Search results

Evidence on the extent to which prejudice serves as a barrier to black and Latino candidates for office is mixed. Some research has found that black and Latino candidates are disadvantaged in terms of their chances of winning election and that they are evaluated differently by voters, while other findings suggest that this may not be the case. This article examines the effects of racial prejudice on candidate evaluation and voting behavior. It uses a unique experimental design to test for direct effects of prejudice on candidate evaluation and voting behavior, as well as indirect effects of prejudice on these variables via the information that subjects seek out. I find that subjects higher in symbolic racism are less likely to vote "correctly" when their preferences most closely align with a black or Latino candidate and that they rate minority candidates more negatively than their white counterparts. I also find that subjects high in prejudice search for less information about minority candidates and that this less robust information search mediates the relationship between prejudice and candidate evaluation and vote measures. Results also suggest that increased information search may mitigate the effects of prejudice on correct voting.

Studies show that automatic trait inferences can predict outcomes of actual elections, but these studies generally include male candidates only. Substantial evidence also shows that female candidates are subject to gender-based stereotypes, which can lead to differences in how men and women candidates are evaluated. This article combines these two literatures to compare the effects of competence, threat, and attractiveness inferences in elections that include women. We use experimental data in which candidate pairs from state and local US elections were judged on these three traits and examine whether those ratings are predictive of election outcomes. We find that although competence matters most for elections involving only men, attractiveness predicts winners in women-only elections. In mixed-gender races, competence inferences predict success when the female candidate is perceived as more competent than the male candidate. Finally, unlike men, women benefit from being perceived as physically threatening in mixed-gender races.

This article examines how the presentation of information during a laboratory experiment can alter a study's findings. We compare four possible ways to present information about hypothetical candidates in a laboratory experiment. First, we manipulate whether subjects experience a low-information or a high-information campaign. Second, we manipulate whether the information is presented statically or dynamically. We find that the design of a study can produce very different conclusions. Using candidate's gender as our manipulation, we find significant effects on a variety of candidate evaluation measures in low-information conditions, but almost no significant effects in high-information conditions. We also find that subjects in high-information settings tend to seek out more information in dynamic environments than static, though their ultimate candidate evaluations do not differ. Implications and recommendations for future avenues of study are discussed.

Women are still massively underrepresented in public office, with less than a quarter of the House and Senate made up by women. But what role do gender stereotypes play in voters' consideration of female candidates? Using experimental studies, Tessa Ditonto, Allison Hamilton and David Redlawsk tested what information about candidates voters searched for during presidential campaigns. They found that not only do voters, especially Republicans, look for more information about a woman's qualifications and competence for office they also look for more information about their handling of 'compassion issues' – issues that have been traditionally identified with women.