Gender bias in elections is both a source of debate in the political science literature and a prominent topic in U.S. political discourse. As a result, Americans are exposed to differing messages about the extent to which women face disadvantages in their campaigns for office. We argue that such messages can have differing effects—some of which benefit female candidates, but others that may perpetuate the gender gap in political ambition. Using a survey experiment administered on samples of the U.S. public, campaign donors, and college students, we show that messages portraying women as facing gender bias boosts female candidates’ support and young people’s willingness to engage in campaign activism on their behalf. Simultaneously, it does not affect female candidates’ fundraising ability. But paradoxically, such messages also reduce young women’s confidence in their own ability to run a political campaign. These results suggest important implications for women’s underrepresentation.
AbramowitzA. I. (2011). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzA. I.LanoueD. J.RameshS. (1988). Economic conditions, causal attributions, and political evaluations in the 1984 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 50, 848-863.
3.
AdayS.DevittJ. (2001). Style over substance: Newspaper coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s presidential bid. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 52-73.
4.
AlexanderD.AndersenK. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527-545.
5.
AtkesonL. R.KrebsT. (2008). Press coverage in mayoral elections: Is there a gender bias?Political Research Quarterly, 61, 239-253.
6.
BartelsL. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. The American Political Science Review, 79, 804-815.
7.
BauerN. M. (2015). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support for female candidates. Political Psychology, 36, 691-708.
8.
BellM. A.KaufmannK. M. (2015). The electoral consequences of marriage and motherhood: How gender traits influence voter evaluations of female candidates. Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, 36(1), 1-21.
9.
BerrensR. P.BoharaA. K.Jenkins-SmithH.SilvaC.WeimerD. L. (2003). The advent of Internet surveys for political research: A comparison of telephone and Internet samples. Political Analysis, 11(1), 1-22.
10.
BittnerA.Goodyear-GrantE. (2017). Sex isn’t gender: Reforming concepts and measurements in the study of public opinion. Political Behavior, 39, 1019-1041.
11.
BonicaA. (2013). Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections: Public version 1.0 [Computer file]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from http://data.stanford.edu/dime
12.
BradenM. (1996). Women politicians in the media. Lexington, UK: University of Kentucky.
13.
BrooksD. J. (2011). Testing the double standard for candidate emotionality: Voter reactions to the tears and anger of male and female politicians. The Journal of Politics, 73, 597-615.
14.
BrooksD. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
BurrellB. (2014). Gender in campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
CeciS. J.KainE. L. (1982). Jumping on the bandwagon with the underdog: The impact of attitude polls on polling behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 228-242.
17.
DittmarK. (2015). Navigating gendered terrain: Stereotypes and strategy in political campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
18.
DolanK. (2008). Is there a “gender affinity effect” in American politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in U.S. house elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 79-89.
19.
DolanK. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
DowlingC. M.MillerM. G. (2015). Can information alter perceptions about women’s chances of winning office? Evidence from a panel study. Politics and Gender, 11, 55-88.
21.
EnosR. D.HershE. D. (2015.). Party activists as campaign advertisers: The ground campaign as a principal-agent problem. The American Political Science Review, 109, 252-278.
22.
FleitasD. W. (1971.). Bandwagon and underdog effects in minimal-information elections. The American Political Science Review, 65, 434-438.
23.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2010). If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. The Journal of Politics, 72, 310-326.
24.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2011). Gendered perceptions and political candidacies: A central barrier to women’s equality in electoral politics. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 59-73.
25.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2014). Uncovering the origins of the gender gap in political ambition. The American Political Science Review, 108, 499-519.
26.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J. (2014). The changing face of representation: The gender of U.S. senators and constituent communications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
FultonS. A. (2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 303-314.
28.
GoldschmiedN.VandelloJ. A. (2009). The advantage of disadvantage: Underdogs in the political arena. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 24-31.
29.
Goodyear-GrantE.CroskillJ. (2011). Gender affinity effects in vote choice in Westminster systems: Assessing “flexible” voters in Canada. Politics and Gender, 7, 223-250.
30.
Haider-MarkelD. P.JoslynM. P. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics, 63, 520-543.
31.
HayesD. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics and Gender, 7, 133-165.
32.
HayesD.LawlessJ. L. (2016). Women on the run: Gender, media, and political campaigns in a polarized era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HayesD.LawlessJ. L.BaitingerG. (2014). Who cares what they wear? Media, gender, and the influence of candidate appearance. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 1194-1212.
34.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
35.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
IyengarS.NorpothH.HahnK. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horse race sells. The Journal of Politics, 66, 157-175.
37.
KahnK. F. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
38.
KanthakK.WoonJ. (2015). Women don’t run? Election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 595-612.
39.
KimJ.AllisonS. T.EylonD.GoethalsG. R.MarkusM. J.HindleS. M.McGuireH. A. (2008). Rooting for (and then abandoning) the underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2550-2573.
40.
LawlessJ. L. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the Post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 479-490.
41.
LawlessJ. L. (2015). Female candidates and legislators. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 349-366.
42.
LawlessJ. L.FoxR. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MoC. H. (2015). The consequences of explicit and implicit gender attitudes and candidate quality in the calculations of voters. Political Behavior, 37, 357-395.
44.
O’BrienD. Z.RickneJ. (2016). Gender quotas and women’s political leadership. The American Political Science Review, 110, 112-126.
RosenwasserS. M.DeanN. G. (1989). Gender role and political office: Effects of perceived masculinity/femininity of candidate and political office. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 77-85.
50.
SanbonmatsuK. (2006). Where women run: Gender & party in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
51.
SandersD.ClarkeH. D.StewartM. C.WhiteleyP. (2007). Does mode matter for modeling political choice? Evidence from the 2005 British election study. Political Analysis, 15, 257-285.
52.
SchneiderM. C.HolmanM. R.DiekmanA. B.McAndrewT. (2015). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology, 27, 515-531.
53.
Schwindt-BayerL. (2005). The incumbency disadvantage and women’s election to legislative office. Electoral Studies, 24, 227-244.
54.
SkitkaL. J.TetlockP. E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 491-522.
55.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
56.
ThomsenD. (2015). Why so few (republican) women? Explaining the partisan imbalance of women in the U.S. congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40, 295-323.
57.
YouGov. (2016). YouGov sampling methodology (Unpublished paper). Available from https://yougov.com
58.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
