Scandals are an unfortunate, but important, part of the political world. We examine how citizen perceptions of politicians involved in scandals are conditional upon two important factors: the politician’s gender and their decision to provide a justification for the scandal. Using experimental evidence, we find that justification of a scandal increases perceptions of competence for politicians, regardless of gender, but only increases perceptions of likability for women. We find, additionally, that the effect of gender is conditional on political ideology: liberals generally feel more positive toward a woman involved in a scandal, while no difference emerges for conservatives.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.
2.
BanducciS. A.KarpJ. A. (1994). Electoral consequences of scandal and reapportionment in the 1992 house elections. American Politics Quarterly, 22(1), 3–26.
3.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics and Gender, 10(3), 365–391.
4.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE.SaxtonG. W. (2018). Restoring trust in the police: Why female officers reduce suspicions of corruption. Governance, 31(1), 143–161.
5.
BarnesT. D.JonesM. P. (2018). Women’s representation in the argentine national and subnational governments. In Schwindt-BayerL. (Ed.), Women, representation, and politics in Latin America. Oxford University Press, 121–139.
6.
BasingerS. J. (2013). Scandals and congressional elections in the post-Watergate era. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 385–398.
7.
BauerN. M. (2020). Shifting standards: How voters evaluate the qualifications of female and male candidates. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 1–12.
8.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.
9.
BenoitW. (2017). Image repair on the Donald Trump “access Hollywood” video: “grab them by the P*ssy”. Communication Studies, 68(3), 243–259.
10.
BenoitW. L. (1997). Hugh Grant’s image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 251–267.
11.
BenoitW. L. (2016). Barack Obama’s 2008 speech on reverend Wright: Defending self and others. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 843–848.
12.
BerggrenN.JordahlH.PoutvaaraP. (2017). The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it. Journal of Public Economics, 146, 79–86.
13.
BlackburnK.BoseN.HaqueM. (2004). Endogenous corruption in economic development. University of Nottingham, GEP Research Paper n8 2004/16
14.
BrownL. M. (2006). Revisiting the character of Congress. Journal of Political Marketing, 5(1–2), 149–172.
15.
CaldieroC. T.TaylorM.UngureanuL. (2009). Image repair tactics and information subsidies during fraud crises. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 218–228.
16.
CejkaM. A.EaglyA. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413–423.
17.
ChanleyV.SullivanJ. L.GonzalesM. H.KoveraM. B. (1994). Lust and avarice in politics: Damage control by four politicians accused of wrongdoing (or, politics as usual). American Politics Quarterly, 22, 297–333.
18.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473.
19.
CourtemancheM.Connor GreenJ. (2020). A fall from grace: Women, scandals, and perceptions of politicians. Journal of Women Politics & Policy, 41(2), 219–240.
20.
DitontoT. (2017). A high bar or a double standard? Gender, competence, and information in political campaigns. Political Behavior, 39(2), 301–325.
21.
DitontoT. M.HamiltonA. J.RedlawskD. P. (2014). Gender stereotypes, information search and voting behavior in political campaigns. Political Behavior, 36, 335–358.
22.
DohertyD.DowlingC. M.MillerM. G. (2014). Does time heal all wounds? Sex scandals, tax evasion, and the passage of time. Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 357–366.
23.
DollarD.FismanR.GattiR. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46(4), 423–429.
24.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
25.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
26.
FiskeS. T.XuJ.CuddyA. C.GlickP. (1999). Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489.
27.
FordL. E. (2002). Women and politics: The pursuit of equality. Houghton Mifflin Company.
28.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2002). The impact of sex-role socialization on the decision to run for office. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Savannah, GA.
29.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2005). It takes a candidate: Why women Don’t run for office. Cambridge University Press.
30.
FultonS. A. (2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 303–314.
31.
GoetzA. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force?Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.
32.
HayesD.LawlessJ. (2016). Women on the run: Gender, media, and political campaigns in a polarized era. Cambridge University Press.
33.
HeilmanM. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
34.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92.
35.
HerrickR.MendezJ.ThomasS.WilkersonA. (2012). Gender and perceptions of candidate competency. Journal of Women Politics & Policy, 33(2), 126–150.
36.
HerrnsonP. S. (2012). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington (6th ed.). CQ Press.
37.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119–147.
38.
JäckleS.MetzT.WenzelburgerG.KönigP. D. (2020). A catwalk to Congress? Appearance-based effects in the elections to the U.S. House of representatives 2016. American Politics Research, 48(4), 427–441.
39.
JohnsonT. (2018). Deny and attack or concede and correct? Image repair and the politically scandalized. Journal of Political Marketing, 17(3), 213–234.
KahnK. F. (1992). Does being male help? An investigation of the effects of candidate gender and campaign coverage on evaluations of U.S. Senate candidates. The Journal of Politics, 54, 497–517.
42.
KennedyR.CliffordS.BurleighT.WaggonerP. D.JewellR.WinterN. J. G. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8, 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.6
43.
KochJ. W. (1999). Candidate gender and assessments of senate candidates. Social Science Quarterly, 80(1), 84–96.
44.
KundaZ.OlesonK. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565–579
45.
LodgeM.HamillR. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–519.
46.
McGrawK. M. (1990). Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications. British Journal of Political Science, 20, 119–131.
47.
MyersC.RussellK. (2019). Image repair in the aftermath of inaccurate polling: How the news media responded to getting it wrong in 1948 and 2016. Journal of Political Marketing, 18, 148–177.
48.
OkimotoT. G.BrescollV. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936.
49.
PetersJ.G.WelchS. (1978). Politics, corruption, and political culture: A view from the state legislature. American Politics Research, 6(3), 345–356.
50.
PrainoR.StockemerD.MoscardelliV. G. (2013). The lingering effect of scandals in congressional elections: Incumbents, challengers, and voters. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1045–1061.
51.
PrainoR.StockemerD.RatisJ. (2014). Looking good or looking competent? Physical appearance and electoral success in the 2008 congressional elections. American Politics Research, 42(6), 1096–1117.
52.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, Shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and Don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.
53.
RennJ.A.CalvertS.L. (1993). The relation between gender schemas and adults’ recall of stereotyped and counterstreotyped televised information. Sex Roles, 28, 449–459.
54.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
55.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
56.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations.The Guilford Press.
57.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. In BriefA. P.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 61–79). Elsevier North-Holland.
58.
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 20–35.
59.
SapiroV. (1981). If U.S. Senator baker were a woman: An experimental study of candidate images. Political Psychology, 3, 61–83.
60.
SchlenkerB. R.WeigoldM. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133–168.
61.
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.
62.
ScottM. B.LymanS. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.
63.
SmithE. S.Smith PowersA.SuarezG. A. (2005). If Bill Clinton were a woman: The effectiveness of male and female politicians’ account strategies following alleged transgressions. Political Psychology, 26(1), 115–134.
64.
StockemerD.PrainoR. (2019). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Do attractive politicians get a ‘break’ when they are involved in scandals?Political Behavior, 41, 747–767.
65.
SwamyA.KnackS.LeeY.AzfarO. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55.
66.
ThompsonJ. B. (2013). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. John Wiley & Sons.
67.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.
68.
WallaceJ. D.FergusonD. P.ChandlerR. C. (2008). A transformative typology of pragmatic and ethical responses to common corporate crises: interaction of rhetorical strategies, situational contingencies, and influential stakeholders. Refereed proceedings of the Association of Business Communication 72nd Annual International Convention, Washington, D.C.
69.
WelchS.HibbingJ. R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 226–239.
70.
WilderD. A.SimonA. F.FaithM. (1996). Enhancing the impact of counterstereotypic information: Dispositional attributions for deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 276–287
