An archival study of U.K. General Election results from 2001, 2005, and 2010 revealed that Conservative black and minority ethnic (BME) candidates were less successful than their white counterparts. However, mediation analyses demonstrate that this lack of success can be explained by the lower winnability of BME candidates’ seats, such that the opposition candidate held a seat with a significantly larger majority compared with white candidates’ opponents. Results and implications are discussed in the framework of the “glass cliff,” previously demonstrated for women, in the sense that the seats minority groups contested were harder to win compared with majority groups.
AlexanderDeborahAndersenKristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly46:527–45.
2.
AmerMildredManningJennifer E.2008. Membership of the 111th Congress: A profile. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. No 7-5700, R40086. December2008. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40086_20081231.pdf
3.
AnwarMuhammad. 1986. Race and Politics. London: Tavistock Publications.
4.
AnziaSarah F.BerryChristopher R.2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?”American Journal of Political Science55:478–93.
5.
AsheJeanetteCampbellRosieChildsSarahEvansElizabeth. 2010. “‘Stand by Your Man’: Women’s Political Recruitment at the 2010 UK General Election.” British Politics5:455–80.
6.
BealFrances M.1970. Double Jeopardy: To be Black and Female. Detroit, MI: Radical Education Project.
7.
BerdahlJennifer L.MooreCelia. 2006. “Workplace Harassment: Double Jeopardy for Minority Women.” Journal of Applied Psychology91:426–36.
8.
BogdanorVernon. 1984. What is Proportional Representation? Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company.
9.
BruckmüllerSusanneBranscombeNyla R.2010. “The Glass Cliff: When and Why Women Are Selected as Leaders in Crisis Contexts.” The British Journal of Social Psychology49:433–51.
ButlerDavidKavanaghDennis. 1988. The British General Election of 1987. London: The MacMillan Press.
12.
CareySeanGeddesAndrew. 2010. “Less is More: Immigration and European Integration at the 2010 General Election.” Parliamentary Affairs63:849–65.
13.
CriddleByron. 1988. “Candidates.” In The British General Election of 1987, edited by ButlerDavidKavanaghDennis, 191–210. London: The MacMillan Press.
14.
CuttsDavidChildsSarahFieldhouseEdward A.2008. “This is What Happens When You Don’t Listen? All Women Shortlists at the 2005 General Election.” Party Politics14:575–95.
15.
DealJennifer J.StevensonMaura A.1998. “Perceptions of Female and Male Managers in the 1990s: Plus Ça Change . . . ” Sex Roles38:287–300.
16.
EaglyAlice H.CarliLinda L.2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
17.
FedericoChristopher M.LuksSamantha. 2005. “The Political Psychology of Race.” Political Psychology26:661–66.
18.
FiskeSusan T.CuddyAmy C.GlickPeterXuJun. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82:878–902.
19.
GeddesAndrew. 1998. Inequality, Political Opportunity and Ethnic Minority Parliamentary Candidacy. In Race and British Electoral Politics, edited by SaggarShamit145–72. London: University College of London.
20.
GertzogIrwinSimardMichele. 1981. “Women and ‘Hopeless’ Congressional Candidates: Nomination Frequency, 1916–1978.” American Politics Quarterly9:449–66.
KrookMona Lena. 2007. “Candidate Gender Quotas: A framework for analysis.” European Journal of Political Research46:367–94.
29.
KulichClaraLorenzi-CioldiFabioFanikoKleaIacovielloVincenzoRyanMichelle K.2013. “Preference for Women and Feminine Leadership Styles During a Crisis: Refining the Conditions of Glass Cliffs.” Manuscript under review.
30.
Lorenzi-CioldiFabioBuschiniFabrice. 2008. “When the Glass Ceiling Collapses, Walls are Erected: Positive and Negative Consequences of Psychological Essentialism in Affirmative Action.” In Under-Representation of Women in Science and Technology, edited by BadaloniSilvanaDraceChristina A.GiaOrnellaLevoratoChiaraVidottoFrancesca27–40. Padova, Italy: Cleup.
MatlandRichard E.MontgomeryKathleen A.eds. 2003. Women’s Access to Political Power in Post-Communist Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
MatlandRichard E.StudlarDonley T.1996. “The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single-Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Canada and Norway.” The Journal of Politics58:707–33.
34.
McHargAileen. 2006. “Quotas for Women! The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002.” Journal of Law and Society33:141–59.
MullerDominiqueJuddCharles M.YzerbytVincent Y.2005. “When Moderation is Mediated and Mediation is Moderated.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89:852–63.
37.
MurrayRainbowKrookMona L.OpelloKatherine A. R.2012. “Why are Gender Quotas Adopted? Party Pragmatism and Parity in France.” Political Research Quarterly65:529–43.
PetrowGregory A.2010. “The Minimal Cue Hypothesis: How Black Candidates Cue Race to Increase White Voting Participation.” Political Psychology31:915–50.
46.
ReynaChristineTuckerAmandaKorfmacherWilliamHenryP. J.2005. “Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action.” Political Psychology26:667–82.
RushMichael. 2005. Parliament Today. Manchester: Man-chester University Press.
49.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. Alexander. 2005. “The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Over-Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions.” British Journal of Management15:1–10.
50.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. Alexander. 2007. “The Glass Cliff: Exploring the Dynamics Surrounding Women’s Appointment to Precarious Leadership Positions.” The Academy of Management Review32:549–72.
51.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. AlexanderHersbyMette D.KulichClaraAtkinsCate. 2007. “Opting Out or Pushed Off the Edge? The Glass Cliff and the Precariousness of Women’s Leadership Positions.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass1:266–69.
52.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. AlexanderHersbyMette D.BongiornoR.2011. “Think Crisis–Think Female: Glass Cliffs and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager–Think Male Stereotype.” Journal of Applied Psychology96:470–84.
53.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. AlexanderClaraKulich. 2010. “Politics and the Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Preferentially Selected to Contest Hard-To-Win Seats.” Psychology of Women Quarterly34: 56–64.
54.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. AlexanderPostmesTom. 2007. “Reactions to the Glass Cliff: Gender Differences in the Explanations for the Precariousness of Women’s Leadership Positions.” Journal of Organizational Change Management20:182–97.
55.
RyanMichelle K.HaslamS. AlexanderWilson-KovacsM. DanaHersbyMette D.KulichClara. 2007. Managing Diversity and the Glass Cliff. London: CIPD.
56.
SaggarShamit. 1998a. “A Late, Though Not Lost, Opportunity: Ethnic Minority Electors, Party Strategy and the Conservative Party.” The Political Quarterly69: 148–59.
57.
SaggarShamit. 1998b. The General Election 1997. London: Commission for Racial Equality.
58.
SaggarShamit. 2001. “The Race Card Again.” In Britain Votes 2001, edited by NorrisPippa195–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
SaggarShamitGeddesAndrew. 2000. “Negative and Positive Racialisation: Re-Examining Ethnic Minority Political Representation in the UK.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies26:25–44.
60.
ScheinVirginia E.1973. “The Relationship between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics.” Journal of Applied Psychology57:95–105.
61.
SilvesterJoDykesC.2007. “Selecting Political Candidates: A Longitudinal Study of Assessment Centre Performance and Political Success in the 2005 UK General Election.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology80:11–25.
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.
