Elections involving women candidates in the United States can offer unsettling examples of voter gender stereotypes, but research on women candidates provides little in the way of available data that allow us to link stereotypes to voter decision-making. This project reports results from a 2010 survey designed to examine gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior in U.S. House elections with women candidates running against men. In general, stereotypes are not a central part of candidate evaluations or voting decisions, but the political party of the woman candidate can shape their role in candidate evaluations and vote choice.
AdamsWilliam. 1975. “Candidate Characteristics, Office of Election, and Voter Responses.” Experimental Study of Politics4:76–88.
2.
AlexanderDeborahAndersenKristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly46:527–45.
3.
BartelsLarry. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1956–1996.” American Journal of Political Science44:35–50.
4.
BrownClydeHeighbergerNeilShocketPeter. 1993. “Gender-Based Differences in Perceptions of Male and Female City Council Candidates.” Women and Politics13:1–17.
5.
BurrellBarbara. 2008. “Likeable? Effective Commander in Chief? Polling on Candidate Traits in the ‘Year of the Presidential Woman’” Political Science and Politics61:747–52.
6.
Center for American Women and Politics. 2012. Women Candidates in 1992–2012: A Summary of Major Party Candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House. New Brunswick: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute, Rutgers University.
7.
ConoverPamelaFeldmanStanley. 1989. “Candidate Perceptions in an Ambiguous World.” American Journal of Political Science33:912–39.
8.
DolanKathleen. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates” Political Behavior32:69–88.
9.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
10.
EaglyAliceCarliLinda. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
11.
EckstrandLaurieEckertWilliam. 1981. “The Impact of Candidate’s Sex on Vote Choice.” Western Political Quarterly34:78–87.
12.
FiorinaMorrisAbramsSamuelPopeJeremy. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Education.
13.
FoxRichard. 2010. “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, edited by CarrollSusanFoxRichard2nd ed., pp. 187–209. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FoxRichardSmithEric R. A. N.1998. “The Role of Candidate Sex in Voter Decision-Making.” Political Psychology19:405–19.
15.
FridkinKimKenneyPatrick. 2009. “The Role of Gender Stereotypes in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Politics & Gender5:301–24.
16.
FridkinKimKenneyPatrickWoodallGina Serignese. 2009. “Bad for Men, Better for Women: The Impact of Stereotypes During Negative Campaigns.” Political Behavior31:53–77.
17.
GordonAnnMillerJerry. 2005. When Stereotypes Collide: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Videostyle in Congressional Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.
18.
HayesDanny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens.” American Journal of Political Science49:908–23.
19.
HayesDanny. 2011. “When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution.” Politics & Gender7:133–65.
20.
HuddyLeonieCapelosTheresa. 2002. “Gender Stereotyping and Candidate Evaluation: Good News and Bad News for Women Politicians.” In The Social Psychology of Politics: Research, Policy, Theory, Practice, edited by OttatiVictorTindaleR. ScottEdwardsJohnBryantFred B.HeathLindaO’ConnellDaniel C.Suarez-BalcazarYolandaPosavacEmil J., 29–53. New York: Kluwer Academic.
21.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993a. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37:119–47.
22.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993b. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Offices.” Political Research Quarterly46:503–25.
23.
KahnKim. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
KingDavidMatlandRichard. 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.
25.
KochJeffrey. 1997. “Candidate Gender and Assessments of Women Candidates.” Social Science Quarterly80:84–96.
26.
KochJeffrey. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens’ Impression of House Candidates Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science46:453–62.
27.
LauRichardRedlawskDavid. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science45:951–71.
28.
LawlessJennifer. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the post-September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly57:479–90.
29.
LawlessJenniferFoxRichard. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
LaymanGeoffreyCarseyThomasHorowitzJuliana. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science9:83–110.
31.
LeeperMark. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly19:248–61.
32.
MalhotraNeilKrosnickJon. 2007. “Retrospective and Prospective Performance Assessments During the 2004 Election Campaign: Tests of Mediation and News Media Priming.” Political Behavior29:249–78.
33.
McDermottMonika. 1998. “Race and Gender Cues in Low Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly51:895–918.
34.
MurakamiMichael. 2008. “The Power of Identity: The Consequences of Party Polarization for the Attitudes and Behaviors of the Mass Public.” University of California Berkeley, ProQuest UMI Dissertations Publishing, 3353494.
35.
PaulDavidSmithJessi. 2008. “Subtle Sexism? Examining Vote Preferences When Women Run Against Men for the Presidency.” Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy29:451–76.
36.
Pew Research Center. 2008. Men or Women: Who’s the Better Leader? A Paradox in Public Attitudes. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
37.
PhilpotTashaWaltonHanesJr. 2007. “One of Our Own: Black Female Candidates and the Voters Who Support Them.” American Journal of Political Science51:49–62.
38.
PopkinSamuel. 1993. “Information Shortcuts and the Reasoning Voter.” In Information, Participation, and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective, edited by GrofmanBernard17–36. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
39.
RahnWendy. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37:472–96.
40.
RosenthalCindy Simon. 1995. “The Role of Gender in Descriptive Representation.” Political Research Quarterly, 48:599–611.
41.
RosenwasserShirleyDeanNorma. 1989. “Gender Role and Political Office: Effects of Perceived Masculinity/Femininity of Candidate and Political Office.” Psychology of Women Quarterly13:77–85.
42.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science46: 20-34.
43.
SanbonmatsuKiraDolanKathleen. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?” Political Research Quarterly62:485–94.
44.
SapiroVirginia. 1981/1982. “If U.S. Senator Baker Were a Woman: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images.” Political Psychology2:61–83.
45.
SeltzerRichardNewmanJodyLeightonMelissa Voorhees. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
46.
WinterNicholas J. G.2010. “Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans’ Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties.” Political Behavior32:587–618.
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.
