{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014563106796116505, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003236245954692557, 'mean_word_length': 5.279187817258883, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender bias and judicial decisions of undue influence in testamentary challenges.

Allegations of undue influence constitute a common basis for contests of wills. Legal research from the 1990s suggests that gender bias factors significantly into judicial decision-making regarding alleged undue influence and testamentary intent. In this study, we sought to assess whether this bias is present today and to identify any factors that may be associated with it. Probate judges from several jurisdictions in the United States were asked to consider two hypothetical case vignettes drawn from actual published decisions. In our study, the gender of the testator played only a minor role in how judges weighed factors in the decision-making process and, overall, did not significantly influence opinions regarding the presence of undue influence. The specifics of the case and the gender of the judge emerged as the most consistent and robust potential influences on decision-making. Our results suggest that probate rulings involving undue influence are likely to represent a complex interaction of factors involving the testator's and judge's genders and the specifics of individual cases. The implications of these findings are discussed.