Abstract
<p>Objectives: Overcharging involves threatening disproportionately harsh punishment to widen the discount between the potential sentence if convicted at trial (PTS) and the plea offer sentence. Though larger discounts increase plea acceptance, PTSs can counterintuitively reduce acceptances when discounts are held proportionally constant. Drawing on anchoring theories, I investigate whether this independent effect of PTS reflects distinct processing pathways: lower elaboration influences primarily on maximum acceptable plea sentence, and/or higher elaboration influences on case appraisals (e.g., perceived evidence strength and conviction likelihood).Hypotheses: In Experiments 1a and 1b, I predicted that (a) transparently case-irrelevant anchors, used as a stringent test of low-elaboration influence, would not affect plea decisions. In Experiment 2, I predicted that (b) a relevant, disproportionately harsh PTS would increase maximum acceptable plea sentences; and (c) higher sentencing preferences would increase plea acceptances. Method: Prolific adults read a felony-DUI vignette and rendered a plea decision. Experiments 1a (N = 247) and 1b (N = 193) tested whether irrelevant anchors (48 vs. 8 months to graduate veterinary school) influence plea decisions when procedures discourage treating them as informative. Experiment 2 (N = 844) tested whether a more consequential, case-relevant PTS (18 vs. 4 years vs. none) would promote higher elaboration by altering case appraisals, maximum sentencing preferences, and, in turn, plea decisions.Results: Contrasting prior work, irrelevant anchors did not alter plea acceptances, ORExperiment_1a = 0.95 [0.57, 1.57]; ORExperiment_1b = 1.01 [0.56, 1.80]. In Experiment 2, a disproportionately harsh PTS increased maximum sentencing preferences (d18_vs_4 = 1.04 [0.87, 1.22]; d18_vs_No_PTS = 0.75 [0.58, 0.92]), but, paradoxically, increased estimates of acquittal (OR18_vs_4 = 1.74 [1.25, 2.44]; OR18_vs_No_PTS = 1.56 [1.12, 2.18]), strengthened perceptions of favorable evidence (d18_vs_4 = 0.26 [0.09, 0.42]; d18_vs_No_PTS = 0.22 [0.06, 0.39]), and decreased plea acceptances when compared to a less extreme PTS (OR18_vs_4 = 0.5 [0.32, 0.79]).Conclusions: PTS may influence acceptances through distinct pathways—altering maximum sentencing preferences through less thoughtful processes, but case appraisals via more thoughtful processes. This challenges the rational actor shadow-of-the-trial model assumption that treats PTS and conviction likelihood as independent, exogenous inputs to defendants’ plea decisions. Practically, overcharging may backfire from its intended strategic goal by causing defendants to overestimate their trial prospects.</p>