Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 561–577 | Cite as

Run, Jane, Run! Gendered Responses to Political Party Recruitment

  • Jessica Robinson PreeceEmail author
  • Olga Bogach Stoddard
  • Rachel Fisher
Original Paper


Many researchers point to gender inequities in party recruitment practices to explain women’s underrepresentation on the ballot. However, there has been little systematic research about how men and women respond to recruitment, so we do not know whether gender-balanced recruitment would actually lead to gender-balanced outcomes. We conduct two studies to address this question. First, in cooperation with a county Republican Party, we identically recruited 5510 male and 5506 female highly active party members to attend a free candidate training seminar. Republican women were half as likely to respond to the invitation as men. Second, we conducted a survey experiment of 3960 voters on the Utah Colleges Exit Poll. Republican men’s level of self-reported political ambition was increased by the prospect of elite recruitment significantly more than Republican women’s, thereby increasing the gender gap vis-à-vis the control. The gender gap in the effect of recruitment on political ambition among Democrats was much smaller. Together, these findings suggest that to fully understand the role recruitment plays in women’s underrepresentation, researchers must understand the ways in which men and women respond to recruitment, not just whether political elites engage in gendered recruitment practices.


Gender Women’s representation Recruitment Experiment 



We would like to thank Utah County Republican Party chairmen David Acheson and Casey Voeks; David Magleby and Utah Colleges Exit Poll research assistants Alejandra Gimenez and Geoffrey Cannon; our research assistants, Kali Smith and Brandon Betz; and three very helpful anonymous reviewers. We are grateful for early feedback from Jen Lawless, Kira Sanbonmatsu, Kelly Patterson, and the members of Brigham Young University’s Politics, Economics, and Development Labs. We would like to acknowledge the research support of the Women’s Research Initiative, the Emmeline B. Wells Scholarly and Creative Works Grant, and a Mentored Environment Grant at Brigham Young University.

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9327_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1013 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1012 kb)


  1. Aldrich, J. H. (2000). Southern parties in state and nation. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 643–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broockman, D. (2014). Mobilizing candidates: Political actors strategically shape the candidate pool with personal appeals. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2), 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardy, E. A. (2005). An experimental field study of the GOTV and persuasion effects of partisan direct mail and phone calls. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601(1), 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, S. J., & Sanbonmatsu, K. (2013). More women can run: Gender and pathways to the state legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowder-Meyer, M. (2011). The party’s still going: Local party strength and activity in 2008. In J. C. Green & D. J. Coffey (Eds.), The state of the parties: The changing role of contemporary American parties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Crowder-Meyer, M. (2013). Gendered recruitment without trying: How local party recruiters affect women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 9, 390–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elder, L. (2012). The partisan gap among women state legislators. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 33(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2010). If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 310–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Green, M. N. (2003). The effects of partisan direct mail on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 22(4), 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, J. L., Cotter, C. P., Bibby, J. F., & Huckshorn, R. J. (1985). Whither the local parties? A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the strength of party organizations. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hennings, V. M. 2011. Civic selves: Gender, candidate training programs, and envisioning political participation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  13. Huckshorn, R. J., & Spencer, R. C. (1971). The politics of defeat: Campaigning for congress. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kanthak, K., & Woon, J. (2015). Women don’t run? Election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 595–612.Google Scholar
  15. Kazee, T. A., & Thornberry, M. C. (1990). Where’s the party? Congressional candidate recruitment and American party organizations. The Western Political Quarterly, 43(1), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maestas, C. D., Sandy Maisel, L., & Stone, W. J. (2005). National party efforts to recruit state legislators to run for the U.S. house. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(2), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maestas, C. D., Sarah Fulton, L., Maisel, S., & Stone, W. J. (2006). When to risk it? Institutions, ambitions, and the decision to run for the US house. American Political Science Review, 100(02), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(4), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moncrief, G. F., Squire, P., & Jewell, M. E. (2001). Who runs for the legislature? Real politics in America. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Niven, D. (1998). Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias. Women & Politics, 19(2), 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niven, D. (2006). Throwing your hat out of the ring: Negative recruitment and the gender imbalance in state legislative candidate. Politics and Gender, 2(4), 473–489.Google Scholar
  23. Preece, J. R., & Stoddard, O. B. (2015a). Does the message matter? A field experiment on political party recruitment. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(01), 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preece, J. R., & Stoddard, O. B. (2015b). Why women don’t run: Experimental evidence on gender differences in competition aversion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 117, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Republican National Committee. 2013. Growth and Opportunity Project. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from
  26. Rozell, M. J. (2000). Helping women run and win: Feminist groups, candidate recruitment and training. Women & Politics, 12(3), 101–116.Google Scholar
  27. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2006). Where women run: Gender and party in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2015). Electing women of color: The role of campaign trainings. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 36(2), 137–160.Google Scholar
  29. Sanbonmatsu, K., Carroll, S. J., & Walsh, D. (2009). Poised to run: Women’s pathways to the state legislatures. New Brunswick: Center for American Women and Politics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Robinson Preece
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olga Bogach Stoddard
    • 2
  • Rachel Fisher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  3. 3.Gender and Civic Engagement LabBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations