CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,431Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsJudicial and Constitutional StudiesLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems

Extraneous factors in judicial decisions

Open access
Danziger, Shai, Levav, Jonathan, Avnaim-Pesso, Liora·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1018033108PMC PMC3084045
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Are judicial rulings based solely on laws and facts? Legal formalism holds that judges apply legal reasons to the facts of a case in a rational, mechanical, and deliberative manner. In contrast, legal realists argue that the rational application of legal reasons does not sufficiently explain the decisions of judges and that psychological, political, and social factors influence judicial rulings. We test the common caricature of realism that justice is “what the judge ate for breakfast” in sequential parole decisions made by experienced judges. We record the judges’ two daily food breaks, which result in segmenting the deliberations of the day into three distinct “decision sessions.” We find that the percentage of favorable rulings drops gradually from ≈65% to nearly zero within each decision session and returns abruptly to ≈65% after a break. Our findings suggest that judicial rulings can be swayed by extraneous variables that should have no bearing on legal decisions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1018033108

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Category C (Level 8) relates to human nature, the architecture of human cognition, and human emotional needs, such as top-down cognitive processes, selective attention, the need for closure, and confirmation bias.

    “Finally, Category C (Level 8), has nothing to do with the specific case or the specific person doing the work, but relates to human nature, the architecture of human cognition, as well as human emotional needs, as briefly discussed earlier this can relate to top-down cognitive processes, selective attention, the need for closure, confirmation bias, etc. (e.g., Danziger et al., 2011; Nickerson, 199”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Danziger et al., 2011

    The Discussion reports that judges’ decisions can be influenced by legally irrelevant factors and suggests that decision simplification may apply to human decision-making more generally. That supports using this paper as an example of general cognitive influences, but it does not address the specific processes listed—top-down processing, selective attention, need for closure, or confirmation bias—or human emotional needs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. [1]Leiter B. In: The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Edmundson W, Golding M, editors. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005. pp. 50–66. [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Neuborne B. Of sausage factories and syllogism machines: Formalism, realism and exclusionary selection techniques. NYU L Rev. 1992;67:419–449. [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Holmes OW. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown; 1881. [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Frank J. Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Brentano's; 1930. [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Kozinski A. What I ate for breakfast and other mysteries of judicial decision making. Loyola LA L Rev. 1993;26:993. [Google Scholar]
  6. [7]Pocheptsova A, Amir O, Dhar R, Baumeister RF. Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. J Mkt Res. 2009;46:344–355. [Google Scholar]
  7. [8]Vohs KD, et al. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94:883–898. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Levav J, Heitmann H, Herrmann A, Iyengar SS. Order in product customization decisions: Evidence from field experiments. J Polit Econ. 2010;118:274–299. [Google Scholar]
  9. [10]Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge Univ Press, New York; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  10. [13]Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF. The physiology of willpower: Linking blood glucose to self-control. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11:303–327. doi: 10.1177/1088868307303030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  11. [15]Steffensmeier D, Britt CL. Judges'race and judicial decision making: Do black judges sentence differently. Soc Sci Q. 2001;82:749–764. [Google Scholar]
  12. [16]Gazal-Eyal O, Sulitzeanu-Kenan R. Let my people go: Ethnic in-group bias in judicial decisions-Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Journal of Empir Leg Stud. 2010;7:403–428. [Google Scholar]
  13. [17]Blair IV, Judd CM, Chapleau KM. The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychol Sci. 2004;15:674–679. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00739.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  14. [18]Spohn C.C. In: Criminal Justice 2000: Vol. 3. Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. Horney J, editor. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2000. pp. 427–501. [Google Scholar]
  15. [19]Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev. 2001;86:777–830. [Google Scholar]
  16. [20]Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Rev. 2007;93:1–44. [Google Scholar]
  17. [21]Vidmar N. The psychology of trial judging. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20:58–62. [Google Scholar]
  18. [22]Northcraft GB, Neale MA. Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1987;39:228–241. [Google Scholar]
  19. [24]Dhami MK. Psychological models of professional decision making. Psychol Sci. 2003;14:175–180. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Columbia University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-04-11
Volume
108
Issue
17
Pages
6889-6892
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1018033108
PMC
PMC3084045
OpenAlex
W1991486227
Cited by
1,431
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 111 · 2024: 157 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 113 · 2021: 142 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 144 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 27
FWCI
24.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Keywords
judicial decision-making, legal realism, legal formalism, parole decisions, judicial behavior, extraneous factors, judicial bias, psychology of judges
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Cognition, Mental Fatigue, Feeding Behavior, Female, Humans, Jurisprudence, Male, Time Factors, Workload

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review