IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/deveco/v179y2026ics0304387825001737.html

Gender differences in judicial decisions under incomplete information: Evidence from child support cases

Author

Listed:
  • Asmat, Roberto
  • Kossuth, Lajos

Abstract

We study gender differences in child support rulings by judges in cases where defendants (fathers) may work in either the formal or informal sector. Our identification strategy exploits the random assignment of cases to courts presided over by individual judges. We find that female judges award child support amounts that are 0.18 standard deviations lower than those awarded by male judges. When focusing on defendants working in the informal sector (who constitute over 70% of the cases), the gap appears to stem from female judges’ greater skepticism toward what they perceive as inflated claims by plaintiffs, influencing their beliefs about defendants’ earnings. We further explore four potential mechanisms behind the gap that also include formal cases: bias against female plaintiffs, workplace masculinization, interactions with other judge characteristics, and differences in legal objectives. We do not find conclusive statistical support for these mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Asmat, Roberto & Kossuth, Lajos, 2026. "Gender differences in judicial decisions under incomplete information: Evidence from child support cases," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:deveco:v:179:y:2026:i:c:s0304387825001737
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387825001737
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103622?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre-André Chiappori & Yoram Weiss, 2007. "Divorce, Remarriage, and Child Support," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 37-74.
    2. Marta Serra-Garcia & Uri Gneezy, 2021. "Mistakes, Overconfidence, and the Effect of Sharing on Detecting Lies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(10), pages 3160-3183, October.
    3. Bursztyn, Leonardo & Cappelen, Alexander & Tungodden, Bertil & Voena, Alessandra & Yanagizawa-Drott, David, 2023. "How Are Gender Norms Perceived?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 5/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    4. Anders Björklund & Marianne Sundström, 2006. "Parental Separation and Children's Educational Attainment: A Siblings Analysis on Swedish Register Data," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 605-624, November.
    5. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Crystal S Yang, 2018. "Racial Bias in Bail Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1885-1932.
    6. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    7. Arnaud Philippe, 2020. "Gender Disparities in Sentencing," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(348), pages 1037-1077, October.
    8. Randall L. Kiser & Martin A. Asher & Blakeley B. McShane, 2008. "Let's Not Make a Deal: An Empirical Study of Decision Making in Unsuccessful Settlement Negotiations," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 551-591, September.
    9. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    10. Sean Farhang, 2004. "Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 299-330, October.
    11. Paryavi, Maliheh, 2024. "Women lean back when representing others in competitions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Pedro Bordalo & Katherine Coffman & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2019. "Beliefs about Gender," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(3), pages 739-773, March.
    13. Manuel F. Bagues & Berta Esteve-Volart, 2010. "Can Gender Parity Break the Glass Ceiling? Evidence from a Repeated Randomized Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(4), pages 1301-1328.
    14. Matthew Knepper, 2018. "When the Shadow Is the Substance: Judge Gender and the Outcomes of Workplace Sex Discrimination Cases," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(3), pages 623-664.
    15. Coffman, Katherine & Flikkema, Clio Bryant & Shurchkov, Olga, 2021. "Gender stereotypes in deliberation and team decisions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 329-349.
    16. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    17. Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Racial and Sex Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-92, January.
    18. Jonathan P. Kastellec, 2013. "Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 167-183, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roberto Asmat & Lajos Kossuth, 2023. "Gender Differences in Judicial Decisions under Incomplete Information: Evidence from Child Support Cases," Working Papers wp2023_2303, CEMFI.
    2. Muehlheusser, Gerd & Promann, Timo & Roider, Andreas & Wallmeier, Niklas, 2024. "Honesty of Groups: Effects of Size and Gender Composition," IZA Discussion Papers 16954, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Ash, Elliott & Asher, Sam & Bhowmick, Aditi & Bhupatiraju, Sandeep & Chen, Daniel L. & Devi, Tanaya & Goessmann, Christoph & Novosad, Paul & Siddiqi, Bilal, 2022. "Measuring Gender and Religious Bias in the Indian Judiciary," TSE Working Papers 22-1395, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Bourreau-Dubois, Cécile & Doriat-Duban, Myriam & Jeandidier, Bruno & Ray, Jean-Claude, 2020. "Does gender diversity in panels of judges matter? Evidence from French child support cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    6. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.
    7. Robert S. Erikson, 2022. "Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 423-446, June.
    8. Matthew Dahl & Devan N. Patel & Matthew E. K. Hall, 2021. "The Dogma Within? Examining Religious Bias in Private Title VII Claims," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 742-764, December.
    9. Crow, Matthew S. & Goulette, Natalie, 2022. "Judicial diversity and sentencing disparity across U.S. District Courts," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. Ramos-Maqueda, Manuel & Chen, Daniel L., 2025. "The data revolution in justice," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    11. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    12. Joan Josep Vallbé & Carmen Ramírez‐Folch, 2023. "The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate‐partner violence," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 641-668, September.
    13. Chen,Daniel Li & Graham,Jimmy & Ramos Maqueda,Manuel & Singh,Shashank - DIME3, 2022. "Do Judges Favor Their Own Ethnicity and Gender ? Evidence from Kenya," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9956, The World Bank.
    14. Qianshuo Liu & David Pérez-Castrillo & Inés Macho-Stadler & Albert Banal-Estañol, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    15. Baron, Justus & Ganglmair, Bernhard & Persico, Nicola & Simcoe, Timothy & Tarantino, Emanuele, 2024. "Representation is not sufficient for selecting gender diversity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    16. Laura Hospido & Luc Laeven & Ana Lamo, 2022. "The Gender Promotion Gap: Evidence from Central Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(5), pages 981-996, December.
    17. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    18. Kai Barron & Ruth Ditlmann & Stefan Gehrig & Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2025. "Explicit and Implicit Belief-Based Gender Discrimination: A Hiring Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(2), pages 1600-1622, February.
    19. Moulin Xiong & Yiwei Xia & Xiaohong Yu, 2025. "Sentencing equilibrium in rape cases: a legal and political explanation of jurisdictional uniformity in China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:deveco:v:179:y:2026:i:c:s0304387825001737. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/devec .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.