Search

Elected officials can often successfully increase voter support in their district by "bringing home the bacon," yet theory suggests that the electoral effects of such efforts may depend on the legislator's gender and whether the legislator delivered benefits in a stereotypically feminine (e.g., healthcare) or masculine (e.g., agriculture) issue area. Using both observational and experimental data in the United States, we find weak, limited evidence that issue area conditions the electoral impact of credit claiming for legislators of either gender. In addition, we show that men and women are rewarded comparably when they secure benefits for their district, regardless of issue area. Our findings suggest that women legislators — typically more effective than men at securing these benefits — can use distributive politics and credit claiming as an effective electoral strategy without concern that issue-based gender biases in the electorate will get in the way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate the level of gender parity in political news reporting at the New York Times. We apply a media sociology approach to examine how gender stereotypes, women in media leadership, and women in political leadership interact to affect the extent to which women journalists appear in bylines about domestic and foreign affairs news. We leverage an original data collection of nearly 3,000 news articles published from 2007–2020. We find several key results. First, women are more likely to appear in bylines about domestic political news than foreign affairs news. Second, we find that during Jill Abramson's tenure as executive editor the number of women writing about politics increased. Third, as the proportion of women in the U.S. Congress rises, more women appear in story bylines about political news. Fourth, while more women write about political news now compared to the past, most political news stories still have men as authors. Our findings show slow but steady improvement in the gender diversity of political news journalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that the gender-role incongruity between being a woman and the masculine stereotypes of political leadership roles will lead to more ambivalence about women relative to men and that gendered traits will comprise the content of these ambivalent attitudes. I analyze attitudinal ambivalence toward female candidates using ANES data. The results find that ambivalence is higher among voters who hold cross-pressured identities as strong partisans with sexist beliefs for both Democratic and Republican women. In 2016, individuals held stronger ambivalent attitudes about Hillary Clinton even among strong Democrats but there was very little ambivalence in attitudes about Trump. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines differences in news coverage of female candidates using a media sociology framework that examines the interplay between organizational, routine, and individual levels of influence. The analyses find that national and local newspapers are more likely to write about the political qualifications of female candidates relative to male candidates, and female journalists at local newspapers are most likely to write about women's political qualifications. Female candidates receive more feminine stereotypic coverage across newspapers, especially in all-women elections. These results uncover important differences across media organizations that affect how female candidates develop their campaign strategies and voter decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional wisdom suggests that women can face a punishment from voters for engaging in self-promotion. Self-promotion, highlighting your accomplishments, can be detrimental to women because such behavior violates feminine stereotypic expectations that women be modest and humble. I argue and show that voters do not punish women for engaging in self-promotion but there are different styles of self-promotion that are more beneficial to women than others. I argue that women will be most successful when they use a communal style of self-promotion that emphasizes feminine stereotypic qualities, such as compromise. Conversely, I argue that agentic forms of self-promotion, which draw on masculine qualities, will be less successful for women because agency violates feminine expectations for women. I test the effects of communal and agentic self-promotion using two experiments. The result shows two key findings. First, voters do not punish women incumbents for using agentic styles of self-promotion, but women receive more positive evaluations with communal self-promotion. Second, voters are slightly more likely to reward men for communal self-promotion relative to women legislators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article advances and tests an original theory of a "feminine homestyle" to explain how female legislators develop relationships with constituents that both mitigate the potential for gendered biases and fulfill the communal goals that motivate women to run for political office. We use an original audit study that tests legislator responsiveness to direct email communication. We show that female lawmakers are more responsive to constituent communication and more likely to display compassion and empathy in responses compared with male legislators; but we also find important differences in women's responsiveness across the race and ethnicity. Further, we find that responsive female lawmakers can change the behaviors of their male counterparts by creating stronger norms of responsiveness within legislative institutions. Our findings have important downstream implications for democratic accountability among voters and illustrate how female lawmakers substantively represent through direct communication with constituents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We develop a framework to identify how women use negative messages in political campaigns. We argue that women will be more likely to use contrast negativity, messages that include a negative message against an opponent and a positive message about the candidate sponsoring the ad, rather than attack negativity, messages that only criticize an opponent. We also identify how feminine and masculine traits emerge in negativity—a strategy we call gendered trait negativity. We analyze gendered trait negativity in television ads from the Wesleyan Media Project (WMP) for House, Senate, and gubernatorial races from 2010 to 2018. Using logistic regression models, we find that women use contrast messages more than attack messages when running against a man. Second, we find that women are more likely to highlight feminine traits over masculine traits in negative messages when their opponent is a man relative to when their opponent is a woman. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women of color are running for political office at higher rates in recent U.S. elections, and existing scholarship is only starting to investigate the communication strategies of women of color and how voters respond to their campaign messages. We shed light on how women of color use emotions in campaign messages and how voters respond to these emotional appeals. We employ an analysis of campaign advertising data across multiple election years from the Wesleyan Media Project to show that both white women and women of color rely heavily on enthusiasm in their campaign messages, even though white women use anger appeals at higher rates than women of color. We complement these results with an original survey-based experiment to examine how emotional appeals affect voting preferences for women of color candidates. Our results suggest that when women of color employ positive emotions, the effects of these messages do not differ when compared to positive emotions from white women. We also find that positive emotions in messages are especially beneficial for Black women candidates compared to negative emotions in messages. These results offer insights into how women of color can build effective communication strategies to broaden their representation in U.S. decision-making bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Politicians frequently use uncivil and even aggressive tactics in political appeals. Aggressive behavior and personality code as masculine, and voters generally value masculine traits in leaders. However, extreme displays may be off‐putting to all but the most aggressive voters. In this article, we theorize how aggressive political displays interact with gendered personality traits to shape candidate evaluations. Which voters punish candidates for aggressive behavior, and which voters give which candidates a pass? We leverage two survey experiments to investigate how voters judge intensely uncivil candidates in a political debate—verbal aggression and a physical dominance display. We find voters penalize (or even reward) candidates differently for aggressive behavior depending on their own aggressive personality traits. Our findings advance research on the distinct effects of gender over sex in politics and studies of aggression dynamics in mass politics. Our results also speak to work on the strategies available to male and female candidates with broader implications for representation and norms in democratic politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extant scholarship offers conflicting conclusions about whether female candidates emphasize feminine or masculine stereotypes in campaigns. We suggest that female candidates use both stereotypes, and do so by varying the use of these stereotypes in the visual and the verbal content of a single message. We measure how candidates vary the use of gender stereotypes in the visual and the verbal message of a single campaign ad. We predict that female candidates will pair feminine visuals with masculine verbal messages. We argue that using visuals to communicate femininity is a subtle way for female candidates to address the "double-bind" that demands female candidates display masculine competency and feminine warmth. With a unique measure, we uncover three key findings. First, female candidates have a higher probability of airing a campaign ad that incorporates feminine visuals compared to male candidates. Second, female candidates are more likely to emphasize feminine visuals relative to masculine visuals. Third, female candidates air campaign ads with a higher degree of visual-verbal conflict pairing feminine visuals with masculine verbal messages. Our research has broad implications for how female candidates overcome gendered expectations. We also show that voters receive "mixed" stereotype messages that can, potentially, affect voter decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current scholarship offers conflicting conclusions about whether female candidates have a feminine advantage or a disadvantage. Previous work does not consider whether voters respond similarly to all types of messages that might emphasize feminine stereotypes, such as feminine trait and feminine issue messages. I argue that voters will respond differently to trait-based feminine messages relative to issue-based feminine messages. I test the effects of trait-based and issue-based feminine messages through two survey experiments. The results consistently show that emphasizing feminine traits harms female candidates, whereas emphasizing feminine issues helps female candidates. I use role congruity theory to argue that feminine traits activate feminine stereotypes about women, and feminine issues do not activate these stereotypes. I also show that trait-based and issue-based feminine messages affect Democratic and Republican female candidates in very different ways. These results have implications for the ability of women to win elected office and reverse the pervasive underrepresentation of women in politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]