While scholars understand some of the reasons for the underrepresentation of women in elected office in the United States, we know almost nothing about what the public sees as the explanation for this reality. We also know relatively little about the degree to which people see women’s underrepresentation as a problem. Drawing on blame attribution theories, we examine whether people believe that there are systematic or individual explanations for the number of women in elected office. As blame explanations often influence positions on outcomes, we also test whether these explanations are related to people’s attitudes toward women in office and their vote choice behaviors in U.S. House races with women candidates present. Using data from a 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) survey, we find differences among people in the blame explanations they make. These explanations are significantly related to attitudes about women in office but do not influence vote choice decisions when women run for office.
AldrichJohnBishopBradfordHatchRebeccaHillygusD. SunshineRohdeDavid. 2014. “Blame, Responsibility, and the Tea Party in the 2010 Midterm Election.” Political Behavior36:471–91.
2.
AlexanderDeborahAndersenKristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly46:527–45.
3.
ApplebaumLauren. 2001. “The Influence of Perceived Deservingness on Policy Decisions Regarding Aid to the Poor.” Political Psychology22:419–42.
4.
ArceneauxKevin. 2003. “The Conditional Impact of Blame Attribution on the Relationship Between Economic Adversity and Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly56:67–75.
5.
BauerNichole. 2015. “Emotional, Sensitive, and Unit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support for Female Candidates.” Political Psychology36:691–708.
6.
BejaranoChristina. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin: University of Texas Press.
7.
BurnsNancySchlozmanKayVerbaSidney. 1997. “The Public Consequences of Private Inequality: Family Life and Citizen Participation.” American Political Science Review91:373–89.
8.
BystromDianne. 2014 “Advertising, Web Sites, and Media Coverage Gender and Communication along the Campaign Trail.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, edited by CarrollSusanFoxRichard, 3rd ed., 241–64, New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CarrollSusan. 1989. “The Personal Is Political: The Intersection of Private Lives and Public Roles among Women and Men in Elective and Appointive Office.” Women and Politics9:51–67.
10.
CarrollSusan. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. 2nd ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11.
CarrollSusan. 2009. “Reflections on Gender and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: The Good, the Bad, and the Misogynic.” Politics & Gender5:1–20.
12.
CarrollSusanSanbonmatsuKira. 2013. More Women Can Run. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Center for American Women and Politics. 2017. “Women in Elective Office.” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute, Rutgers University.
14.
CozzarelliCatherineWilkinsonAnnaTaglerMichael. 2001. “Attitudes toward the Poor and Attributions for Poverty.” Journal of Social Issues57:207–27.
15.
Crowder-MeyerMelody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment with Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender9:390–413.
16.
DarcyRobertWelchSusanClarkJanet. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. 2nd ed.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
17.
D’EliaJustineNorpothHelmut. 2014. “Winning with a Bad Economy.” Presidential Studies Quarterly44:467–83.
18.
DittmarKelly. 2015. Navigating the Gendered Terrain. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
19.
DolanKathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Candidate Sex and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
DolanKathleenLynchTimothy. 2015. “Making the Connection: Attitudes about Women in Politics and Voting for Women Candidates.” Politics, Groups, and Identities3:111–32.
21.
DuchRaymondPalmerHarveyAndersonChristopher. 2000. “Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science44:635–52.
ElderLaurel. 2004. “Why Women Don’t Run: Explaining Women’s Underrepresentation in America’s Political Institutions.” Women and Politics26:27–56.
24.
FalkErika. 2010. Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
25.
FeldmanStanley. 1982. “Economic Self-Interest and Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science26:446–66.
26.
FiskeSusanTaylorShelley. 1991. Social Cognition. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
FoxRichard. 2014. “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 3rd ed., edited by CarrollSusanRichardFox, 190–210. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
FoxRichardLawlessJennifer. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science55:59–73.
29.
FoxRichardLawlessJennifer. 2014. “Reconciling Family Roles with Political Ambition: The New Normal for Women in Twenty-First Century U.S. Politics.” Journal of Politics76:398–414.
30.
GollustSarahLynchJulia. 2011. “Who Deserves Health Care? The Effects of Causal Attributions and Group Cues on Public Attitudes about Responsibility for Health Care Costs.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law36:1062–95.
31.
GomezBradWilsonJ. Matthew. 2003. “Causal Attribution and Economic Voting in American Congressional Elections.” Political Research Quarterly56:271–82.
32.
GomezBradWilsonJ. Matthew. 2006. “Rethinking Symbolic Racism: Evidence of Attribution Bias.” Journal of Politics68:611–25.
33.
GomezBradWilsonJ. Matthew. 2008. “Political Sophistication and Attributions of Blame in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina.” Publius38:633–50.
Haider-MarkelDonaldJoslynMark. 2001. “Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue Frames.” Journal of Politics63:520–43.
36.
Haider-MarkelDonaldJoslynMark. 2008. “Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.” Public Opinion Quarterly72:291–301.
37.
HayesDannyLawlessJennifer L.2015. “A Non-gendered Lens? Media, Voters, and Female Candidates in Contemporary Congressional Elections.” Perspectives on Politics13:95–118.
38.
HeiderFritz. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37:119–47.
41.
IyengarShanto. 1989. “How Citizens Think about National Issues: A Matter of Responsibility.” American Journal of Political Science33:878–900.
42.
JonesEdwardKanhouseDavidKellyHaroldNisbettRichardValinsStuartWeinerBernard. 1972. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. New York: General Learning Press.
43.
JoslynMarkHaider-MarkelDonald. 2013. “The Politics of Causes: Mass Shootings and the Case of the Virginia Tech and Tucson Tragedies.” Social Science Quarterly94:410–23.
44.
JoslynMarkHaider-MarkelDonald. 2016. “Genetic Attributions, Immutability, and Stereotypical Judgments: An Analysis of Homosexuality.” Social Science Quarterly97:376–90.
45.
KinderDonKamCindy. 2009. Us against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
KittilsonMiki CaulFridkinKim. 2008. “Gender, Candidate Portrayals and Election Campaigns: A Comparative Perspective.” Politics & Gender4:371–92.
47.
KochJeffrey. 1997. “Candidate Gender and Assessments of Women Candidates.” Social Science Quarterly80:84–96.
48.
LauRichardSearsDavid. 1981. “Cognitive Links between Economic Grievances and Political Responses.” Political Behavior:3279–3302.
49.
LawlessJennifer.2009. “Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for Women in Politics.” Politics & Gender5:70–80.
50.
LawlessJenniferFoxRichard. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
MarshMichaelTilleyJames. 2009. “The Attribution of Credit and Blame to Governments and Its Impact on Vote Choice.” British Journal of Political Science40:115–34.
52.
NivenDavid. 1998. “Party Elites and Women Candidates: The Shape of Bias.” Women and Politics19:57–80.
53.
NORC. 2016. “Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy and the State of Gender Discrimination in the United States.” University of Chicago.
54.
OnoYoshikuniBurdenBarry. 2017. “The Contingent Effects of Candidate Sex on Vote Choice.” Presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, San Francisco, CA, September 3–6.
RudolphThomasGrantJ. Tobin. 2002. “An Attributional Model of Economic Voting: Evidence from the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly55:805–23.
57.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2003. “Gender-Related Political Knowledge and the Descriptive Representation of Women.” Political Behavior25:367–88.
58.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
59.
TilleyJamesHoboltSara. 2011. “Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility.” Journal of Politics73:316–30.
60.
WhiteheadAndrew. 2014. “Politics, Religion, Attribution Theory, and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Unions.” Social Science Quarterly95:701–18.
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.
