Skip to main content

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

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    We mailed invitations to a total of 6,056 women, but a random subset of these women received a woman-specific message that men did not receive, so we limit our analysis here to the 5506 women who received identical invitations to the men. See Preece and Stoddard 2015a for the full analysis.

  2. 2.

    As part of a larger field experiment, subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of 11 slightly different invitations in an attempt to see if different messages were more effective in recruiting. However, there were few statistically significant differences between the invitations with regard to who registered for or attended the event, so we have aggregated the various conditions for this paper.

  3. 3.

    The ID number included portions of the subject’s first and last names to emphasize that the invitation was to that specific person and discourage another household resident from using it.

  4. 4.

    To monitor compliance, we carefully checked that the individuals who registered for and attended PCIS were the same individuals who the invitations were intended for. All of the registered individuals were in fact the intended recipients of the invitation, and only two of the PCIS attendees were absent from our list. They attended as guests of the registered participants and we excluded them from our statistical analysis.

  5. 5.

    Appendix 3A in Electronic Supplementary Material provides a detailed discussion of our outreach efforts.

  6. 6.

    Examples include the California Farm Bureau Federation’s Campaign Management Seminar, the Center for Progressive Leadership’s Local Progressive Candidate Trainings, the American Majority’s New Leaders Campaign Training, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund’s Candidate and Campaign Training.

  7. 7.

    See Appendix 3B in Electronic Supplementary Material for a detailed discussion of the design and sampling of the exit poll. See also http://exitpoll.byu.edu/.

  8. 8.

    Embedded in the survey itself were three different experiments. To ensure that each subject was exposed to a treatment, a Latin Square design was put in place that ensured each subject received one control and two treatment messages. Further, our experiment was the first of the three, so our results should be unaffected by the other treatments.

  9. 9.

    See Appendix 4 in Electronic Supplementary Material for the full survey text.

  10. 10.

    In Appendix Table 3 in Electronic Supplementary Material, we report the breakdown of summary statistics by treatment and gender. The table shows that there are no statistically significant differences in control and treatment groups within each gender, with the exception of incomes between $100,000 and $125,000 for men and greater than $150,000 for women. We control for these differences in our robustness tests below.

  11. 11.

    Subjects’ responses were coded as 1, 2, 3, or 4, with the numbers corresponding to “No”, “Probably not”, “Probably yes”, and “Yes” respectively.

  12. 12.

    We also performed our analysis with two additional measures of political ambition: individual i’s probability of responding “yes”; 2) individual i’s probability of responding positively (either “yes” or “probably yes”). The results of these analyses are reported in Appendix Table 4 in Electronic Supplementary Material.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. H. (2000). Southern parties in state and nation. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 643–670.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carroll, S. J., & Sanbonmatsu, K. (2013). More women can run: Gender and pathways to the state legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elder, L. (2012). The partisan gap among women state legislators. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 33(1), 65–85.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hennings, V. M. 2011. Civic selves: Gender, candidate training programs, and envisioning political participation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Republican National Committee. 2013. Growth and Opportunity Project. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from http://growthopp.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf.

  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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2015). Electing women of color: The role of campaign trainings. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 36(2), 137–160.

  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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Robinson Preece.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1012 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Preece, J.R., Stoddard, O.B. & Fisher, R. Run, Jane, Run! Gendered Responses to Political Party Recruitment. Polit Behav 38, 561–577 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9327-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender
  • Women’s representation
  • Recruitment
  • Experiment