Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

160 Scopus citations


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
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1996
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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


Dive into the research topics of 'The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this