A common assumption people make about American elections is that women voters will be the most likely source of support for female candidates, a phenomenon referred to as the “gender affinity effect.” Using National Election Study (NES) data from 1990 to 2000, this project expands our understanding of forms that this affinity effect can take by examining two underutilized measures of reactions to candidates: information and candidate affect scores. The author also considers the impact of political party on women's and men's attitudes toward female candidates and examines whether any gender affinity effect in reactions to female candidates is related to people's voting decisions.
Abramowitz, Alan.1987. Candidate choice before the convention: The Democrats in 1984. Political Behavior9:49-61.
2.
American National Election Studies.2006. The ANES guide to public opinion and electoral behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. www.electionstudies.org.
3.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae.2003. Not all cues are created equal: The conditional impact of female candidates on political engagement. Journal of Politics65:1040-61.
4.
Brians, Craig.2005. Women for women? Gender and party bias in voting for female candidates. American Politics Research33:357-75.
5.
Burns, Nancy, Kay Scholzman, and Sidney Verba.2001. The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Center for the American Woman and Politics.2006. Women candidates for Congress 1974-2004. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Eagleton Institute, Rutgers University.
7.
———. 2007. Women in elective office 2007. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Eagleton Institute, Rutgers University.
8.
Delli Carpini, Michael, and Scott Keeter.1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
Dolan, Kathleen.2004. Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates . Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
———. 2006. Symbolic mobilization? The impact of candidate sex in American elections. American Politics Research34:687-704.
11.
Dolan, Kathleen, and Thomas Holbrook.2001. Knowing versus caring: The role of affect and cognition in political perceptions. Political Psychology22:27-44.
Granberg, Donald, and T. Brown.1989. On affect and cognition in politics . Social Psychology Quarterly3:171-82.
14.
Hansen, Susan.1997. Talking about politics: Gender and contextual effects on political proselytizing. Journal of Politics59:73-103.
15.
Herrnson, Paul, J. Celeste Lay, and Atiya Stokes.2003. Women running “as women”: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. Journal of Politics65:244-55.
16.
Hinkley, Barbara.1980. House re-elections and Senate defeats: The role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science10:441-60.
17.
King, David, and Richard Matland.2003. Sex and the Grand Old Party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research31:595-612.
18.
Koch, Jeffrey.1997. Candidate gender and women's psychological engagement in politics. American Politics Quarterly25:118-33.
19.
Mann, Thomas, and Raymond Wolfinger.1980. Candidates and parties in congressional elections. American Political Science Review74:617-32.
20.
McCann, James.1995. Nomination politics and ideological polarization: Assessing the attitudinal effects of campaign involvement. Journal of Politics57:101-20.
21.
McDermott, Monika.1997. Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science41:270-83.
22.
Miller, Arthur, Martin Wattenberg, and Oksana Malanchuk.1986. Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review80:521-40.
23.
Paolino, Phillip.1995. Group-salient issues and group representation: Support for women candidates in the 1992 Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science39:294-313.
24.
Pomper, Gerald.1975. Voters' choice. New York: Harper & Row.
25.
Plutzer, Eric, and John Zipp.1996. Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly60:30-57.
26.
Redlawsk, David.2002. Hot cognition or cool consideration: Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics64:1021-44.
27.
Romano, Lois.2007. Far from a hindrance, gender could be key for Clinton . Washington Post, January 21.
28.
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon.1995. The role of gender in descriptive representation. Political Research Quarterly48:599-611.
29.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira.2002. Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science46:20-34.
30.
Sapiro, Virginia, and Pamela Conover.1997. The variable gender basis of electoral politics: Gender and context in the 1992 US election. British Journal of Political Science27:497-523.
31.
Seltzer, Richard, Jody Newman, and Melissa Leighton.1997. Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates and voters in U.S. elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
32.
Smith, Eric R. A. N.1989. The unchanging American voter. Berkeley : University of California Press.
33.
Stone, Walter, and Ronald Rapoport.1994. Candidate perception among nomination activists: A new look at the moderation hypothesis. Journal of Politics56:1034-52.
34.
Thompson, Seth, and Janie Steckenrider.1997. The relative irrelevance of candidate sex. Women and Politics17:71-92.
35.
Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue.1992. Gender consciousness and politics. New York: Routledge.
36.
Zaller, John.1992. The nature and origin of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
