Suchergebnisse

Women are underrepresented at all levels of elected office. It is suspected that gender stereotypes hinder the electoral success of female candidates, but empirical evidence is inconclusive on whether stereotypes have a direct effect on voting decisions. This empirical conflict stems, in part, from the assumption that voters automatically rely on gender stereotypes when evaluating female candidates. This study explicitly tests the assumption of automatic stereotype activation. I suggest that stereotype reliance depends on whether stereotypes have been activated during a campaign, and it is only when stereotypes are activated that they influence evaluations of female candidates. These hypotheses are tested with a survey experiment and observational analysis. The results show that campaign communication activates stereotypes when they otherwise might not be activated, thereby diminishing support for female candidates.

Increasing numbers of female candidates are running for Congress in American national elections. Despite the rise in female candidates running for office, women are not significantly increasing their presence in the House and Senate. A much hypothesized influence over the electoral fates of female candidates is the role of gender stereotypes. However, political science scholars have struggled to pinpoint the effect of stereotypes on vote choice, if there is any effect. This essay compares the way social psychology and political science scholars theoretically, conceptually and empirically test for gender stereotype influence over evaluations of female candidates and politicians. Differences emerge in the theoretical assumptions made in the two disciplines, the types of measures used in research, and the empirical tests conducted to demonstrate the presence or absence of stereotypes in evaluations of women. The discussion explores how scholars studying female candidates and politicians can integrate insights from social psychology to clarify the role of stereotypes in candidate evaluation and choice.

Scholars, scientists, and policymakers converged last fall at the annual meeting of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) held on the Indiana University campus in Bloomington from October 14–16, 2010. Founded in 1980, the association uniquely merges evolutionary, genetic, and ecological knowledge with the study of political behavior, public policy, and ethics. This year's annual meeting celebrated the diversity of scholarship embodied by the association with the theme, "Toward Consilience: Thirty Years of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences."

We draw on research from gender stereotypes and mass communication to develop and test an innovative theoretical framework of implicit and explicit gender framing. This framework delineates how and when coverage in newspapers will report on female candidates differently than male candidates. Implicit gender frames subtly draw on masculine stereotypes to reinforce patriarchal power structures through their coverage of political candidates. Explicit gender frames are the overtly sexist "hair, hemlines, and husband" coverage women receive more frequently relative to men. We argue that the print news media will be more likely to rely on implicit gender frames to elucidate differences between women and men running for political office. Using an exhaustive content analysis of Senate campaign news coverage, we find important differences in the coverage of women and men running against one another. We also find the use of explicit gender frames to be especially common in all-female races. These differences in coverage, especially in all-women contests, can perpetuate stereotypic beliefs that women lack the qualifications needed for political office among voters, and stymie women's progress toward parity in representation.

Despite the recent surge of women of color in elected political office in the U.S., the representation of Latinas is strikingly low. Past research offers unclear conclusions as to whether Latina political candidates face biases due to the intersection of their identities as women and as ethnic minorities, and how Latinas can navigate such biases. In this study, we identify how Latinas draw on their intersectional identities as both women and ethnic minorities to develop strategic campaign messages and how voters respond to such messages. Through an analysis of campaign advertising data and an original survey experiment, we show that Latina candidates do not face an automatic disadvantage based in gender and ethnic biases, but they can benefit from the intersection of these two identities, especially among female minority voters. These results are consequential because they offer insights into how to improve the descriptive and substantive representation of marginalized groups in the U.S.

Female candidates face a messaging challenge. There is a strong association between masculinity and political leadership. Stressing masculinity can result in a likability backlash for female candidates often seen as lacking feminine qualities, such as warmth. Preventing a likability backlash by highlighting feminine qualities can also harm female candidates. Current scholarship offers conflicting conclusions about how female candidates balance these gendered challenges. We fill this empirical and theoretical gap with a trait-balancing theory clarifying how and when female candidates use feminine and masculine traits to manage competing expectations. We use original data merging information on candidate advertising strategies across three election cycles. We show that female candidates strategically balance masculine and feminine stereotypes in ways that often differ from their male counterparts but also differ based on female candidate partisanship and incumbency. These results are consequential because they highlight how female candidates manage gendered pressures in campaign strategies, which can affect their ability to win elections and, ultimately, women's representation in government.

Existing research debates the extent to which feminine and masculine stereotypes affect voters' impressions of female candidates. Current approaches identify how descriptions of female candidates as having feminine or masculine qualities lead voters to rely on stereotypes. We argue that extant scholarship overlooks a critical source of stereotypic information about female candidates—the role of visual information. This manuscript explores the conditions under which voters use feminine and masculine visuals to evaluate female candidates. Drawing on theories of information processing and stereotype reliance, we develop a framework that explains when visual information will affect how voters evaluate female and male candidates. We argue that visual information that is incongruent with stereotypes about a candidate's sex will affect candidate evaluations while visuals congruent with stereotypes about candidate sex will not. We test these dynamics with an original survey experiment. We find that gender incongruent masculine visuals negatively affect evaluations of a female candidate's issue competencies and electoral viability.

Are female candidates disproportionately punished for relying on negative campaign ads? While scholars agree that sponsoring negativity works against traditional gender stereotypes, it is less clear how relying on negativity affects voter evaluations of female candidates. In this manuscript we reconsider the relationship between candidate gender and negativity. Relying on theories of conditional stereotype use, we argue that negative ads translate to significantly poorer evaluations for the female candidate when two conditions are met: (1) the female candidate is perceived as the instigator of negativity and (2) she is of a different party than the voter. We test our predictions using an experiment and show that female candidates only face a disproportionate punishment for relying on negativity under our two specific conditions. In contrast, voters are much more forgiving when they believe that a female candidate simply followed her opponent's lead in using negative ads or when negativity is used to promote the voter's party. While our research suggests that-compared to their male counterparts-female candidates do face some added constraints, our findings have broader implications. Not only are voters more or less likely to use gender stereotypes under certain conditions, but these conditions are highly dependent on the campaign context. Adapted from the source document.

"This book examines how ideas about gender affect who voters see as qualified to serve in political office, and how these gendered perceptions of qualifications limit the success of female candidates. Voters want political candidates who follow the "conventional male pipeline" into political office, but this is a pipeline that formally and informally excludes women. The demand for masculinity means these women must "look like men," but be "better than men" to win elections. I show that the association between masculinity and political qualifications limits the success of women in elections through the news coverage women receive and the ways voters make decisions about female candidates. Through an original analysis of candidate websites and campaign news coverage, I show that voters are less likely to have information about the political experiences of female candidates. Using a series of experiments, I show that voters hold female candidates to a significantly higher qualification standard, and these higher standards are particularly problematic for Republican women. Representing the interests of constituents requires highly skilled, experienced, and qualified lawmakers-and many times, female candidates are more qualified than male candidates. Voters are simply not selecting highly qualified women"--

Abstract
In the United States, emphasizing their families and talking about parenthood can be a potent strategy for political candidates as voters use information about a candidate's family life to make assessments of the candidate's personal attributes and issue competencies. We nonetheless know little about how a candidate's race affects these assessments. We thus consider how Black women use and benefit from politicizing motherhood, and we argue that the unique intersectional identities of Black women shaped jointly by their race and gender can give Black women a stronger strategic advantage from highlighting motherhood compared to white women. Using both observational and experimental data, we apply this intersectional framework by examining motherhood messages. We identify the extent to which Black women rely on messages about motherhood and how voters respond. Our results show that Black women are just as likely to use motherhood messages relative to white women, and that Black women receive positive evaluations from voters from a message emphasizing motherhood. White and minority voters are equally likely to positively rate Black women who emphasize motherhood.