Building on research on gender stereotypes and a parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory on impression formation, this project investigates the effects of gender stereotypical and counter-stereotypical visuals on voters’ evaluations of political candidates with two pre-registered experimental studies. Study 1 (N = 1,225) is a conceptual replication of an online experiment on the effect of visual communication of fictional U.S. candidates, testing main assumptions in the context of real-world German candidates on X (formerly Twitter). In contrast to the original study, we find that visuals reinforcing masculine as well as feminine stereotypes can be detrimental to men candidates. Evaluations of women candidates were not affected by (counter) gender stereotypical visual information. Study 2 (N = 1,058) repeats Study 1 outside of an election context. Findings differ from the first study. Moreover, no effects of visual communication are found when prior attitudes are controlled. The project highlights the importance of replicating experimental findings in different contexts.
AlterU.CounsellA. (2023). Determining negligible associations in regression. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 19(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.19.1.p059
2.
AnaboF. D. (2021). What matters most to student voters?: A conjoint analysis of political candidate attributes. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(2), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.52006/main.v4i2.355
3.
ArendtF. (2017). Dose-response methodology. In MatthesJ.DavisC. S.PotterR. F. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (1st ed., pp. 1–9). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0072
4.
BastJ.OschatzC.RennerA.-M. (2022). Successfully overcoming the “double bind”? A mixed-method analysis of the self-presentation of female right-wing populists on instagram and the impact on voter attitudes. Political Communication, 39(3), 358–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.2007190
5.
BauerN. M. (2015). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support female candidates. Political Psychology, 36(6), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12186
6.
BauerN. M. (2017). The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 38(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351
7.
BauerN. M. (2020). Running local: Gender stereotyping and female candidates in local elections. Urban Affairs Review, 56(1), 96–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418770807
8.
BauerN. M.CarpinellaC. (2018). Visual information and candidate evaluations: The influence of feminine and masculine images on support for female candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917738579
9.
BenjaminiY.HellerR.YekutieliD. (2009). Selective inference in complex research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367(1906), 4255–4271. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0127
10.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
11.
BishinB. G.StevensD.WilsonC. (2006). Character Counts?: Honesty and Fairness in Election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfj016
12.
BossettaM.SchmøkelR. (2023). Cross-platform emotions and audience engagement in social media political campaigning: Comparing candidates’ Facebook and Instagram images in the 2020 US election. Political Communication, 40(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2128949
13.
BoussalisC.CoanT. G.HolmanM. R.MüllerS. (2021). Gender, candidate emotional expression, and voter reactions during televised debates. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1242–1257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000666
14.
BrandsC.KruikemeierS.TrillingD. (2021). Insta(nt)famous? Visual self-presentation and the use of masculine and feminine issues by female politicians on Instagram. Information, Communication & Society, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1962942
15.
BrooksD. J. (2011). Testing the double standard for candidate emotionality: Voter reactions to the tears and anger of male and female politicians. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611000053
16.
ColemanR. (2006). The effects of visuals on ethical reasoning: What’s a photograph worth to journalists making moral decisions?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300407
17.
ConnorR. A.FiskeS. T. (2018). Warmth and competence: A feminist look at power and negotiation. In TravisC. B.WhiteJ. W.RutherfordA.WilliamsW. S. (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women (First edition, pp. 321–342). American Psychological Association.
ConroyM.Joesten MartinD.NalderK. L. (2020). Gender, sex, and the role of stereotypes in evaluations of hillary clinton and the 2016 presidential candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 41(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2020.1731280
20.
DanV.ArendtF. (2021). Visual cues to the hidden agenda: Investigating the effects of ideology-related visual subtle backdrop cues in political communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220936593
21.
DerksenM.MorawskiJ. (2022). Kinds of replication: Examining the meanings of “conceptual replication” and “direct replication.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1490–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211041116
22.
DienlinT.JohannesN.BowmanN. D.MasurP. K.EngesserS.KümpelA. S.LukitoJ.BierL. M.ZhangR.JohnsonB. K.HuskeyR.SchneiderF. M.BreuerJ.ParryD. A.VermeulenI.FisherJ. T.BanksJ.WeberR.EllisD. A.VreeseC. (2021). An Agenda for Open Science in Communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
23.
EaglyA. H.NaterC.MillerD. I.KaufmannM.SczesnyS. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
24.
GeiseS.BadenC. (2015). Putting the image back into the frame: Modeling the linkage between visual communication and frame-processing theory. Communication Theory, 25(1), 46–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12048
HaßlerJ.WurstA.-K.PohlK. (2023). Politicians over issues? Visual personalization in three Instagram election campaigns. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2227684
28.
HayesD. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 908–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00163.x
29.
HayesD. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender, 7(02), 133–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000055
30.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
31.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526
JungblutM.HaimM. (2021). Visual gender stereotyping in campaign communication: Evidence on female and male candidate imagery in 28 countries. Communication Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211023333
34.
JungherrA. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
35.
KrupnikovY.BauerN. M. (2014). The relationship between campaign negativity, gender and campaign context. Political Behavior, 36(1), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9221-9
36.
KundaZ.ThagardP. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103(2), 284–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.284
LindholmJ.CarlsonT.HögvägJ. (2020). See me, like me! exploring viewers’ visual attention to and trait perceptions of party leaders on instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220937239
ParmeleeJ. H.PerkinsS. C.BeasleyB. (2023). Personalization of politicians on Instagram: What Generation Z wants to see in political posts. Information, Communication & Society, 26(9), 1773–1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2027500
41.
PedersenR. T. (2017). Politicians appear more competent when using numerical rhetoric. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.7
42.
PowellT. E.BoomgaardenH. G.de SwertK.de VreeseC. H. (2019). Framing fast and slow: A dual processing account of multimodal framing effects. Media Psychology, 22(4), 572–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1476891
43.
RaineyC. (2014). Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1083–1091.
44.
RobinsonL. D.JewellN. P. (1991). Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique, 59(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403444
45.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive Gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
46.
RudmanL. A.GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1164–1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279009
47.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
48.
SchillD. (2012). The visual image and the political image: A review of visual communication research in the field of political communication. Review of Communication, 12(2), 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2011.653504
49.
SchmidtS. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040
52.
SnipesA.MuddeC. (2019). “France’s (kinder, gentler) extremist”: Marine Le Pen, intersectionality, and media framing of female populist radical right leaders. Politics & Gender, 30, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000370
Turska-KawaA.Olszanecka-MarmolaA. (2018). Stereotypes determining perceptions of female politicians: The case of Poland. Politics in Central Europe, 14(3), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2018-0016
56.
von SikorskiC.BrantnerC. (2019). Das Bild in der politischen Kommunikation: Grundlegende Erkenntnisse aufgezeigt an einer vertiefenden Betrachtung der visuellen Skandalberichterstattung. In LobingerK. (Ed.), Handbuch Visuelle Kommunikationsforschung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
57.
WenF.ZuoB.WangY.WuY.FangZ.MaS. (2020). The (continuous) nature of perceived gender counter-stereotype: A threshold model of gender stereotype maintenance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2511–2530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01763-2
58.
WildeA.DiekmanA. B. (2005). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between germany and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00181.x
59.
WinfreyK. L.SchnoebelenJ. M. (2019). Running as a woman (or Man): A review of research on political communicators and gender stereotypes. Review of Communication Research, 7, 109–138. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.020
60.
WinterN. J. G. (2010). Masculine republicans and feminine democrats: Gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior, 32(4), 587–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9131-z
