Drawing from David Mayhew’s concept of legislative credit claiming, the authors examine the ways in which male and female members of Congress engage in creditclaiming activities. Through content analysis of 116 newsletters sent out by male and female members of the 107th Congress, the authors focus on the frequency of credit claiming, the types of policy issues for which men and women most commonly take credit, and whether members of Congress share credit with other individuals or take sole credit for their accomplishments. They find that women take credit more often than do men but are more balanced in the types of issues they emphasize in their newsletters. In addition, women are less likely than men to share credit with others. These findings suggest that women are cognizant of voter stereotypes and behave in ways that counter any negative implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Andersen. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly46(3): 527-545 .
2.
Beyer, Sylvia. 1990. “Gender Differences in the Accuracy of Self-Evaluations of Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59(5): 960-970 .
3.
Bond, Jon. 1985. “Dimensions of District Attention over Time.” American Journal of Political Science29(2): 330-347 .
4.
Bystrom, Dianne G., and Jerry L. Miller. 1999.“GenderedCommunication Styles and Strategies in Campaign 1996:The Videostyles of Women and Men Candidates.” In The Electronic Election: Perspectives on the 1996 Campaign Communication, ed. Lynda Lee Kaid and Dianne G. Bystrom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
5.
Cook, Timothy E. 1989. Making Laws and Making News:Media Strategies in theU.S.House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
6.
Cover, Albert D., and Bruce S. Brumberg. 1982. “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion.” American Political Science Review76(2): 347-359 .
7.
Deaux, Kay, and Elizabeth Farris. 1977. “Attributing Causes for One’s Own Performance: The Effects of Sex, Norms, and Outcome.” Journal of Research in Personality11(1): 59-72 .
8.
DeRosa, Karen Lane, and Dianne G. Bystrom, 1999. “The Voice of and forWomen in the 1996 Presidential Campaign: Style and Substance of Convention Speeches.” In The Electronic Election: Perspectives on the 1996 Campaign Communication, ed. Lynda Lee Kaid and Dianne G. Bystrom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
9.
Dodson, Debra L., et al. 1995. Voices,Views,Votes:The Impact of Women in the 103rd Congress. New Brunswick: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Center for the American Woman and Politics .
10.
Fox,Richard Logan.1997. Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections. Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage .
11.
Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37(1): 119-147 .
12.
Kahn, Kim FridkIn. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman. New York: Columbia University Press .
13.
Koch, Jeffrey W. 1999. “Candidate Gender and Assessments of Senate Candidates.” Social Science Quarterly80(1): 84-96 .
14.
Leeper, Mark Stephen. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly19(2): 248-261 .
15.
Lipinski, Daniel. 2001. “The Effect of Messages Communicated by Members of Congress: The Impact of Publicizing Votes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly26(1): 81-100 .
16.
McAdams, John, and John Johannes. 1988. “Congressmen, Perquisites, and Elections.” Journal of Politics50(2): 412-439 .
17.
Mayhew,David.1974. Congress:The Electoral Connection. NewHaven,CT:Yale University Press .
18.
Mayhew, David. 2001. “Observations on Congress: The Electoral Connectiona Quarter Century after Writing it.” PS: Political Science and Politics34(2): 251-252 .
19.
Mueller, Carol. 1986. “Nurturance and Mastery: Competing Qualifications forWomen’s Access to High Public Office?” Research in Politics and Society2: 211-232 .
20.
Niven, David, and Jeremy Zilber. 2001. “DoWomen and Men in Congress Cultivate Different Images? Evidence from Congressional Web Sites.” Political Communication18: 395-405 .
21.
Osborn, Tracy, and Jeanette Morehouse. 2002. “Speaking as Women: Women and the Use of Floor Speeches in the Senate.” Presented at the 60th annual meeting of theMidwest Political Science Association, April 25-28.
22.
Politics in America. 2002. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press .
23.
Pontius,John.1997. Official Congressional Mail Costs(97-36GOV). Washington,DC: Congressional Research Service .
24.
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press .
25.
Sellers,Patrick J. 1997. “Fiscal Consistency and Federal District Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science41(3): 1024-1041 .
26.
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
27.
Swift, Elaine. 1987–88. “The Electoral Connection Meets the Past: Lessons fromCongressional History: 1789-1899.” Political Science Quarterly102(4): 625-645 .
28.
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press .
29.
U.S. House of Representatives, Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards. 1998. Regulations on the Use of the Congressional Frank by Members of the House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office .
30.
Wadsworth, Anne Johnston, Philip Patterson, Lynda Lee Kaid, Ginger Cullers, Drew Malcomb, and Linda Lamirand. 1987. “‘Masculine’ vs. ‘Feminine’ Strategies in Political Ads: Implications for Female Candidates.” Journal of Applied Communication Research15(1-2): 77-94 .
31.
Yiannakis, Diana E. 1981. “The Grateful Electorate: Casework and Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science25(3): 568-580 .
32.
Yiannakis, Diana E. 1982. “House Members Communication Styles: Newsletters and Press Releases.” Journal of Politics44(4): 1049-1071 .
