Attitudes or strategic constraints? Gender and judging revisited

Research has so far explained gender differences in judicial decision-making as a result of attitudinal factors. Yet, economists have shown that women are more risk averse than men. More recent research also suggests that differences in risk aversion affect political behavior and that the mechanism of accountability may be biased towards women. Judges often decide cases that have direct political consequences for governments, who in turn are tasked with appointing judges. In this paper, I explore how gender risk aversion and mechanisms of accountability affect judicial decision-making. I argue that the differences in risk aversion lead judicial accountability mechanisms to affect female and male judges differently. As women are more risk averse, the potential ramifications of decisions that are unfriendly to governments are weighted more heavily by female judges. This explains why they are more likely to rule in favor of their appointing governments compared to their male counterparts.