Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 897–915 | Cite as

The Effects of Partisan Trespassing Strategies Across Candidate Sex

  • Nichole M. BauerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Candidates frequently engage in partisan trespassing strategies where a candidate will highlight issues and traits associated with stereotypes of the opposing political party. Successful trespassing messages should lead voters to associate candidates with qualities that fit into stereotypes about both Democrats and Republicans, increase electoral support for a candidate, and expand a candidate’s base of support. Few studies, however, investigate whether there are differences in the effects of trespassing strategies across candidate sex. Through three survey experiments, I show that trespassing strategies have both positive and negative effects for female candidates. Voters associate female candidates who trespass with more issues and traits associated with the opposing political party, but voters also associate female candidates with fewer partisan qualities. This trade-off is one that both female and male candidates experience. Male candidates, unlike female candidates, can successfully attract more electoral support from out-partisan voters with trespassing strategies. These findings have broad implications for the viability of female candidates in national and state elections where candidates must secure support across a broad coalition of partisan and out-partisan voters.

Keywords

Partisan stereotypes Gender stereotypes Gender bias Candidate strategy Voter decision-making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers and the editor for their very helpful suggestions about how to improve this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9475_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1079 kb)

References

  1. Banda, K. K. (2013). The dynamics of campaign issue agendas. State Politics & Policy Quarterly,13(4), 446–470.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, N. M. (2015a). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office: Gender stereotype activation and support for female candidates. Political Psychology,36(6), 691–708.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, N. M. (2015b). Who stereotypes female candidates? Identifying individual differences in feminine stereotype reliance. Politics, Groups, and Identities,3(1), 94–110.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, N. M. (2017). The effects of counter-stereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology,38(2), 279–295.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, N. M. (2018). Untangling the relationship between partisanship, gender stereotypes, and support for female candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy,39(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, N. M., & Carpinella, C. (2018). Visual communication and candidate evaluation: The influence of feminine and masculine images on support for female candidates. Political Research Quarterly,71(2), 395–407.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, N. M., Harbridge, L. Y., & Krupnikov, Y. (2017). Who is punished? Conditions affecting voter evaluations of legislators who do not compromise. Political Behavior,39(2), 379–400.Google Scholar
  8. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis,20(3), 351–368.Google Scholar
  9. Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making Sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science,58(3), 739–753.Google Scholar
  10. Bishin, B. G., Stevens, D., & Wilson, C. (2006). Character counts: Honesty and fairness in election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly,70(2), 235–248.Google Scholar
  11. Bos, A. L., Schneider, M. C., & Utz, B. L. (2017). Gender stereotypes and prejudice in U.S. elections. In C. Travis & J. White (Eds.), APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women (pp. 367–384). Washington, DC: American Psychological Assocaition.Google Scholar
  12. Brooks, D. J. (2013). He runs, she runs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Cassese, E. C., & M. R. Holman. 2018. Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Political Psychology forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Cassese, E. C., & Holman, M. R. (2017). Party and gender stereotypes in campaign attacks. Political Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9423-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conover, P. J. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science,18, 51–76.Google Scholar
  17. Darcy, R., & Schramm, S. S. (1977). When women run against men. Public Opinion Quarterly,41, 1–12.Google Scholar
  18. Ditonto, T. M. (2017). A high bar or a double standard? Gender, competence, and information in political campaigns. Political Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9357-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ditonto, T. M., Hamilton, A. J., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2014). Gender stereotypes, information search, and voting behavior in political campaigns. Political Behavior,36(2), 335–358.Google Scholar
  20. Dittmar, K. (2015). Navigating gendered terrain: Stereotypes and strategy in political campaigns. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dolan, K. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates & gender stereotypes in american elections. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics,66(4), 1180–1202.Google Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review,109(3), 573–594.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Egan, P. J. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Elis, R., Hillygus, D. S., & Nie, N. (2010). The dynamics of candidate evaluations and vote choice in 2008: looking to the past or future? Electoral Studies,29(4), 582–593.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fox, R. L. (2010). Congressional elections: Women’s candidacies and the road to gender parity. In S. J. Carroll & R. L. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics (pp. 187–209). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in U.S. senate campaigns. Politics & Gender,5, 301–329.Google Scholar
  28. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. Journal of Politics,73(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  29. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2015). The changing face of representation: The gender of U.S. senators and constituent communications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics,61(3), 700–720.Google Scholar
  31. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science,49(4), 908–923.Google Scholar
  32. Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender,7(2), 133–165.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayes, D., & Lawless, J. L. (2015). As local news goes, so goes citizen engagement: Media, knowledge, and house elections. Journal of Politics,77(2), 447–462.Google Scholar
  34. Hayes, D., & Lawless, J. L. (2016). Women on the run: Gender, media, and political campaigns in a polarized era. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Herrick, R. (2016). Gender themes in state legislative candidates’ websites. The Social Science Journal,53, 282–290.Google Scholar
  36. Herrnson, P. S., Celeste Lay, J., & Stokes, A. K. (2003). Women running as ‘women’: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter targeting strategies. The Journal of Politics,65, 244–255.Google Scholar
  37. Hitchon, J. C., & Chang, C. (1995). Effects of gender schematic processing on the reception of political commercials for men and women candidates. Communication Research,22(4), 430–458.Google Scholar
  38. Holman, M. R., Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2016). Terrorist threat, male stereotypes, and candidate evaluations. Political Research Quarterly,69(1), 134–147.Google Scholar
  39. Holman, M. R., Merolla, J., & Zechmeister, E. (2017). Can experience overcome stereotypes in times of terror threat? Research and Politics,2017, 1–7.Google Scholar
  40. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology,22(1), 127–156.Google Scholar
  41. Huddy, L., & Capelos, T. (2002). Gender stereotyping and candidate evaluation: Good news and bad news for women politicians. In V. C. Ottati, R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, F. B. Bryant, L. Heath, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & E. J. Posavac (Eds.), The social psychology of politics (pp. 29–54). New York: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science,37(1), 119–147.Google Scholar
  43. Iyengar, S., Valentino, N. A., & Ansolabehere, S. (1996). Running as a woman: Gender stereotyping in political campaigns. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, the media and politics (pp. 77–98). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior,2, 315–337.Google Scholar
  45. Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Krupnikov, Y., & Bauer, N. M. (2014). The relationship between campaign negativity, gender and campaign context. Political Behavior,36(1), 167–188.Google Scholar
  47. Krupnikov, Y., Piston, S., & Bauer, N. M. (2016). Saving face: Identifying voter responses to black and female candidates. Political Psychology,37(2), 253–273.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lodge, M., McGraw, K., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven-model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review,83(2), 399–419.Google Scholar
  49. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior,12(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review,80(2), 521–540.Google Scholar
  52. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population based survey experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science,40(3), 825–850.Google Scholar
  55. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science,37(2), 472–496.Google Scholar
  56. Riker, W. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sanbonmatsu, K., & Dolan, K. (2009). do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research Quarterly,62(3), 485–494.Google Scholar
  58. Schneider, M. C. (2014a). The effects of gender-bending on candidate evaluations. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy,35, 55–77.Google Scholar
  59. Schneider, M. C. (2014b). Gender-based strategies on candidate websites. Journal of Political Marketing,13(4), 264–290.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology,35(2), 245–266.Google Scholar
  61. Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2016). The intersection of party and gender stereotypes in evaluating political candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy,37(3), 274–294.Google Scholar
  62. Seltzer, R., Newman, J., & Leighton, M. (1997). Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates and voters in U.S. elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  63. Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science,36(3), 407–436.Google Scholar
  64. Sides, J. (2007). The consequences of campaign agendas. American Politics Research,35, 465–488.Google Scholar
  65. Simon, A. F. (2002). The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sulkin, T., Moriarty, C. M., & Hefner, V. (2007). Congressional candidates’ issue agendas on- and off-line. International Journal of Press/Politics,12(2), 63–79.Google Scholar
  67. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information,13(2), 65–93.Google Scholar
  68. Thomsen, D. (2015). Why so few (republican)women? Explaining the partisan imbalance in the US congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly,50(2), 295–323.Google Scholar
  69. Windett, J. (2014). Gendered campaign strategies in U.S. elections. American Politics Research,42(4), 628–655.Google Scholar
  70. Winter, Nicholas J. G. (2010). Masculine republicans and feminine democrats: Gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior,32(4), 587–618.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9131-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science & Manship School of Mass CommunicationLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations