Birte Englich
Biographic Data
| ID | 4115441 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Birte Englich |
| GIVEN NAMES | Birte |
| FAMILY NAME | Englich |
| SIGNATURE | ENGLICH B |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Cologne |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 9 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 20 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 9 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2003 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2020 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
No Replication, No Trust? How Low Replicability Influences Trust in Psychology
In the current psychological debate, low replicability of psychological findings is a central topic. While the discussion about the replication crisis has a huge impact on psychological research, we know less about how it impacts public trust in psychology. In this article, we examine whether low replicability damages public trust and how this damage can be repaired. Studies 1–3 provide correlational and experimental evidence that low replicabili…
If you judge, investigate! Responsibility reduces confirmatory information processing in legal experts
Fair and well justified judicial decisions require that judges evaluate and interpret all relevant facts. However, heuristics and other shortcuts are used here as well. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that experts may be subject to the same decision biases as laypeople. Therefore, we investigated whether and to what extent judicial experts are protected against confirmatory information processing (CIP), a tendency to seek out (selective ex…
When Relevance Matters: Anchoring Effects Can be Larger for Relevant Than for Irrelevant Anchors
Studies on anchoring effects indicate that judgments can be biased by previous comparisons to high- or low-anchor values. Anchoring effects have been demonstrated in many domains and they have been found both for relevant anchors that provide partially valid information concerning the assessed target as well as for irrelevant anchors that clearly don’t. Based on previous findings it has been argued that anchoring effects are independent of the re…
Bullseye: How Power Improves Motor Performance
Power makes people think, feel, and behave in ways that help them to maintain and increase power. Thus far, the mechanisms underlying power’s beneficial effects on goal pursuit have been investigated predominantly on a cognitive level. The present research tested whether power influences goal pursuit in an even more fundamental way, namely by improving actual behavior on motor-based tasks. Furthermore, we suggest that this effect is produced by c…
Empower my decisions: The effects of power gestures on confirmatory information processing
When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks
The present research examines whether anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard—depend on judges' available knowledge in the target domain. Based on previous research, I distinguish two types of anchoring effects. Standard anchoring is obtained if judges are explicitly asked to compare the anchor to the target. Basic anchoring results if the accessibility of the anchor is increased prior to …
Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making
Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Stu…
Blind or Biased? Justitia's Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations
This article presents an integrative review of recent research on anchoring effects in the courtroom as one example for the strong impact of representation norms on sentencing decisions. Anchoring effects – the assimilation of numerical judgments to a given standard – have been demonstrated in many judgmental domains. Even sentencing decisions are subject to anchoring effects. In court proceedings this gives disproportionate weight to the prosecu…
Adapting to the Euro: Evidence from bias reduction
Adapting to the Euro: Evidence from bias reduction
Blind or Biased? Justitia's Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations
This article presents an integrative review of recent research on anchoring effects in the courtroom as one example for the strong impact of representation norms on sentencing decisions. Anchoring effects – the assimilation of numerical judgments to a given standard – have been demonstrated in many judgmental domains. Even sentencing decisions are subject to anchoring effects. In court proceedings this gives disproportionate weight to the prosecu…
Empower my decisions: The effects of power gestures on confirmatory information processing
When Relevance Matters: Anchoring Effects Can be Larger for Relevant Than for Irrelevant Anchors
Studies on anchoring effects indicate that judgments can be biased by previous comparisons to high- or low-anchor values. Anchoring effects have been demonstrated in many domains and they have been found both for relevant anchors that provide partially valid information concerning the assessed target as well as for irrelevant anchors that clearly don’t. Based on previous findings it has been argued that anchoring effects are independent of the re…
When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks
The present research examines whether anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard—depend on judges' available knowledge in the target domain. Based on previous research, I distinguish two types of anchoring effects. Standard anchoring is obtained if judges are explicitly asked to compare the anchor to the target. Basic anchoring results if the accessibility of the anchor is increased prior to …
If you judge, investigate! Responsibility reduces confirmatory information processing in legal experts
Fair and well justified judicial decisions require that judges evaluate and interpret all relevant facts. However, heuristics and other shortcuts are used here as well. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that experts may be subject to the same decision biases as laypeople. Therefore, we investigated whether and to what extent judicial experts are protected against confirmatory information processing (CIP), a tendency to seek out (selective ex…
Adapting to the Euro: Evidence from bias reduction
Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making
Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Stu…
Blind or Biased? Justitia's Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations
This article presents an integrative review of recent research on anchoring effects in the courtroom as one example for the strong impact of representation norms on sentencing decisions. Anchoring effects – the assimilation of numerical judgments to a given standard – have been demonstrated in many judgmental domains. Even sentencing decisions are subject to anchoring effects. In court proceedings this gives disproportionate weight to the prosecu…
When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks
The present research examines whether anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard—depend on judges' available knowledge in the target domain. Based on previous research, I distinguish two types of anchoring effects. Standard anchoring is obtained if judges are explicitly asked to compare the anchor to the target. Basic anchoring results if the accessibility of the anchor is increased prior to …
Empower my decisions: The effects of power gestures on confirmatory information processing
Bullseye: How Power Improves Motor Performance
Power makes people think, feel, and behave in ways that help them to maintain and increase power. Thus far, the mechanisms underlying power’s beneficial effects on goal pursuit have been investigated predominantly on a cognitive level. The present research tested whether power influences goal pursuit in an even more fundamental way, namely by improving actual behavior on motor-based tasks. Furthermore, we suggest that this effect is produced by c…
When Relevance Matters: Anchoring Effects Can be Larger for Relevant Than for Irrelevant Anchors
Studies on anchoring effects indicate that judgments can be biased by previous comparisons to high- or low-anchor values. Anchoring effects have been demonstrated in many domains and they have been found both for relevant anchors that provide partially valid information concerning the assessed target as well as for irrelevant anchors that clearly don’t. Based on previous findings it has been argued that anchoring effects are independent of the re…
If you judge, investigate! Responsibility reduces confirmatory information processing in legal experts
Fair and well justified judicial decisions require that judges evaluate and interpret all relevant facts. However, heuristics and other shortcuts are used here as well. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that experts may be subject to the same decision biases as laypeople. Therefore, we investigated whether and to what extent judicial experts are protected against confirmatory information processing (CIP), a tendency to seek out (selective ex…
No Replication, No Trust? How Low Replicability Influences Trust in Psychology
In the current psychological debate, low replicability of psychological findings is a central topic. While the discussion about the replication crisis has a huge impact on psychological research, we know less about how it impacts public trust in psychology. In this article, we examine whether low replicability damages public trust and how this damage can be repaired. Studies 1–3 provide correlational and experimental evidence that low replicabili…
Psychology (9 works) · Social Psychology (8 works) · Computer Science (5 works) · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics (5 works) · Anchoring (4 works) · Cognitive psychology (4 works) · Social and Intergroup Psychology (4 works) · Social Psychology (4 works) · Law (3 works) · Political science (3 works)