Why do people assume female politicians are less likely than men to engage in the illegal use of public positions for private gain? We argue that voters may perceive women as marginalized within political institutions, or as more risk averse and consequently more constrained by institutional oversight, which could lead to perceptions of women as less likely to engage in corruption. Using an original survey experiment, we test these mechanisms against conventional wisdom that women are seen as more honest. We find strong support for the risk aversion explanation, as well as heterogeneous effects by respondent sex for both the marginalization and honesty mechanisms. These findings suggest that the institutional contexts in which women are operating can help explain why people perceive them as less likely to engage in corruption. Identifying these mechanisms is critical to understanding the role of women in politics and for improving trust in government.
AlexanderA. C. (2012). Change in women’s descriptive representation and the belief in women’s ability to govern: A virtuous cycle. Politics & Gender, 8, 437-464.
2.
AlexanderA. C. (2015). Big jumps in women’s presence in parliaments: Are these sufficient for improving beliefs in women’s ability to govern?Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 82-97.
3.
AlexanderA. C.BågenholmA. (2018). Does gender matter? Female politicians’ engagement in anti-corruption efforts. In AlexanderA.BolzendahlC.JalalzaiF. (Eds.), Measuring women’s political empowerment across the globe: Strategies, challenges and future research (pp. 171-189). Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
AlexanderD.AndersenK. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527-545.
5.
AlvarezR. M.HallT. E.LlewellynM. H. (2008). Are Americans confident their ballots are counted?The Journal of Politics, 70, 754-766.
6.
AnduizaE.GallegoA.MuñozJ. (2013). Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1664-1692.
7.
AtkesonL. R.SaundersK. L. (2007). The effect of election administration on voter confidence: A local matter?PS: Political Science & Politics, 40, 655-660.
8.
BarlowH. D. (1993). From fiddle factors to networks of collusion: Charting the waters of small business crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 20, 319-337.
9.
BarnesT. D. (2014). Women’s representation and legislative committee appointments: The case of the argentine provinces. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 23, 135-163.
10.
BarnesT. D. (2016). Gendering legislative behavior: Institutional constraints and collaboration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics & Gender, 10, 365-391.
12.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE.SaxtonG. W. (2018a). Restoring trust in the police: Why female officers reduce suspicions of corruption. Governance, 31, 143-161.
13.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE.SaxtonG. W. (2018b). Sex and corruption: How sexism shapes voters’ reactions to scandal. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1-19.
14.
BarnesT. D.JonesM. P. (2018). Women’s representation in the argentine national and subnational governments. In Schwindt-BayerL. (Ed.), Women, representation, and politics in Latin America (pp. 121-139). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
16.
BarrR. R. (2009). Populists, outsiders and anti-establishment politics. Party Politics, 15, 29-48.
17.
BeaulieuE. (2014). From voter ID to party ID: How political parties affect perceptions of election fraud in the US. Electoral Studies, 35, 24-32.
18.
BeaulieuE. (2016). Electronic voting and perceptions of election fraud and fairness. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 3, 18-31.
19.
BellairP. E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35, 677-704.
20.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
21.
BernardiR. A.MetzgerR. L.BrunoR. G. S.HoogkampM. A. W.ReyesL. E.BarnabyG. H. (2004). Examining the decision process of students’ cheating behavior: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 397-414.
22.
BjarnegårdE. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. New York, NY: Springer.
23.
BoothA. L.NolenP. (2009). Gender differences in competition: The role of single-sex education. CEPR Discussion Paper 7214.
24.
BrownE. R.DiekmanA. B.SchneiderM. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 930-941.
25.
BrowningC. R.DietzR. D.FeinbergS. L. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83, 503-534.
26.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
27.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558.
28.
BullockJ. G.HaS. E. (2011). Mediation analysis is harder than it looks. In DruckmanJ. N.GreenD. P.KuklinskiJ. H.LupiaA., (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (p. 959). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Calvó-ArmengolA.ZenouY. (2004). Social networks and crime decisions: The role of social structure in facilitating delinquent behavior. International Economic Review, 45, 939-958.
30.
CarpiniM. X. D.FuchsE. R. (1993). The year of the woman? Candidates, voters, and the 1992 elections. Political Science Quarterly, 108, 29-36.
31.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D.BrantonR. P. (2015). Racializing gender: Public opinion at the intersection. Politics & Gender, 11, 1-26.
32.
ClaassenR. L.MaglebyD. B.MonsonJ. Q.PattersonK. D. (2013). Voter confidence and the election-day voting experience. Political Behavior, 35, 215-235.
33.
ClaytonA. (2014). Electoral gender quotas and attitudes toward traditional leaders: A policy experiment in Lesotho. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33, 1007-1026.
34.
DoddE. H.GiulianoT. A.BoutellJ. M.MoranB. E. (2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles, 45, 567-577.
35.
DolanK. (1998). Voting for women in the “year of the woman.”American Journal of Political Science, 42, 272-293.
36.
DolanK. (2005). Do women candidates play to gender stereotypes? Do men candidates play to women? Candidate sex and issues priorities on campaign websites. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 31-44.
37.
DollarD.FismanR.GattiR. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 423-429.
38.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution & Human Behavior, 23, 281-295.
39.
EsareyJ.ChirilloG. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9, 361-389.
40.
EsareyJ.Schwindt-BayerL. (2017a). Women’s representation, accountability, and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science.
41.
EsareyJ.Schwindt-BayerL. (2017b). Estimating causal relationships between women’s representation in government and corruption (Working paper).
42.
Escobar-LemmonM.Taylor-RobinsonM. M. (2009). Getting to the top: Career paths of women in Latin American cabinets. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 685-699.
43.
FismanR.MiguelE. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 1020-1048.
44.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
45.
GoetzA. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force?Development and Change, 38, 87-105.
46.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
HeathM. R.Schwindt-BayerL. A.Taylor-RobinsonM. M. (2005). Women on the sidelines: Women’s representation on committees in Latin American legislatures. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 420-436.
48.
HochschildJ.ChattopadhyayJ.GayC.Jones-CorreaM. (Eds.). (2013). Outsiders no more? Models of immigrant political incorporation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
HolmanM. R. (2017). Women in local government: What we know and where we go from here. State and Local Government Review, 49, 285-296.
50.
HolmanM. R.LayJ. C. (in press). They see dead people (voting): Correcting misperceptions about voter fraud in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing.
51.
HolmanM. R.SchneiderM. C.PondelK. (2015). Gender targeting in political advertisements. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 816-829.
52.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
53.
ImaiK.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2013). Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A: Statistics in Society, 176, 5-51.
54.
JuliousS. A. (2004). Using confidence intervals around individual means to assess statistical significance between two means. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 3, 217-222.
55.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
56.
KerevelY. P.AtkesonL. R. (2013). Explaining the marginalization of women in legislative institutions. The Journal of Politics, 75, 980-992.
57.
KingD. C.MatlandR. E. (2003). Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31, 595-612.
58.
KingG.TomzM.WittenbergJ. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347-361.
59.
KlašnjaM.TuckerJ. A. (2013). The economy, corruption, and the vote: Evidence from experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies, 32, 536-543.
60.
KochJ. W. (1999). Candidate gender and assessments of senate candidates. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 84-96.
61.
KrupnikovY.BauerN. M. (2014). The relationship between campaign negativity, gender and campaign context. Political Behavior, 36, 167-188.
62.
KumlinS.EsaiassonP. (2012). Scandal fatigue? Scandal elections and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 263-282.
63.
LeeperM. S. (1991). The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at voter inference. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 248-261.
64.
McDermottM. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 895-918.
65.
MitchellD. G. (2014). Here today, gone tomorrow? Assessing how timing and repetition of scandal information affects candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 35, 679-701.
66.
MorganJ. (2011). Bankrupt representation and party system collapse. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
67.
MorganJ.BuiceM. (2013). Latin American attitudes toward women in politics: The influence of elite cues, female advancement, and individual characteristics. American Political Science Review, 107, 644-662.
68.
O’BrienD. Z. (2012). Gender and select committee elections in the British House of Commons. Politics & Gender, 8, 178-204.
69.
O’BrienD. Z. (2015). Rising to the top: Gender, political performance, and party leadership in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 1022-1039.
70.
RestJ. R. (1989). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
71.
RosenwasserS. M.DeanN. G. (1989). Gender role and political office: Effects of perceived masculinity/femininity of candidate and political office. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 77-85.
72.
RoszkowskiM. J.GrableJ. (2005). Gender stereotypes in advisors’ clinical judgments of financial risk tolerance: Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. The Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6, 181-191.
73.
RubinD. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701.
74.
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2011). An exploration of the content of stereotypes of Black politicians. Political Psychology, 32, 205-233.
75.
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35, 245-266.
76.
SchumanH.KrysanM. (1999). A historical note on Whites’ beliefs about racial inequality. American Sociological Review, 64, 847-855.
77.
Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2010). Political power and women’s representation in Latin America. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
78.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.Reyes-HousholderC. (2017). Citizen responses to female executives: Is it sex, novelty or both?Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5, 373-398.
79.
ShamesS. (2003). The “un-candidates”: Gender and outsider signals in women’s political advertisements. Women & Politics, 25(1-2), 115-147.
80.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.GutscherH. (2002). Risk preference predictions and gender stereotypes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 91-102.
81.
SimmonsJ. W. (2016, May24). Statistical discrimination in the corruption labor market. Paper presented at the Gender and Corruption Workshop, The Quality of Government Institute, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
82.
StensötaH.WängnerudL.SvenssonR. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28, 475-496.
83.
SundströmA.WängnerudL. (2016). Corruption as an obstacle to women’s political representation: Evidence from local councils in 18 European countries. Party Politics, 22, 354-369.
84.
SwamyA.KnackS.LeeY.AzfarO. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25-55.
85.
TrippA. M. (2001). The politics of autonomy and cooptation in Africa: The case of the Ugandan Women’s Movement. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 39, 101-128.
86.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
87.
UlbigS. G. (2007). Gendering municipal government: Female descriptive representation and feelings of political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 1106-1123.
88.
WängnerudL. (2012). Why women are less corrupt than men. In HolmbergS.RohsteinB. (Eds.), Good government: The relevance of political science (pp. 230-250). Northamptom, MA: Edward Elgar.
89.
WatsonD.MorelandA. (2014). Perceptions of corruption and the dynamics of women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 10, 392-412.
90.
WestT.RavenscroftS.ShraderC. (2004). Cheating and moral judgment in the college classroom: A natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 173-183.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
