We report the results of an experiment involving 820 randomly sampled adults. Half heard about a female Republican candidate for Congress. The other half learned of an otherwise identical male candidate. Democrat and Independent voters were more likely to trust, think qualified, view as a leader, and vote for the female Republican (contrasted with the male Republican). On the other hand, being female led to associations that hurt Republican women within their own party. We augment our experimental results by providing evidence that Republican women have done significantly worse than Democratic women in winning nominations in open-seat congressional districts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, A. I. (1980). A comparison of voting for United States senator and representative in 1978. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 633-640.
2.
Alexander, D., & Anderson, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527-545.
3.
Banducci, S., Everitt, J., & Gidengil, E. (2002, July 16). Gender stereotypes of political candidates: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Internation Society of Political Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
4.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive accounting of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
5.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
6.
Conover, P. J. (1981). Political cues and the perception of candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 9(4), 427-448.
7.
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1989) Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 912-940.
8.
Cook, E. A. (1994). Voter response to women senate candidates. In E. A. Cook, S. Thomas, & C. Wilcox, (Eds.), The Year of the Woman: Myths and realities (pp. 217-227). Boulder, CO: Westview.
9.
Cook, E. A., & Wilcox, C. (1995). Women voters in the “Year of the Woman.” In H. F. Weisberg (Ed.), Democracy's feast: Elections in America (pp. 195-219). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
10.
Cooperman, R., & Oppenheimer, B. I. (2001). The gender gap in the House of Representatives. In L. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (7th ed., pp. 125-140). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
11.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Dolan, K. (2001). Electoral context, issues, and voting for women in the 1990s. Women & Politics, 23, 21-36.
13.
Feldman, S., & Conover, P. J. (1983). Candidates, issues and voters: The role of inference in political perception. Journal of Politics, 45, 810-839.
14.
Fiske, S. T., & Kinder, D. R. (1981). Involvement, expertise, and schema use: Evidence from political cognition. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 171-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Gaddie, K., & Bullock, C. (2000). Elections to open seats in the U.S. House: Where the action is. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
16.
Herrnson, P. S., Lay, J. C., & Stokes, A. K. (2003). Women running “as women”: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 244-255.
17.
Hinckley, B. (1980). The American voter in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 641-650.
18.
Koch, J. W. (1999). Candidate gender and assessments of senate candidates. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 84-96.
19.
Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates' ideological orientations? The Journal of Politics, 62, 414-429.
20.
Koch, J. W. (2002). Gender stereotypes and citizens' impressions of house candidates' ideological orientations.” American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 453-462.
21.
Lau, R. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91, 585-598.
23.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951-971.
24.
Lau, R. R., & Sears, D. O. (Eds.). (1986). Political cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 95-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Lodge, M., McGraw, K., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399-419.
26.
Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter—Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309-326.
27.
Mann, T. E., Malbin, M. J., & Ornstein, N. J. (2002). Vital statistics on Congress. 2001-2002. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
28.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
29.
Matland, R. 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 Science, 24(2), 273-292.
30.
Matland, R. E., & King, D. C. (2002). Women as candidates in congressional elections. In C. S. Rosenthal (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 119-145). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
31.
McDermott, M. L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 270-283.
32.
McGraw, K. M. (2000). Contributions of the cognitive approach to political psychology. Political Psychology, 21(4), 805-832.
33.
Popkin, S. L. (1995). Information shortcuts and the reasoning voter. In B. Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation, and choice (pp. 17-36). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472-496.
35.
Rapoport, R. B., Metcalf, K. L., & Hartman, J. A. (1989). Candidate traits and voter inferences: An experimental study. Journal of Politics, 51(4), 917-932.
36.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
38.
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Thompson, S., and Steckenrider, J. (1997). The relative irrelevance of candidate sex. Women and Politics, 17(4), 71-92.
40.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
