Parole decisions worsen as judges tire and recover after food breaks

Evidence

Danziger, Levav, and Avnaim-Pesso (2011) reported another type of cognitive bias in judicial decisions. They analyzed data of parole decisions in Israel and found that the probability of a favorable parole decision declined significantly as judges adjudicated the cases sequentially, but that the propensity to grant parole increased after the judge took a break for food and tea. In other words, the more cases judges saw in a row, the worse the outcome for the defendant; and, if the judge took a break for food, the next set of defendants he or she saw received favorable treatment. This suggests that the time of the day when the judge hears a case has an impact on the outcome, as the irritability of judges varies over the course of the day (and in somewhat predictable fashion). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 755

Categorization

• SHARE: Send to anyone studying decision fatigue or legal procedure — the food-break recovery effect is a concrete, replicable find.
• CANDY: Whether an Israeli prisoner gets parole depends on when the judge last ate — a grimly funny administrative detail.