The hungry judge effect is the observation that judges' verdicts are more lenient following a meal break. This phenomenon suggests that hunger and mental depletion can affect decision-making, leading judges to favor more conservative choices when they have not eaten. As their hunger and fatigue are alleviated after a break, they show a willingness to make bolder decisions.
A landmark study of Israeli parole boards found that the approval rate for parole requests dropped from 65% at the start of hearings to nearly zero before meal breaks, indicating that the judges' capacity to make favorable decisions was significantly influenced by hunger levels.
To mitigate the effects of the hungry judge effect, institutions could schedule important decision-making tasks during or shortly after meal breaks, ensuring that decision-makers are well-fed and alert.