The Psychological Toll of Decision Making: How Judges’ Rulings are Swayed by Decision Fatigue
Judicial rulings are a cornerstone of the American legal system, often involving decisions that hold the power to shape people’s lives and future opportunities for success. As a foundational piece in achieving justice, these decisions should be made in objective ways that produce fair results. However, decision fatigue, the mental toll associated with making decisions, sways these rulings in arbitrary ways by causing irrelevant factors to play a role in trial outcomes. To combat this problem, the American legal system should be amended to include more daily breaks, a monitoring system for judges, and education courses on decision fatigue; these implementations will mitigate the toll of decision-making and help uphold the integrity and impartiality of courtroom decisions.
Decision fatigue is a psychological principle rooted in the Strength Model of Self-Control, which contends that humans possess a limited capacity to control their behavior and make logical decisions. [1] Specifically, decision fatigue refers to a state experienced when “repeated acts of decision-making” result in an “impaired ability to make decisions and control behavior.” [2] Choices made by someone encountering decision fatigue are likely to be “impulsive or irrational” as this state hinders one’s “ability to make trade-offs” and decreases the overall quality of decisions [2]. This undermines the objectivity of our legal system as judges experiencing decision fatigue are more likely to make suboptimal choices that have life-changing impacts for defendants.
Legal theory maintains that judicial decisions should be founded in logic and stare decisis, precedent based on previous rulings and established laws. The ruling from a foundational case in our judicial system, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963), holds that laws are “safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.” [3] Decision fatigue threatens these tenets by introducing randomness into the legal system. One experiment examined the favorability of rulings when judges had two daily breaks and found that “the percentage of favorable rulings drops gradually from [around sixty-five percent] to nearly zero within each decision session and returns abruptly to [around sixty-five percent] after a break.” [4] These outcomes can be explained by the fact that breaks counteract decision fatigue by resetting the effects of mental weariness and allowing cognitive resources to be replenished. Therefore, decision rates immediately after breaks are the closest reflection of judges’ authentic opinions. A drop in the favorable decision rate by sixty-five percent between each break period means that subjectivity is present within the judiciary system; defendants’ outcomes are being heavily influenced by the time of day at which their trial is held, a factor that should be irrelevant in any legal matter.
Decision fatigue also endangers the fairness of legal decisions by making people susceptible to heuristics, methods of decision-making that are quicker but more prone to error. [5] In particular, judges may fall victim to the anchoring heuristic, a cognitive shortcut that causes a heavy reliance on “the first piece of information [one is] given about a topic” when trying to make a choice about that subject [6]. This is especially problematic in judicial systems, as the first piece of information judges are given about defendants usually involves a connotation of guilt or measure of wrongdoing. Decision fatigue has tangible effects on trial outcomes, such as decreasing judge engagement in trials, increasing set bail amounts [7], and decreasing the chance of charges being dismissed in arraignment hearings. [8] Decision fatigue, and the resulting dependence on the anchoring heuristic, may cause judges to rely on their pre-existing negative knowledge about defendants instead of equitably considering the facts of trials in a logical manner. When this biased decision-making occurs, judges are more likely to rule in ways that are unfavorable to defendants; these options are usually easier in that they minimize the risk of future harm to society. Although these may technically be the safer choices, they are not necessarily just ones; these biased rulings can confer unwarranted or prolonged punishment on people deserving of a second chance.
To combat the problem of inequity in our legal system, reforms should be introduced that reduce judges’ susceptibility to decision fatigue. Currently, judges are often given between one and three breaks per day, including a lunch break. [9] A longer break for lunch should remain, but more frequent, shorter breaks should replace the other two medium breaks. Introducing even a five to ten minute break in between each case would make trial outcomes more reliable as even a short rest period is effective in overcoming decision fatigue. [6] Furthermore, decision-fatigue is also combated by feelings of positivity and serenity. [1] As such, viewing nature scenes can also help battle the effects of mental weariness. [6] Whenever possible given courtroom locations, judges’ breaks should be taken outside in parks, gardens, or other scenic areas. It might even be beneficial to implement a development project with the focus of constructing more green spaces outside or near large courthouses.
Another judicial reform that would help mitigate decision fatigue is to introduce a monitoring system for judges. Direct “monitoring of behavior, such as explicit feedback about task performance,” minimizes decision fatigue by facilitating reflection about one’s choices and decision patterns. [1] Similarly, introspection about one’s decisions also draws more attention to individual choices, forcing judges to view each case for its own merits rather than as a long string of consecutive rulings. If a monitoring system is unfeasible, it might help to introduce a method of self-reflection that judges could engage in during their five minute breaks between cases.
One’s own outlook on decision fatigue also influences susceptibility to this condition. Regulating behavior and making logical choices are effortful processes; recognition of this fact allows people to combat decision fatigue by being willing to actively work to exercise self-control and make smarter decisions. [1] As such, all judges should be required to participate in an educational course on decision fatigue and learn strategies to mitigate its effects. This training will increase their awareness of external factors that may be affecting their decisions, help improve their mental regulation capabilities, and minimize injustice perpetuated by cognitive fatigue in courtrooms.
Decision fatigue is a threat to the integrity of our legal system; it skews decisions in impartial ways and has life-changing consequences for defendants subject to its effects. To minimize these biases, the American legal system should be reformed to include a higher frequency of breaks for judges, a monitoring system to promote reflection on decisions, and mandatory training on the effects of decision fatigue. Together, these measures will reduce the outcomes of decision fatigue and uphold the impartiality of the law.
Edited by Hanrui Huang
Endnotes
[1] Michael Inzlicht and Brandon Schmeichel, “What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control,” Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, September 2012, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168503/.
[2] Grant A Pignatiello, Richard J Martin, & Ronald L Hickman, “Decision Fatigue: A Conceptual Analysis,” Journal of Health Psychology, January 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119549/.
[3] American Bar Association, “What is the Rule of Law,” https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/global-programs/who-we-are/rule-law-initiative/what-is-rule-of-law/#:~:text=Keeping%20the%20judiciary%20independent%20of,a%20higher%20court%20for%20review.
[4] Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso, “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions,” National Library of Medicine, April 11, 2011, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084045/
[5] Pamela Casey, Kevin Burke & Steve Leben, "Minding the Court: Enhancing the Decision-Making Process,” Court Review, 2013, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ctrev49&id=76&men_tab=srchresults
[6] Pilat and Sekoul, “Anchoring Bias,” The Decision Lab, 2021, https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/anchoring-bias
[7] Luis Torres and Joshua Williams, “Tired Judges? An Examination of the Effect of Decision Fatigue in Bail Proceedings,” Sage Journals, March 16, 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00938548221081072
[8] Rahul Hemrajani and Tony Herbert Jr, “The Effects of Decision Fatigue on Judicial Behavior: A Study of Arkansas Traffic Court Outcomes,” Cambridge University Press, January 31, 2024, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/effects-of-decision-fatigue-on-judicial-behavior-a-study-of-arkansas-traffic-court-outcomes/8B7EB8735C10F7730FB402D6F2E80D70
[9] North Carolina Judicial Branch, “Going to Court Basic Information,” https://www.nccourts.gov/going-to-court/going-to-court-basic-information#:~:text=Almost%20all%20courtrooms%20will%20have,need%20to%20leave%20the%20courtroom%3F