Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 301–325 | Cite as

A High Bar or a Double Standard? Gender, Competence, and Information in Political Campaigns

Original Paper

Abstract

This study seeks to determine whether subjects in two dynamic process tracing experiments react differently to information related to a candidate’s competence when that candidate is a woman, vs. when he is a man. I find that subjects evaluate a candidate whose competence is in doubt less favorably, and are less likely to vote for the candidate, when she is a woman. In general, evaluations of women seem to be influenced much more by information related to their competence than are evaluations of men. I also find that competence as portrayed by the composition of a candidate’s facial features does not alter this relationship. My findings suggest that gender-based stereotypes may have an indirect effect on candidate evaluations and vote choice by influencing how voters react to information about them.

Keywords

Gender Stereotypes Information processing Impression formation Voting behavior Candidate evaluation 

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9357_MOESM1_ESM.docx (498 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 498 kb)

References

  1. Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D. (1981). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 37–64). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ballew, C. C., & Todorov, A. (2007). Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective Face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 17948–17953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, L. (2002). The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In A. King (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 44–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, N. M. (2015a). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support female candidates. Political Psychology, 36(6), 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer, N. M. (2015b). Who stereotypes female candidates? Identifying individual differences in feminine stereotype reliance. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3(1), 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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), 351–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bittner, A. (2011). Platform or personality? The role of party leaders in elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1142–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgida, E., Locksley, A., & Brekke, N. (1981). Social stereotypes and social judgment. In N. Cantor (Ed.), Personality, cognition and social interaction (pp. 153–169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Braden, M. (1996). Women, politics and the media. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, D. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why Gender Stereotypes do not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, Samuel D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive Yet High Quality Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carpinella, C. M., Hehman, E., Freeman, J. B., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). The gendered face of partisan politics: Consequences of facial sex typicality for vote choice. Political Communication, 33(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Carpinella, C. M., & Johnson, K. L. (2013a). Politics of the face: The role of sex-typicality in trait assessments of politicians. Social Cognition, 31(6), 770–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carpinella, C. M., & Johnson, K. L. (2013b). Appearance-based politics: Sex-typed facial cues communicate political party affiliation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carroll, S. J., & Dittmar, K. (2010). The 2008 candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin: Cracking the “Highest, Hardest Glass Ceiling. In S. J. Carroll & R. L. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from mechanical turk valid for research on political ideology? Research and Politics. doi:10.1177/2053168015622072.Google Scholar
  21. Cook, E. A., Thomas, S., & Wilcox, C. (Eds.). (1994). The year of the woman: Myths and realities. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  22. Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.Google Scholar
  23. Darcy, R., Welch, S., & Clark, J. (1994). Women, elections, and representation. Lincoln: University Of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  24. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Devitt, J. (2002). Framing gender on the campaign trail: Female gubernatorial candidates and the press. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(2), 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ditonto, T., Hamilton, A., & Redlawsk, D. (2014). Gender Stereotypes, information search and voting behavior in political campaigns. Political Behavior, 36, 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dolan, K. (2004). Voting for women how the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  28. Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32(1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dolan, K. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. New York: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eagly, A. J., & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred sex differences in status as a determinant of gender stereotypes about social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 915–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). the role of candidate traits in campaigns. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Funk, C. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics, 61(3), 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, C. C., Goren, A., Chaiken, S., & Todorov, A. (2009). Shallow cues with deep effects: Traitjudgments from faces and voting decisions. In E. Borgida, J. L. Sullivan, & C. M. Federico (Eds.), The political psychology of democratic citizenship (pp. 73–99). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hassin, R., & Trope, Y. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 837–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hayes, Danny. (2005). Candidate Qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics and Gender, 7(2), 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hayes, D., & Lawless, J. L. (2015). A non-gendered lens? Media, voters, and female candidates in contemporary congressional elections. Perspectives on Politics, 13(01), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayes, D., Lawless, J. L., & Baitinger, G. (2014). Who cares what they wear? Media, gender, and the influence of candidate appearance. Social Science Quarterly, 95(5), 1194–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hehman, E., Carpinella, C. M., Johnson, K. L., Leitner, J. B., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). Early processing of gendered facial cues predicts the electoral success of female politicians. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heilman, M. E. (1984). Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: The effects of applicant sex and information type on preliminary employment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(2), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Herrick, R., Mendez, J., Thomas, S., & Wilkerson, A. (2012). Gender and perceptions of candidate competency. Journal of Women Politics and Policy, 33(2), 126–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Higgle, E., Miller, P. M., Shields, T. G., & Johnson, M. M. S. (1997). Gender stereotypes and decision context in the evaluation of political candidates. Women & Politics, 17(3), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holian, D. B., & Prysby, C. L. (2014). Candidate character traits in presidential elections (Vol. 18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Holman, M. R., Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2011). Sex, stereotypes, and security: A study of the effects of terrorist threat on assessments of female leadership. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 32(3), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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, F. B. O'Connell, & Y. Suarez-Balzacar, et al. (Eds.), The social psychology of politics (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993a). Gender stereotypes and perceptions of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993b). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates and different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics. doi:10.1177/2053168015604648.Google Scholar
  52. Kahn, K. F. (1996). The political consquences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York: Columbia.Google Scholar
  53. King, D. C., & Matland, R. E. (2003). Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31(6), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In Political cognition: The 19th annual Carnegie symposium cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 522–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision-making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during political campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Laustsen, L. (2014). Decomposing the relationship between candidates’ facial appearance and electoral success. Political Behavior, 36(4), 777–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lawless, J. L. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Leeper, M. S. (1991). The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at voter inference. American Politics Quarterly, 19(2), 248–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lenz, G. S., & Lawson, C. (2007). Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 574–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leyens, J. P., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1992). The ingroup overexclusion effect: Impact of valence and confirmation on stereotypical information search. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(6), 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Locksley, A., Hepburn, C., & Ortiz, V. (1982). Social stereotypes and judgments of individuals: An instance of base-rate fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Markus, G. B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study. The American Political Science Review, 76(3), 538–560. doi:10.2307/1963730.Google Scholar
  68. Matson, M., & Fine, T. S. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: Ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 6(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mattes, K., Spezio, M., Kim, H., Todorov, A., Adolphs, R., & Alvarez, R. M. (2010). Predicting election outcomes from positive and negative trait assessments of candidate images. Political Psychology, 31(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McDermott, M. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, A. H. (1990). Public judgments of Senate and House candidates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(4), 525–542. doi:10.2307/439895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller, A. H., & Miller, W. E. (1976). Ideology in the 1972 election. American Political Science Review, 70, 753–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mitchell, D.-G. (2012). It’s about time: The lifespan of information effects in a multiweek campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 298–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mitchell, D.-G. (2014). Here today, gone tomorrow? Assessing how timing and repetition of scandal information affects candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 35(5), 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1043–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Oliviola, C., & Todorov, A. (2010a). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Apperance-based trait inferences and voting. The Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Oliviola, C., & Todorov, A. (2010b). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 267–280.Google Scholar
  78. Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5(4), 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant tool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Prysby, C. (2008). Perceptions of candidate character traits and the presidential vote in 2004. PS. Political Science & Politics, 41(1), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rahn, W. M., Borgida, J., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. Ferejohn & J. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 136–159). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  82. Redlawsk, D., & Lau, R. (2006). I like him but…: Vote choice when candidate likability and closeness on issues clash. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosenwasser, S. M., & Seale, J. (1988). Attitudes towards a hypothetical male or female presidential candidate—A research note. Political Psychology, 9(4), 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sanbonmatsu, K., & Dolan, K. (2009). Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Seltzer, R., Newman, J., & Leighton, M. V. (1997). Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates and voters in US elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  87. Shabad, G., & Andersen, K. (1979). Candidate evaluations by men and women. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(1), 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shanks, J. M., & Miller, W. E. (1990). Policy direction and performance evaluation: Complementary explanations of the Reagan elections. British Journal of Political Science, 20(2), 143–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sigelman, C., Sigelman, L., Walkosz, B., & Nitz, M. (1995). Black candidates, white voters: understanding racial bias in political perceptions. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Reactions to a black professional: Motivated inhibition and activation of conflicting stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 885–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sussman, A. B., Petkova, K., & Todorov, A. (2013). Competence ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in Bulgaria. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 771–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Todorov, A. (2008). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: An extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. In A. Kingstone & M. Miller (Eds.), The year in cognitive neuroscience 2008: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1124, pp. 208–224). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  93. Todorov, A. (2010). Evaluating faces on social dimensions. In A. Todorov, S. T. Fiske, & D. Prentice (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Todorov, A., Mandisotza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Todorov, A., Oliviola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2003). The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actor’s faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online ractorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Woods, H. (2000). Stepping up to power: The political journey of American women. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations