Very little research has considered how media discrimination could impact men and women’s political ambition. Yet, media discrimination could impact both beliefs about gender roles and political competence, and beliefs about voter bias, both of which could decrease women’s political ambition and increase men’s. Alternatively, media discrimination could lead women to react against discrimination and be motivated politically. This study tests how political ambition of men and women is impacted by media discrimination in a campaign and election lab experiment. Media discrimination in this experiment under-reports on women and uses traditional, stereotypical depictions of men and women. The results suggest that in certain conditions, media discrimination in political news may lead to a reactance or positive challenge effect for women, increasing their political ambition. Men, instead, may feel an aversion to entering politics, lowering their political ambition.
AlekseevAleksandrCharnessGaryGneezyUri. 2017. ‘Experimental Methods: When and Why Contextual Instructions Are Important’. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization134, (February): 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.005.
2.
BauerNichole M.2015. ‘Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support Female Candidates’. Political Psychology36no. 6: 691-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12186.
3.
BauerNichole M.. 2017. ‘The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations’. Political Psychology38no. 2: 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351.
4.
BeckerJulia C.Wright.Stephen C.2011. ‘Yet Another Dark Side of Chivalry: Benevolent Sexism Undermines and Hostile Sexism Motivates Collective Action for Social Change’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101no. 1: 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615.
5.
BelluatiMarinella. 2020. ‘Through the Media Lens. Women Activities in Italian Politics’. Contemporary Italian Politics12no. 3: 366-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2020.1780033.
6.
BelluatiMarinellaPiccioDaniela R.SampugnaroRossana. 2020. ‘Women’s Access to the Political Sphere in Italy: When Obstacles Outdo Opportunities’. Contemporary Italian Politics12no. 3: 278-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2020.1780031.
7.
BiglerRebecca S.LibenLynn S.. 2007. ‘Developmental Intergroup Theory: Explaining and Reducing Children’s Social Stereotyping and Prejudice’. Current Directions in Psychological Science16no. 3: 162166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x.
8.
BrandtsJordiGërxhaniKlaritaSchramArthur. 2020. ‘Are There Gender Differences in Status-Ranking Aversion?’ Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics84(February): 101485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101485.
9.
CampbellDavid E.WolbrechtChristina. 2020. ‘The Resistance as Role Model: Disillusionment and Protest Among American Adolescents After 2016’. Political Behavior42no. 4: 1143-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09537-w.
10.
CampusDonatella. 2010. ‘Political Discussion, Views of Political Expertise and Women’s Representation in Italy’. European Journal of Women’s Studies17no. 3: 249–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506810368815.
11.
CarterCynthiaSteinerLinda. 2004. ‘Mapping the contested terrain of media and gender research’. In Critical Readings: Media and Gender, edited by CarterCynthiaSteinerLinda, 11-36. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
12.
CastleJeremiah J.ShannonJenkinsOrtbalsCandice D.Poloni-StaudingerLoriCherie StrachanJ.. 2020. ‘The Effect of the #MeToo Movement on Political Engagement and Ambition in 2018’. Political Research Quarterly73no. 4: 926-941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920924824.
13.
ChenDaniel L.SchongerMartinWickensChris. 2016. ‘OTree—An Open-Source Platform for Laboratory, Online, and Field Experiments’. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance9(March): 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.12.001.
ConroyMeredithGreenJon. 2020. ‘It Takes a Motive: Communal and Agentic Articulated Interest and Candidate Emergence’. Political Research Quarterly73 no. 4: 942-956. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920933668.
16.
ConroyMeredithOliverSarahBreckenridge-JacksonIanHeldmanCaroline. 2015. ‘From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in Coverage of Vice Presidential Candidates in Old and New Media’. Politics, Groups, and Identities3no. 4: 573-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050412.
17.
CorrellShelley J. 2004. ‘Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspirations’. American Sociological Review69no. 1: 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900106.
18.
CorrellShelley J.RidgewayCecilia L.ZuckermanEzra W.JankSharonJordan-BlochSaraNakagawaSandra. 2017. ‘It’s the Conventional Thought That Counts: How Third-Order Inference Produces Status Advantage’. American Sociological Review82no. 2: 297-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417691503.
19.
DahlMalteJacobNyrup. 2021. ‘Confident and Cautious Candidates: Explaining under-Representation of Women in Danish Municipal Politics’. European Journal of Political Research60no. 1: 199-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12396.
20.
DerksBelleScheepersDaanVan LaarColetteEllemersNaomi. 2011. ‘The Threat vs. Challenge of Car Parking for Women: How Self- and Group Affirmation Affect Cardiovascular Responses’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology47no. 1: 178-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.016.
21.
DolanJulieShahParu. 2020. ‘She Persisted: Gender, Electoral Loss, and the Decision to Run Again’. Political Research Quarterly73no. 4: 957-966. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920934869.
22.
DolanKathleen. 2014. ‘Gender Stereotypes, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting for Women Candidates: What Really Matters?’ Political Research Quarterly67no. 1: 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913487949.
23.
DolanKathleenHansenMichael. 2018. ‘Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women’s Underrepresentation in Elected Office’. Political Research Quarterly71no. 3: 668-680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918755972.
24.
DuranteRubenPinottiPaoloTeseiAndrea. 2019. ‘The Political Legacy of Entertainment TV’. American Economic Review109no. 7: 2497-2530. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150958.
25.
EaglyAlice H.KarauSteven J.. 2002. ‘Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders’. Psychological Review109no. 3: 573598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
26.
EdströmMariaMølsterRagnhild, eds. 2014. Making Change: Nordic Examples of Working towards Gender Equality in the Media. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.
27.
FediAngelaRolleroChiara. 2016. ‘If Stigmatized, Self-Esteem Is Not Enough: Effects of Sexism, Self-Esteem and Social Identity on Leadership Aspiration’. Europe’s Journal of Psychology12no. 4: 533-549. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i4.984.
28.
FiskSusan R.OvertonJon. 2019. ‘Who Wants to Lead? Anticipated Gender Discrimination Reduces Women’s Leadership Ambitions’. Social Psychology Quarterly82no. 3: 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519863424.
29.
FoosFlorianGilardiFabrizio. 2020. ‘Does Exposure to Gender Role Models Increase Women’s Political Ambition? A Field Experiment with Politicians’. Journal of Experimental Political Science7no. 3: 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2019.21.
30.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.. 2011. ‘Gaining and Losing Interest in Running for Public Office: The Concept of Dynamic Political Ambition’. The Journal of Politics73no. 2: 443-462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611000120.
31.
FunkMichelle E.CokerCalvin R.. 2016. ‘She’s Hot, for a Politician: The Impact of Objectifying Commentary on Perceived Credibility of Female Candidates’. Communication Studies67no. 4: 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.1196380.
32.
GallagherMargaret. 2014. ‘Media and the Representation of Gender’. In The Routledge Companion to Media & Gender, edited by CarterCynthiaSteinerLindaMcLaughlinLisa. Abingdon: Routledge.
33.
GershonSarah.2012. ‘When Race, Gender, and the Media Intersect: Campaign News Coverage of Minority Congresswomen’. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy33no. 2: 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2012.667743.
HalliwellEmmaMalsonHelenTischnerIrmgard. 2011. ‘Are Contemporary Media Images Which Seem to Display Women as Sexually Empowered Actually Harmful to Women?’ Psychology of Women Quarterly35no. 1: 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310385217.
36.
HaraldssonAmandaWängnerudLena. 2019. ‘The Effect of Media Sexism on Women’s Political Ambition: Evidence from a Worldwide Study’. Feminist Media Studies19no. 4: 525-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1468797.
37.
HayesDanny. 2011. ‘When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution’. Politics & Gender7no. 2: 133-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000055.
HolmanMirya R.SchneiderMonica C.. 2018. ‘Gender, Race, and Political Ambition: How Intersectionality and Frames Influence Interest in Political Office’. Politics, Groups, and Identities6no. 2: 264-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105.
41.
HoytCrystal L.JohnsonStefanie K.Elaine MurphySusanHogue SkinnellKerri. 2010. ‘The Impact of Blatant Stereotype Activation and Group Sex-Composition on Female Leaders’. The Leadership Quarterly21no. 5: 716-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.003.
42.
HoytCrystal L.StefanieSimon.. 2011. ‘Female Leaders: Injurious or Inspiring Role Models for Women?’ Psychology of Women Quarterly35no. 1: 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310385216.
43.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993. ‘Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates’. American Journal of Political Science37no. 1: 119-147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526.
IyengarShanto. 2015. Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. 3rd ed.New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
48.
KanthakKristinWoonJonathan. 2015. ‘Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry’. American Journal of Political Science59no. 3: 595-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12158.
LaveryLesley. 2013. ‘Gender Bias in the Media? An Examination of Local Television News Coverage of Male and Female House Candidates’. Politics & Policy41no. 6: 877-910. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12051.
51.
LawlessJennifer L. 2009. ‘Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for Women in Politics’. Politics & Gender5no. 1: 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X09000051.
52.
LawlessJennifer L.FoxRichard L.. 2010. It Still Takes A Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Revised ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
LawlessJennifer L.FoxRichard L.. 2013. Girls Just Wanna Not Run: The Gender Gap in Young Americans’ Political Ambition. Washington, DC: Women & Politics Institute.
MerloAntonioGalassoVincenzoLandiMassimilianoMattozziAndrea. 2009. ‘The Labor Market of Italian Politicians, Second Version’. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1432457. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1432457.
MurphyJustinRekBeata. 2019. ‘Candidate Gender and the Media Attention in the 2015 UK General Election’. Parliamentary Affairs72no. 2: 290-311. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsy019.
58.
PansardiPamelaVercesiMichelangelo. 2017. ‘Party Gate-Keeping and Women’s Appointment to Parliamentary Committees: Evidence from the Italian Case’. Parliamentary Affairs70no. 1: 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsv066.
59.
PateJenniferFoxRichard. 2018. ‘Getting Past the Gender Gap in Political Ambition’. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization156no. C: 166-183.
60.
PfanzeltHannahSpiesDennis C.. 2019. ‘The Gender Gap in Youth Political Participation: Evidence from Germany’. Political Research Quarterly72no. 1: 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918775249.
61.
PiscopoJennifer M. 2019. ‘The Limits of Leaning in: Ambition, Recruitment, and Candidate Training in Comparative Perspective’. Politics, Groups, and Identities7no. 4: 817-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1532917.
62.
PreeceJessicaStoddardOlga. 2015. ‘Why Women Don’t Run: Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Political Competition Aversion’. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization117(September): 296-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.04.019.
63.
PruysersScottBlaisJulie. 2017. ‘Why Won’t Lola Run? An Experiment Examining Stereotype Threat and Political Ambition’. Politics & Gender13no. 2: 232-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X16000544.
64.
PruysersScottThomasMelaneeBlaisJulie. 2020. ‘Mediated Ambition? Gender, News and the Desire to Seek Elected Office’. European Journal of Politics and Gender3no. 1: 37-59. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510819X15701058119488.
65.
QuarantaMario. 2016. ‘Leaving Home, Finding a Partner and Having Kids: Gender Differences in Political Participation across the Life Course in Italy’. Acta Politica51no. 3: 372-397. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2015.19.
66.
R Core Team. 2013. ‘R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing’. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLhttp://www.R-project.org/.
67.
RidgewayCecilia L.CorrellShelley J.. 2004. ‘Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations’. Gender & Society18no. 4: 510-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269.
68.
RinckerMegAslamGhaziaIsaniMujtaba. 2017. ‘Crossed My Mind, but Ruled It out: Political Ambition and Gender in the Pakistani Lawyers’ Movement 2007–2009’. International Political Science Review38no. 3: 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116642219.
SartoriLauraTuortoDarioGhigiRossella. 2017. ‘The Social Roots of the Gender Gap in Political Participation: The Role of Situational and Cultural Constraints in Italy’. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society24no. 3: 221-247. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxx008.
71.
SchneiderMonica C.HolmanMirya R.DiekmanAmanda B.McAndrew.Thomas2016. ‘Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women’s Political Ambition’. Political Psychology37no. 4: 515-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12268.
72.
ShorEranvan de RijtArnoutFotouhiBabak. 2019. ‘A Large-Scale Test of Gender Bias in the Media’. Sociological Science6(September): 526-550. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a20.
73.
SilbermannRachel. 2015. ‘Gender Roles, Work-Life Balance, and Running for Office’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science10no. 2: 123-153. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00014087.
74.
SimonStefanieHoytCrystal L.. 2013. ‘Exploring the Effect of Media Images on Women’s Leadership Self-Perceptions and Aspirations’. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations16no. 2: 232-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212451176.
75.
SteeleClaude M. 1997. ‘A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance’. American Psychologist52no. 6: 613-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613.
76.
StefaniSerenaPratiGabrieleTzankovaIanaRicciElenaAlbanesiCinziaCicognaniElvira. 2021. ‘Gender Differences in Civic and Political Engagement and Participation Among Italian Young People’. Social Psychological Bulletin16no. 1: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.3887.
77.
Sweet-CushmanJennie. 2014. “Individual Differences In Psychological Evaluations Of Electoral Risk: Furthering The Explanation Of The Gender Gap In Candidate Emergence”. Wayne State University Dissertations, January. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/927.
78.
Sweet-CushmanJennie. 2019. ‘See It; Be It? The Use of Role Models in Campaign Trainings for Women’. Politics, Groups, and Identities7no. 4: 853-863. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1531771.
79.
ThomasMelanee. 2012. ‘The Complexity Conundrum: Why Hasn’t the Gender Gap in Subjective Political Competence Closed?’ Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique45no. 2: 337-358. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423912000352.
80.
TrimbleLinda. 2017. Ms. Prime Minister: Gender, Media, and Leadership. Canadian First ed.Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
81.
Van der PasDaphne JoannaAalderingLoes. 2020. ‘Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Communication70no. 1: 114-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz046.
KahnKim Fridkin. Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate Candidates. The Journal of Politics1992; 54(2): 497–517, https://doi.org/10.2307/2132036.
