In short: the supposed effect is absurdly large, with the probability of a favorable ruling going from 65% to almost 0% before a break. The far more likely explanation is that, since the order of cases is not random, worse cases are scheduled last. In particular, it makes sense for judges to put short cases last rather than ones anticipated to go over time, and losing cases are shorter.
This sort of explanation should be the first thing we consider when hearing about a supposed effect like this. Outside of actual randomized control trials selection bias tends to be more powerful than the effect being investigated and common methods like "we controlled for some things we thought of and assumed any remaining discrepancy was the effect we're looking for" are inadequate for dealing with it.
p
Daniel Lakens: Impossibly Hungry Judges
Andreas Glöckner: The irrational hungry judge effect revisited: Simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated
In short: the supposed effect is absurdly large, with the probability of a favorable ruling going from 65% to almost 0% before a break. The far more likely explanation is that, since the order of cases is not random, worse cases are scheduled last. In particular, it makes sense for judges to put short cases last rather than ones anticipated to go over time, and losing cases are shorter.
This sort of explanation should be the first thing we consider when hearing about a supposed effect like this. Outside of actual randomized control trials selection bias tends to be more powerful than the effect being investigated and common methods like "we controlled for some things we thought of and assumed any remaining discrepancy was the effect we're looking for" are inadequate for dealing with it.
More options
Context Copy link