On the basis of a candidate’s sex, voters ascribe particular personality traits, capacities, and opinions to candidates (often to the detriment of women), which are referred to as political gender stereotypes. The prevalence of political gender stereotypes has almost exclusively been investigated in the United States. As the presence of these stereotypes is highly dependent on contextual factors, we switch the context and investigate whether they are also present in a List-Proportional Representation (PR) system with a high share of women in parliament spread over different parties. The results of our experimental study, conducted in Flanders (Belgium), provide evidence for the existence of stereotypical patterns. The differences in perceived issue competence are, however, rather small and not always unequivocal, but larger differences were found in terms of ideological position. This leads us to conclude that misperceptions about women’s ideological orientation might be persistent and difficult to overcome. Moreover, our results demonstrate that the argument that female politicians are perceived as more leftist because they disproportionately belong to leftist parties does not hold, as female politicians are rather equally spread over the different parties in Belgium.
AalbergTorilJenssenAnders Todal. 2007. “Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates.” Nordicom Review28 (1):17–32.
2.
AlexanderDeborahAndersenKristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly46 (3):527–45.
3.
AndréAudreyPiletJean-BenoitWauters.Bram2010. “Voorkeurstemmen bij de regionale verkiezingen van 2009: gebruik en motieven” [Preference votes in the regional elections of 2009: use and motives]. In De stemmen van het volk. Een analyse van het kiesgedrag in Vlaanderen en Wallonië op 10 juni 2009, edited by DeschouwerKrisDelwitPascalHoogheMarcWalgraveStefaan, 169–99. Brussels: Brussels University Press.
4.
AnsolabehereStephenSchaffnerBrian F. 2014. “Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-mode Comparison.” Political Analysis22 (3): 285–303.
5.
BauerNichole M.2015. “Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support Female Candidates.” Political Psychology36 (6): 691–708.
6.
BauerNicole M.2018. “Untangling the Relationship between Partisanship, Gender Stereotypes, and Support for Female Candidates.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy39 (1): 1–25.
7.
BlackJerome H.EricksonLynda. 2003. “Women Candidates and Voter Bias: Do Women Politicians Need to Be Better?"Electoral Studies22 (1): 81–100.
8.
BriansCraig Leonard. 2005. “Women for Women? Gender and Party Bias in Voting for Female Candidates.” American Politics Research33 (3): 357–75.
CelisKarenErzeelSilvia. 2015. “Beyond the Usual Suspects: Non-left, Male and Non-feminist MPs and the Substantive Representation of Women.” Government and Opposition50 (1): 45–64.
11.
CelisKarenErzeelSilviaSeversElineVandeleeneAudrey. 2015. “Genderverschillen in politieke belangen: subtiel maar hardnekkig” [Gender differences in political interests: subtle but persistent]. In De Kiezer Ontcijferd: over stemgedrag en stemmotivaties, edited by DeschouwerKrisDelwitPascalHoogheMarcBaudewynsPierreWalgraveStefaan, 253–70. Leuven: Lannoo.
ChangChingchingHitchonJacqueline C. Bush. 2004. “When Does Gender Count? Further Insights into Gender Schematic Processing of Female Candidates’ Political Advertisements.” Sex Roles51 (3–4): 197–208.
14.
De LeeuwEdith DesiréeHoxJ.2008. “Self-Administered Questionnaires: Mail Surveys and Other Applications.” In International Handbook of Survey Methodology, edited by De LeeuwEdith DesiréeDillmanDon AHoxJ., 239–63. London: Routledge.
15.
DeschouwerKris. 2012. The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
DiekmanAmanda B.EaglyAlice H.KulesaPatrick. 2002. “Accuracy and Bias in Stereotypes about the Social and Political Attitudes of Women and Men.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38 (3): 268–82.
17.
DitontoTessa M.HamiltonAllison J.RedlawskDavid P.2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Information Search, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior36 (2): 335–58.
18.
DolanKathleen. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates.” Political Behavior32 (1): 69–88.
19.
DolanKathleen. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting for Women Candidates What Really Matters?” Political Research Quarterly67 (1): 96–107.
20.
DownsA.1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy65 (2): 135–50.
21.
DuvergerMaurice. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Paris: UNESCO.
22.
EaglyAlice H.1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
EaglyAlice H.KarauSteven J.2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review109 (3): 573.
24.
ErzeelSilviaCaluwaertsDidier. 2015. “Is It Gender, Ideology or Resources? Individual-Level Determinants of Preferential Voting for Male or Female Candidates.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties25 (3): 1–19.
25.
GoeminneBartSwyngedouwMarc. 2007. “De glimlach van de kandidaat? Kiezersvoorkeuren in kandidaatskenmerken” [The candidate’s smile? Voter preferences in candidate attributes]. In De Kiezer Onderzocht. De verkiezingen van 2003 en 2004 in Vlaanderen, edited by SwyngedouwMarcBillietJaakGoeminneBart, 145–65 .Leuven: Leuven University Press.
26.
HarteveldEelcoDahlbergStefanKokkonenAndrejVan Der BrugWouter. 2017. “Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics.” British Journal of Political Science: 1–21.
27.
HerrickRebekahSapievaAlmira. 1998. “Perceptions of Women Politicians in Kazakhstan.” Women & Politics18 (4): 27–40.
28.
HillsJill. 1981. “Candidates, the Impact of Gender.” Parliamentary Affairs34 (2): 221–28.
29.
HolmanMirya R.MerollaJennifer L.ZechmeisterElizabeth J.2016. “Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly69 (1): 134–47.
30.
HuddyLeonieCapelosTheresa. 2002. “Gender Stereotyping and Candidate Evaluation.” In The Social Psychology of Politics, edited by OttatiVictor C.TindaleR. ScottEdwardsJohnBryantFred B.HealthLindaO’ConnellDaniel C.Suarez-BalzacarYolandaPosavacEmil J. , 29–53. New York: Springer.
31.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993a. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly46 (3): 503–25.
32.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993b. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37:119–47.
33.
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2017. “Women in Politics: World Classification. Situation as of 1st March 2017.” http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm.
34.
IyengarShanto. 2011. “Laboratory Experiments in Political Science.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, edited by DruckmanJames N.GreenDonald P.KuklinskiJames H.LupiaArthur, 73–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
JenningsM. Kent. 2006. “The Gender Gap in Attitudes and Beliefs about the Place of Women in American Political Life: A Longitudinal, Cross-Generational Analysis.” Politics & Gender2 (2): 193–219.
36.
KahnKim Fridkin. 1994. “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science38 (1): 162–95.
37.
KahnKim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.
38.
KochJeffrey W.2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens’ Impressions of House Candidates’ Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science46: 453–62.
39.
KrookMona LenaSchwindt-BayerLeslie. 2013. “Electoral Institutions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics, edited by WaylenGeorginaCelisKarenKantolaJohannaWeldonLaurel S., 554–78. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
LammersJorisGordijnErnestine H.OttenSabine. 2009. “Iron Ladies, Men of Steel: The Effects of Gender Stereotyping on the Perception of Male and Female Candidates Are Moderated by Prototypicality.” European Journal of Social Psychology39 (2): 186–95.
41.
LarserudStinaTaphornRita. 2007. Designing for Equality: Best-Fit, Medium-Fit and Non-favourable Combinations of Electoral Systems and Gender Quotas. Edited by BallingtonJulieKaramAzza. Stockholm: IDEA.
42.
LawlessJennifer L.2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly57 (3): 479–90.
43.
MaddensBartWautersBramNoppeJoFiersStefaan. 2006. “Effects of Campaign Spending in an Open List PR System: The 2003 Legislative Elections in Flanders/Belgium.” West European Politics29 (1): 161–68.
44.
MatlandRichard E.1994. “Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of Norwegian Voters.” British Journal of Political Science24 (2): 273–92.
45.
MatlandRichard E.2005. “Enhancing Women’s Political Participation: Legislative Recruitment and Electoral Systems.” In Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers, edited by BallingtonJulieKaramAzza, 93–111. Stockholm: International IDEA.
46.
McDermottMonika L.2009. “Voting for Myself: Candidate and Voter Group Associations over Time.” Electoral Studies28: 606–14.
47.
MeierPetra. 2012. “From Laggard to Leader: Explaining the Belgian Gender Quotas and Parity Clause.” West European Politics35 (2): 362–79.
48.
NorrisPippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
NorrisPippaFranklinMark. 1997. “Social Representation.” European Journal of Political Research32 (2): 185–210.
50.
NorrisPippaLovenduskiJoni. 1993. “‘If Only More Candidates Came Forward’: Supply-Side Explanations of Candidate Selection in Britain.” British Journal of Political Science23 (3): 373–408.
51.
PhillipsAnne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
PitkinHanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
RahnWendy M.1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37: 472–96.
RosenwasserShirley M.RogersRobyn R.FlingSheilaSilvers-PickensKaylaButemeyerJohn. 1987. “Attitudes toward Women and Men in Politics: Perceived Male and Female Candidate Competencies and Participant Personality Characteristics.” Political Psychology8 (2): 191–200.
56.
SapiroVirginia. 1981. “Research Frontier Essay: When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review75 (3): 701–16.
57.
SchneiderMonica C.BosAngela L.2014. “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians.” Political Psychology35 (2): 245–66.
58.
Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M.Yarkoney-SorekAyala.GevaNehemia. 2016. “Context and Attitudes about the Ability of Women to Govern: Findings from an Experimental Study in Israel and Costa Rica.” Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
59.
ThomasSueWelchSusan. 1991. “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators.” The Western Political Quarterly44 (2): 445–56.
60.
TremblayManon. 2012. Women and Legislative Representation: Electoral Systems, Political Parties, and Sex Quotas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
61.
WautersBramWeekersKarolienMaddensBart. 2010. “Explaining the Number of Preferential Votes for Women in an Open-List PR System: An Investigation of the 2003 Federal Elections in Flanders (Belgium).” Acta Politica45 (4): 468–90.
62.
WinterNicholas J. G.2010. “Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans’ Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties.” Political Behavior32 (4): 587–618.
63.
ZhangChanConradFrederick G.2016. “Intervening to Reduce Satisficing Behaviors in Web Surveys: Evidence from Two Experiments on How It Works.” Social Science Computer Review.
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.
