The irrational hungry judge effect revisited (2023)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Revisiting the “Hungry Judge” Effect

  • Many commenters note the original effect size (favorable rulings dropping from ~65% to near 0% before breaks) seems implausibly huge; if true, everyday life (e.g., driving, safety‑critical work) would show obvious lunchtime chaos.
  • The revisiting study is described as simulating “ideal” judges whose decisions are not affected by hunger or case order, yet similar patterns emerge once scheduling and analysis choices are modeled.
  • Some are puzzled the paper says there’s no “conclusive evidence” of extraneous influences, while breaks and workday ends clearly act as time limits.

Case Ordering and Scheduling Effects

  • Key critique: the original study assumed cases were in random order; later work and interviews suggest they are not.
  • Non-random factors cited:
    • Easier/shorter or negative decisions are packed into time-limited morning slots.
    • More complex, often favorable cases are deferred to longer afternoon sessions.
    • Cases grouped by prison, representation status, severity, or lawyer preferences.
  • Several argue this scheduling alone can create the observed pattern without any hunger-driven irrationality.

Is Scheduling Itself a Bias?

  • One camp: ordering by severity/complexity is a practical “shortest job first” strategy to reduce delays and manage witnesses, prisoners, and court logistics.
  • Another camp: pre-sorting cases based on quick impressions or type can embed bias and influence outcomes, even if the judge later sees full details.
  • Some note judges get immediate feedback on how cases actually unfold, which could build predictive skill; others say the feedback mostly reinforces existing norms, not “fairness.”

Psychology, Hunger, and Evolution

  • Multiple commenters doubt that hunger meaningfully changes high-stakes rulings for trained professionals, at least not at the dramatic levels claimed.
  • Others insist hunger clearly affects mood (“hangry”), and it’s not absurd that this could tilt marginal decisions.
  • Speculation about evolutionary logic: hunger might either:
    • Increase exploratory/high‑variance behavior in resource‑scarce situations, or
    • Force a low‑power, simplified decision mode to conserve energy.
      Thread agrees this is interesting but empirically unclear here.

Social Science, Replication, and Use in Practice

  • Widespread frustration with pop‑psych results that are dramatic, media‑friendly, and later fail scrutiny.
  • Calls to:
    • Avoid citing single, unreplicated psychology studies as established fact.
    • Treat the hungry‑judges story as a cautionary tale about overinterpreting correlations.
  • Some confess they changed real behavior (e.g., avoiding pre‑lunch meetings) based on the original study and now see that as premature.