The effect of women in politics is vitally important for the study of representation, yet evidence is mixed on the extent to which women’s presence influences individuals’ symbolic attitudes and behaviors. We use a priming survey experiment to examine how information about increased women candidates in the U.S. affects political ambition, efficacy, and future support for women candidates. We present several different patterns across gender and partisanship. Republicans report higher political ambition after hearing about more women candidates, even when those women are running for the opposite party. Men had higher political efficacy in response to more same-party women running, but not opposite-party women. Importantly, our evidence does not support the widespread notion that women’s presence positively influences women’s political efficacy or likelihood to vote for female candidates. The findings highlight the importance of considering the effects of women’s presence not only for the group that is assumed to benefit.
AlexanderA. C. (2012). Change in women’s descriptive representation and the belief in women’s ability to govern: A virtuous cycle. Politics & Gender, 8(4), 437–464.
2.
AnziaS. F.BerryC. R. (2011). The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outperform congressmen?American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 478–493.
3.
AtkesonL. R. (2003). Not all cues are created equal: The conditional impact of female candidates on political engagement. Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1040–1061.
4.
BeckS. (1991). Rethinking municipal governance: Gender distinctions on local councils. In DodsonD. L. (Ed.), Gender and policymaking: Studies of women in office (pp. 103–114). Center for the American Woman and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
5.
BeckwithK.Cowell-MeyersK. (2007). Sheer numbers: Critical representation thresholds and women’s political representation. Perspectives on Politics, 5(3), 553–565.
6.
BonneauC.KanthakK. (2020). Stronger together: Political ambition and the presentation of women running for office. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 8(3), 576–594.
7.
BroockmanD. E. (2014). Do female politicians empower women to vote or run for office? A regression discontinuity approach. Electoral Studies, 34, 190–204.
8.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research and Politics, 6(1), 1–14.
9.
CostaM.SchaffnerB. F. (2018). How gender conditions the way citizens evaluate and engage with their representatives. Political Research Quarterly, 7(1), 46–58.
10.
CuttsD.ChildsS.FieldhouseE. (2008). “This is what happens when you don’t listen”: All-women shortlists at the 2005 general election. Party Politics, 14(5), 575–595.
DolanK. (2006). Symbolic mobilization? The impact of candidate sex in American elections. American Politics Research, 34(6), 687–704.
13.
DovidioJ. F.FiskeS. T. (2012). Under the radar: How unexamined biases in decision-making processes in clinical interactions can contribute to health care disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 945–952.
14.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.
15.
DruckmanJ. N.LeeperT. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896.
16.
EffronD. A.CameronJ. S.BenoîtM. (2009). Endorsing Obama licenses favoring whites. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 590–593.
17.
Espírito-SantoA.VergeT. (2017). The elusive measurement of symbolic effects on citizens’ political attitudes: Survey experiments as alternative avenues. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(3), 494–499.
18.
FlammangJ. A. (1985). Female officials in the feminist capital: The case of Santa Clara county. Political Research Quarterly, 38(1), 94–118.
19.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2014). Uncovering the origins of the gender gap in political ambition. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 499–519.
20.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26.
21.
GilardiF. (2015). The temporary importance of role models for women’s political representation. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 957–970.
22.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22, 1–30.
23.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
24.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147.
25.
JohnsonD.KabuchuH.KayongaS. V. (2003). Women in Ugandan local government: The impact of affirmative action. Gender and Development, 11(3), 8–18.
26.
JuliousS. A. (2004). Using confidence intervals around individual means to assess statistical significance between two means. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 3(3), 217–222.
27.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A. (2008). When politics is not just a man’s game: Women’s representation and political engagement. Electoral Studies, 23, 105–115.
28.
KlarS. (2018). When common identities decrease trust: An experimental study of partisan women. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 610–622.
29.
KrookM. (2015). Empowerment versus backlash: Gender quotas and critical mass theory. Politics, Groups, & Identities, 3(1), 184–188.
30.
KrookM. (2016). Contesting gender quotas: Dynamics of resistance. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(2), 268–283.
31.
LawlessJ. L. (2004). Politics of presence? Congresswomen and symbolic representation. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 81–99.
32.
McDermottM. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918.
33.
MacDonaldJ. A.O’BrienE. E. (2011). Quasi-experimental design, constituency, and advancing women’s interests: Reexamining the influence of gender on substantive representation. Political Research Quarterly, 64(2), 472–486.
34.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.
35.
MeierP. (2008). A gender gap not closed by quotas. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10(3), 329–347.
36.
MerrittS. (1980). Sex differences in role behavior and policy orientations of suburban officeholders: The effect of women’s employment. In StewartD. (Ed.), Women in local politics (pp. 115–129). Scarecrow Press.
37.
OndercinH. L.WelchS. (2005). Women candidates for congress. In ThomasS.WilcoxC. (Eds.), Women and elective office (pp. 60–80). Oxford University Press.
38.
OnoY.BurdenB. (2019). The contingent effects of candidate sex on voter choice. Political Behavior, 41(3), 583–607.
39.
O’ReaganV.StamboughS. J. (2011). The novelty impact: The politics of trailblazing women in gubernatorial elections. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 32(2), 96–113.
40.
PetrocikJ. R.BenoitW. L.HannsenG. J. (2004). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626.
SchmittT. M.BranscombeN. R.KobrynowiczD.OwenS. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 197–210.
46.
Stokes-BrownA. K.DolanK. (2010). Race, gender, and symbolic representation: African American female candidates as mobilizing agents. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20(4), 473–494.
47.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
48.
WolbrechtC.CampbellD. E. (2007). Leading by example: Female members of parliament as political role models. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 921–939.
49.
WolbrechtC.CampbellD. E. (2017). Role models revisited: Youth, novelty, and the impact of female candidates. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(3), 418–434.
50.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
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.
