Suchergebnisse

Experimental research on the impact of the #MeToo movement on the evaluation of politicians has focused on how the impact is conditioned by partisan motivation. Beyond partisanship, gender identity and sexist attitudes may also act as a barrier to the success of #MeToo in challenging sexual misconduct in politics. In a conjoint experiment, we examine the extent to which sexism and gender identities (feminine/masculine identity and self-identified gender) condition how individuals respond to politicians accused of sexual misconduct. Respondents were shown two profiles of fictional British male candidates accused of sexual misconduct where the characteristics of the candidate and the scandal were (the number of allegations made, whether they apologized for the misconduct, their partisanship, and their stance on Brexit). We find that in general, more severe misconduct has a more negative impact on evaluations but that respondents who expressed attitudes consistent with hostile sexism were less likely to punish politicians for multiple offenses and less likely to reward a recognition of wrongdoing. Categorical gender identity, whether the respondent was a man or a woman, did not condition the electoral consequences of the scandal and a feminine and masculine identities moderated the impact of the political stance of the candidate. We conclude by discussing the importance of measuring gender attitudes, especially sexism and non-categorical measures of gender identity, in future studies on the political consequences of #MeToo.

Research on authoritarianism has provided conflicting findings on its relationship with threat. Some studies indicate that in the face of heightened threat individuals with stronger authoritarian predispositions express more right‐wing and illiberal preferences; others suggest that it is individuals at the other end of the continuum, with weak authoritarian dispositions—libertarians—who are most likely to change and express such attitudes. Extant efforts to reconcile the differences have been unsatisfactory. We offer a new perspective in which both processes may occur simultaneously. Higher authoritarians are responsive to elevated "normative threat," characterized by dissatisfaction with established parties and their leaders and perceptions of "belief diversity," while libertarians respond with more right‐wing and illiberal preferences to heightened physical and personal threat, such as from terrorism, which does not affect high authoritarians. We suggest different contexts in which normative threat and personal threat vary, and we are thus likely to see change either in individuals toward one or other end of the authoritarian continuum or among both. Drawing on data in the quasi‐experimental context of the 2017 general election in Britain, during which there were two terror attacks, we confirm this pattern in a setting in which both personal and normative threat were elevated.

Past studies, largely based on the United States, have argued that differential coverage of men and women candidates could explain the lack of women in elected political office. We investigate, first, whether a gender bias exists in coverage of candidates and, second, the possible mechanisms underlying any differences in the amount and tone of candidates' news media coverage. Using data from the 2009 European Election Study Media Analysis, drawn from media coverage in 25 EU member states during the European Parliament election campaigns, we find that, similar to previous research, there is evidence of a gender gap in the amount of media coverage. Even for highly prominent and competitive candidates, the gender bias in media coverage remains. However, this bias in media coverage largely reflects the parties' preselection of viable candidates and that where there are remedies in place to address the underrepresentation of women (i.e., quotas), women candidates actually have lower visibility in campaign coverage. We also find that, though women candidates are more often the subject of valence evaluations in news stories, male candidates are more negatively evaluated in news stories.

Advocates of proportional representation (PR) often cite its potential for increasing citizen involvement in politics as one of PR's fundamental advantages over plurality or first-past-the-post systems. The assumption is that plurality electoral systems distort the translation of votes into seats, discouraging and alienating small party supporters and other political minorities. In contrast, PR systems are believed to provide greater opportunities for representation which are assumed to instil greater efficacy and increase participation. We examine this theory linking institutions to electoral participation across a diverse set of countries using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Using a multi-level approach we find evidence consistent with the expectations about the negative influence of disproportional systems on political minorities. Voters are also likely to have stronger partisan preferences in PR systems, which enhances political efficacy and increases voter participation. The effects of PR, however, are not all positive; broad coalitions, which are likely to be a feature of these systems, reduce political efficacy.

Although women appear to be less interested and less engaged in politics than men, some evidence suggests that the presence of women as candidates and office holders can help to stimulate political engagement among women. Using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), we investigate how the election of women in national legislatures influences women's political engagement and attitudes about the political process across 35 countries. We find that sex differences in political engagement as well as political attitudes are apparent in a large number of countries. We find also that female representation is positively associated with attitudes about the political process; however, these effects, while weak, are seen among both men and women.

Although women appear to be less interested and less engaged in politics than men, some evidence suggests that the presence of women as candidates and office holders can help to stimulate political engagement among women. Using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), we investigate how the election of women in national legislatures influences women's political engagement and attitudes about the political process across 35 countries. We find that sex differences in political engagement as well as political attitudes are apparent in a large number of countries. We find also that female representation is positively associated with attitudes about the political process; however, these effects, while weak, are seen among both men and women.

Advocates of proportional representation (PR) often cite its potential for increasing citizen involvement in politics as one of PR's fundamental advantages over plurality or first-past-the-post systems. The assumption is that plurality electoral systems distort the translation of votes into seats, discouraging and alienating small party supporters and other political minorities. In contrast, PR systems are believed to provide greater opportunities for representation which are assumed to instil greater efficacy and increase participation. We examine this theory linking institutions to electoral participation across a diverse set of countries using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Using a multi-level approach we find evidence consistent with the expectations about the negative influence of disproportional systems on political minorities. Voters are also likely to have stronger partisan preferences in PR systems, which enhances political efficacy and increases voter participation. The effects of PR, however, are not all positive; broad coalitions, which are likely to be a feature of these systems, reduce political efficacy.

We investigate the levels of horse-race coverage in 160 different European print and broadcast outlets in 27 different countries at three different points in time. We match information on outlets' content to survey-based information on the average levels of interest in politics and education of outlets' audiences. We formulate hypotheses concerning journalists' and citizens' preferences over the ideal level of horse-race coverage, as well as hypotheses concerning the information content of horse-race coverage in different party systems. After controlling for the composition of each outlet's audience, we find that horse-race coverage is most frequent in polarized party systems with close electoral contests, and in large markets with professional journalists. These findings challenge the traditional view of horse-race journalism as a 'low-quality' form of news.