When making judgements under uncertainty not only lay people but also professional judges often rely on heuristics like a numerical anchor (e.g., a numerical sentencing demand) to generate a numerical response. As the prosecution has the privilege to present its demand first, some scholars have speculated about an anchoring-based unfair disadvantage for the defence (who has the last albeit less effective word in court). Despite the plausibility of this reasoning, it is based on a hitherto untested assumption that the first of two sequential anchors exerts a greater influence on a later judgement (a primacy effect). We argue that it is also conceivable that the last word in court has a recency advantage (a recency effect) or that order does not matter as both demands even each other out (a combined anchor).

中文翻译：

---

联合锚定：起诉和辩护索赔作为法庭上的连续锚定

在不确定的情况下做出判断时，不仅是外行，而且专业法官也经常依赖启发式方法，例如数字锚（例如，数字量刑要求）来生成数字响应。由于控方有权首先提出其要求，一些学者推测基于锚定的辩方不公平劣势（他们在法庭上拥有最后的话语权，尽管效率较低）。尽管这种推理是合理的，但它基于迄今为止未经检验的假设，即两个连续锚点中的第一个对后来的判断产生更大的影响（首要效应）。我们认为，也可以想象法庭上的最后一句话具有近因优势（近因效应），或者该顺序无关紧要，因为两者都要求甚至彼此（组合锚）。