Charged Up and Anchored Down:  A Test of Two Pathways to Judgmental and Decisional Anchoring Biases in Plea Negotiations
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Prosecutors sometimes threaten defendants with disproportionately severe potential trial sentences (PTS) to coerce their plea acceptance. Three experiments tested whether the PTS acts as an anchor that biases evaluations of the plea deal at deep (vs. shallow) processing level by encouraging asymmetric consideration of information consistent—but not inconsistent—with the appropriateness of the PTS. I expected that a high (vs. moderate) PTS would lead to greater plea acceptance by increasing maximum acceptable sentencing preferences and influencing evidence appraisals. I tested two anchor debiasing strategies: selective consideration of anchor-inconsistent evidence (Consider-the-Opposite Strategy; COS) and holistic consideration of all evidence (via process accountability). Participants read detailed information about their criminal case ' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["plea negotiation"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Prosecutors sometimes threaten defendants with disproportionately severe potential trial sentences (PTS) to coerce their plea acceptance. Three experiments tested whether the PTS acts as an anchor that biases evaluations of the plea deal at deep (vs. shallow) processing level by encouraging asymmetric consideration of information consistent—but not inconsistent—with the appropriateness of the PTS. I expected that a high (vs. moderate) PTS would lead to greater plea acceptance by increasing maximum acceptable sentencing preferences and influencing evidence appraisals. I tested two anchor debiasing strategies: selective consideration of anchor-inconsistent evidence (Consider-the-Opposite Strategy; COS) and holistic consideration of all evidence (via process accountability). Participants read detailed information about their criminal case ' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
Prosecutors sometimes threaten defendants with disproportionately severe potential trial sentences (PTS) to coerce their plea acceptance. Three experiments tested whether the PTS acts as an anchor that biases evaluations of the plea deal at deep (vs. shallow) processing level by encouraging asymmetric consideration of information consistent—but not inconsistent—with the appropriateness of the PTS. I expected that a high (vs. moderate) PTS would lead to greater plea acceptance by increasing maximum acceptable sentencing preferences and influencing evidence appraisals. I tested two anchor debiasing strategies: selective consideration of anchor-inconsistent evidence (Consider-the-Opposite Strategy; COS) and holistic consideration of all evidence (via process accountability). Participants read detailed information about their criminal case 
plea negotiation