Many studies have analyzed whether there are differences in the use of negative campaigning of men and women candidates. However, empirical evidence for a gender-specific use of attacks is inconclusive. We argue that we are not yet able to fully understand the conditions under which men and women candidates go negative on their political opponents, as the costs and benefits have not yet been empirically measured. Based on candidate surveys from Germany, we use a moderated mediation model to show that i. Women report lower levels of attack behavior than men, ii. Women show a less favorable balance of benefits and costs of negative campaigning, and iii. The perceived benefit-cost balance influences the decision to go negative. However, iv. This effect is moderated by gender; men only attack more often than women when the perceived costs are low and the expected benefits are high.
AuterZJFineJA (2016) Negative campaigning in the social media age: attack advertising on Facebook. Political Behavior38(4): 999–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9346-8
2.
BakerMDOwensBTUtterRL, et al. (2022) Boundary conditions for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Risk Research25(4): 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1962953
3.
BanwartMCBystromDG (2022) Gender and candidate communication: an analysis of televised ads in the 2020 US senate races. American Behavioral Scientist69: 947–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211040766
4.
BauerNM (2015) Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support female candidates. Political Psychology36(6): 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12186
5.
BauerNM (2017) The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology38(2): 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351
6.
BenoitWL (2022) Communication on Political Campaigns. Functional Analysis of Election Messages. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
7.
BernhardRde Benedictis-KessnerJ (2021) Men and women candidates are similarly persistent after losing elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(26): e2026726118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026726118
CarrollSJ (1984) Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
11.
CharnessGGneezyU (2012) Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization83(1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007
12.
CofféHHelimäkiTvon SchoultzÅ (2023) How gender affects negative and positive campaigning. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy44(3): 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2023.2180610
13.
ConnorRAFiskeST (2018) Warmth and competence: a feminist look at power and negotiation. In: TravisCBWhiteJWRutherfordA, et al. (eds). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, Vol. 1, 321–342. History, theory, and battlegrounds.APA handbook of the psychology of women.
14.
CraigSCRipperePS (2016) He said, she said: the impact of candidate gender in negative campaigns. Politics and Gender12(2): 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X15000550
15.
DawsonC (2023) Gender differences in optimism, loss aversion and attitudes towards risk. British Journal of Psychology114(4): 928–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12668
16.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWC (2016) Negative campaigning and the logic of retaliation in multiparty competition. The international journal of press/politics21(2): 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161215626566
EckelCCGrossmanPJ (2008) Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence. In: PlottCRSmithVL (eds). Amsterdam: North-Holland, Vol. 1, 1061–1073.Handbook of experimental economics results.
19.
Elmelund-PræstekærCSvenssonHM (2014) Ebbs and flows of negative campaigning: a longitudinal study of the influence of contextual factors on Danish campaign rhetoric. European Journal of Communication29(2): 230–239.
20.
ErikssonKSimpsonB (2010) Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgment and Decision Making5(3): 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500001030
21.
FerrínM (2022) Reassessing gender differences in COVID‐19 risk perception and behavior. Social Science Quarterly103(1): 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13116
22.
FowlerEFRidoutTNFranzMM (2016) Political advertising in 2016: the presidential election as outlier?The Forum14(4): 445–469.
23.
FridkinKLKenneyPJ (2004) Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity on citizens’ evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research32(5): 570–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03260834
24.
FridkinKLKenneyPJ (2019) Taking Aim at Attack Advertising: Understanding the Impact of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Races. Nee. York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
GeerJG (2006) In Defense of Negativity. Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
GeerJG (2012) The news media and the rise of negativity in presidential campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics45(3): 422–427.
27.
HardyBW (2017) Candidate traits and political choice. In: KenskiKJamiesonKH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 437–450.
28.
HarrisCRJenkinsM (2006) Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men?Judgment and Decision Making1(1): 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000346
29.
HerrnsonPSLucasJC (2006) The fairer sex? Gender and negative campaigning in US elections. American Politics Research34(1): 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05278038
30.
HolianDBPrysbyC (2014) Candidate character traits in the 2012 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly44(3): 484–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12134
31.
JamiesonKH (1995) Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
KahnKFKenneyPJ (2004) No Holds Barred. Negativity in U.S. Senate Campaigns. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
33.
KimSS (2014) Gender differences in perceived risks and benefits of quitting smoking among Korean Americans. Journal of Women’s Health, Issues & Care3(5): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2325-9795.1000160
34.
KoenigAMEaglyAHMitchellAARistikariT (2011) Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin137(4): 616–642. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
35.
KrupnikovYBauerNM (2014) The relationship between campaign negativity, gender and campaign context. Political Behavior36(1): 167–188. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9221-9
36.
LauRRPomperGM (2004) Negative Campaigning. an Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
37.
LauRRSigelmanLRovnerIB (2007) The effects of negative political campaigns: a meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal of Politics69(4): 1176–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
38.
LeinerDJ (2019) Too fast, too straight, too weird: non-Reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research Methods13(3): 229–248. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7403
39.
MaierJNaiA (2023) Mapping the drivers of negative campaigning: Insights from a candidate survey. International Political Science Review44(2): 195–211. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512121994512
40.
MaierJOschatzCStierSDianMSältzerM (2025) Beyond rationality. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the use of negative campaigning. European Political Science Review17(3): 378–396. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773925000025
41.
MaierJRennerA (2018) When a man meets a woman: Comparing the use of negativity of male candidates in single- and mixed-gender televised debates. Political Communication35(3): 433–449. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1411998
42.
MaierJStierSOschatzC (2023) Are candidates rational when it comes to negative campaigning? Empirical evidence from three German candidate surveys. Party Politics29(4): 766–779. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688221085239
43.
McKeeSAO'MalleySSSaloveyP, et al. (2005) Perceived risks and benefits of smoking cessation: gender-specific predictors of motivation and treatment outcome. Addictive Behaviors30(3): 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.05.027
44.
MorgenrothTRyanMKFineC (2022) The gendered consequences of risk-taking at work: are women averse to risk or to poor consequences?Psychology of Women Quarterly46(3): 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221084048
45.
NaiA (2020) Going negative, worldwide: towards a general understanding of determinants and targets of negative campaigning. Government and Opposition55(3): 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2018.32
46.
NaiATreschAMaierJ (2022) Hardwired to attack. Candidates’ personality traits and negative campaigning in three European countries. Acta Politica57(4): 772–797. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00222-7
47.
NaiAValliCMaierJAalderingL (2025) Gendered backlash depends on the context. Reassessing negative campaigning sanctions against female candidates via large-scale comparative data. Political Communication42(3): 454–475. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2434930
48.
PawlowskiBAtwalRDunbarRI (2008) Sex differences in everyday risk-taking behavior in humans. Evolutionary Psychology6(1): 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600104
49.
PolbornMKYiDT (2006) Informative positive and negative campaigning. Quarterly Journal of Political Science1(4): 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00000013
RudmanLAGlickP (2001) Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
52.
SapienzaPZingalesLMaestripieriD (2009) Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America106(36): 15268–15273. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907352106
53.
SchneiderMCBosAL (2014) Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology35(2): 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040
54.
SchneiderMCBosAL (2019) The application of social role theory to the study of gender in politics. Political Psychology40(S1): 173–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12573
55.
SchumacherGZettlerI (2019) House of cards or west wing? self-Reported HEXACO traits of Danish politicians. Personality and Individual Differences141: 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.028
56.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis20(2): 195–204.
57.
SkaperdasSGrofmanB (1995) Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review89(1): 49–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/2083074
58.
StierSOschatzCvon HohenbergBCMaierJNaiAKirkizhN (2025) When do candidates “go negative”? A conjoint analysis to unpack the mechanisms of negative campaigning. Electoral Studies, 93.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102894.
59.
ValgarðssonVJenningsWStokerG, et al. (2024) The good politician: competence, integrity and authenticity in seven democracies. Political Studies73: 631–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217241261180
60.
ValliCNaiA (2022) Attack politics from Albania to Zimbabwe: a large-scale comparative study on the drivers of negative campaigning. International Political Science Review43(5): 680–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120946410
61.
von GaudeckerH-Mvan SoestAWengströmE (2011) Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population. The American Economic Review101(2): 664–694. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.2.664
62.
WalterAS (2013) Women on the battleground: does gender condition the use of negative campaigning?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties23(2): 154–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2013.769107
WalterASNaiA (2015) Explaining the use of attack behavior in the electoral battlefield: a literature overview. In: NaiAWalterAS (eds) New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning. Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press, 97–114.
65.
WeberEUBlaisA-RBetzNE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making15(4): 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414
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.
