Extraneous factors in judicial decisions.¶
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889-6892.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Cognitive Resource Depletion
- Decision quality, measured by reversals and regrets, declines measurably across the workday, a pattern Danziger, Levav, and Avnaim-Pesso (2011) document in their analysis of parole judges whose favorable rulings drop sharply over a session and rebound after breaks.
This sourceVerified with DOI (note: the prime's text should retain awareness of the published methodological critiques, but the original finding stands as the cited illustration).
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Documents parole rulings falling from about 65% to near zero within a session and resetting after a meal break; it does not measure reversals or regrets.
“the probability of a favorable ruling steadily declines from ≈0.65 to nearly zero and jumps back up to ≈0.65 after a break for a meal.”
- Decision quality, measured by reversals and regrets, declines measurably across the workday, a pattern Danziger, Levav, and Avnaim-Pesso (2011) document in their analysis of parole judges whose favorable rulings drop sharply over a session and rebound after breaks.
- Decision Fatigue
- Judicial and legal systems. Danziger, Levav, and Avnaim-Pesso (2011) landmark study of Israeli parole boards finding favorable rulings drop from ~65% early in docket to near 0% late in docket, then jump to 65% after meal/break; subsequent reanalyses and alternative-explanation debates; broader docket-order effects in sentencing, bail decisions, and judicial performance.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Reports the Israeli parole-board finding: favorable rulings fall from about 65% to nearly zero within each session and return to about 65% after a break; later reanalyses are not covered.
“the probability of a favorable ruling steadily declines from ≈0.65 to nearly zero and jumps back up to ≈0.65 after a break for a meal.”
- Judicial and legal systems. Danziger, Levav, and Avnaim-Pesso (2011) landmark study of Israeli parole boards finding favorable rulings drop from ~65% early in docket to near 0% late in docket, then jump to 65% after meal/break; subsequent reanalyses and alternative-explanation debates; broader docket-order effects in sentencing, bail decisions, and judicial performance.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:60924ea4aa8e · see in the full table