The Contingent Effects of Candidate Sex on Voter Choice
A prominent explanation for why women are significantly underrepresented in public office in the U.S. is that stereotypes lead voters to favor male candidates over female candidates. Yet whether voters actually use a candidate’s sex as a voting heuristic in the presence of other common information about candidates remains a surprisingly unsettled question. Using a conjoint experiment that controls for stereotypes, we show that voters are biased against female candidates but in some unexpected ways. The average effect of a candidate’s sex on voter decisions is small in magnitude, is limited to presidential rather than congressional elections, and appears only among male voters. More importantly, independent voters display the greatest negative bias against female candidates. The results suggest that partisanship works as a kind of “insurance” for voters who can be sure that the party affiliation of the candidate will represent their views in office regardless of the sex of the candidate.
KeywordsFemale candidates Gender stereotypes Candidate traits Vote choice Partisanship Conjoint experiment
We would like to thank Michael DeCrescenzo, Sarah Khan, Spencer Piston, Eleanor Neff Powell, David P. Redlawsk, and seminar participants at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Boston University, the University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, and Keio University for their helpful comments on this research. We also appreciate Yusaku Horiuchi for sharing his R scripts, and Masahiro Yamada and Masahiro Zenkyo for their assistance in data collection. Earlier versions of this work were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology. This research was financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (26285036; 26780078; 17K03523) and the Kwansei Gakuin University Research Grant. Yoshikuni Ono also received the JSPS postdoctoral fellowship for research abroad. Data and supporting materials necessary to reproduce the numeral results in the paper are available in the Political Behavior Dataverse ( https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IZKZET).
- Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., & Liebig, S. (2009). Complaxity, learning effects, and plausibility of vignettes in factorial surveys. Unpublished manisucript. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-150806.
- Brooks, D. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Dolan, J., Deckman, M., & Swers, M. (2015). Women and politics: Paths to power and political influence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
- Guryan, J., & Charles, K. K. (2013). Taste-based or statistical discrimination: The economics of discrimination returns to its roots. The Economic Journal, 123(November), F41–F432.Google Scholar
- Hajnal, Z. L. (2003). Uncertainty, experience with black representation, and the White vote. In B. C. Burden (Ed.), Uncertainty in American politics (pp. 213–243). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Iyengar, S., Valentino, N. A., Ansolabehere, S., & Simon, A. F. (1996). Running as a woman: Gender stereotyping in women’s campaigns. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, media, and politics (pp. 77–98). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kahn, K. F. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Kirkland, P. A., & Coppock, A. (forthcoming). Candiate choice without party labels: New insights from conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
- Lawless, J. L. (2012). Becoming a candidate: Political ambition and the decision to run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Matland, R., & King, D. (2002). Women as candidates in congressional elections. In C. S. Rosenthal (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 119–145). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
- Pew Research Center. (2017). American’s views of women as political leaders differ by gender. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/19/americans-views-of-women-as-political-leaders-differ-by-gender/.
- Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Rose, M. (2013). Women & executive office: Pathways & performance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
- Strezhnev, A., Berwick, E., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2016). Package “Cjoint” version 2.0.4.Google Scholar
- Swers, M. L. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar