Advertisement

Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1177–1196 | Cite as

Romance, Sexual Attraction, and Women’s Political Ambition: Initial Findings from Two Experiments

  • Shauna L. Shames
  • Laura Lazarus Frankel
  • Nadia Farjood
Original Paper

Abstract

This study develops and begins to test the hypothesis that considerations of romance and sexual attractiveness may impede women’s expression of political ambition (in the sense of either interest in holding public office or willingness to disclose such interest). As this is a very new area of research, and as the subject is difficult to test, this study does not draw firm conclusions, but the initial data results suggest at least some support for the hypothesis. It does seem from these two experiments that politics makes one less popular as a date or mate choice, and that women who hypothetically hold office would be less likely to reveal that fact to a potential sexual or romantic partner. Further research is needed to both develop the measurements for this exciting new area of study and confirm these initial results.

Keywords

Politics Political ambition Public office Romance Sex Sexual attraction Attractiveness Attraction Experiments Dating Holding public office Running for office 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors offer their sincere thanks to Chelsea Coccia and Annalisa Klein for research assistance and to various graduate advisors in the Harvard and Duke Departments of Government/Political Science.

Funding

This study was funded in part through small grants to the authors from their graduate Departments at Harvard and Duke Universities. This research was also supported in part by NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Grant 1106401. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. No research grants were received from companies.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, and all instruments were approved by an institutional review board. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bower, C. L. (2003). Public discourse and female presidential candidates. In R. P. Watson & A. Gordon (Eds.), Anticipating madam president (pp. 107–116). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Current population survey, table 3: employment status of the civilian non-institutional population by age, sex, and race.Google Scholar
  5. Bursztyn, L., Fujiwaraz, T., & Pallaisx, A. (2017). Acting wife: Marriage market incentives and labor market investments. Working paper. Available online at http://scholar.harvard.edu/pallais/publications/acting-wife-marriage-market-incentives-and-labor-market-investments. Accessed 21 April 2017).
  6. Calogero, R. M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(1), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, C., & Sanbonmatsu, K. (2013). More women can run. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CAWP (2016). Current numbers of women officeholders. Technical report, Center for American Women and Politics.Google Scholar
  9. Faludi, S. (2009). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  10. Fels, A. (2013). Necessary dreams: Ambition in women’s changing lives. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  11. Ferree, M. M. (2004). Soft repression: Ridicule, stigma, and silencing in gender-based movements. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 25, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2005). To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 642–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fulton, S. A., Maestas, C. D., Sandy Maisel, L., & Stone, Walter J. (2006). The sense of a woman: Gender, ambition and the decision to run for congress. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). What is it about Government that Americans Dislike?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hillygus, D. S., Jackson, N., & Young, M. (2014). Professional respondents in non- probability online panels. In M. Callegaro et al. (Eds.), Online panel research: A data quality perspective (pp. 219–237). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houvouras, S., & Carter, J. S. (2008). The F word: College students’ definitions of a feminist. Sociological Forum, 23(2), 234–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huddy, L., Neely, F. K., & Lafay, M. R. (2000). Trends: Support for the women’s movement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 309–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamber, V. (2003). Poison politics: Are negative campaigns destroying democracy?. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2005). It Takes a Candidate. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2012). Men rule: The continued under-representation of women in US politics. Washington, DC: Women & Politics Institute, American University.Google Scholar
  22. Mansbridge, J., & Shames, S. L. (2008). Toward a theory of backlash: Dynamic resistance and the central role of power. Politics & Gender, 4(4), 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(04), 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P., & King, D. C. (1997). Why people don’t trust government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Patterson, T. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. Political Parity. (2014). Shifting gears: How women navigate the road to higher office. Report by Political Parity, a program of Hunt Alternatives Foundation. Cambridge, MA. Available online at https://www.politicalparity.org/research/shifting-gears/. Accessed 26 April 2017.
  28. Saad, L. (2013). Gridlock is top reason Americans are critical of congress. Report by Gallup. Available online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/163031/gridlock-top-reason-americans-critical-congress.aspx. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  29. Shames, S. (2017). Out of the running; Why millennials reject political careers and why it matters. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  30. Talbot, M. (2011). Comment: The public on the private. The New Yorker, 24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shauna L. Shames
    • 1
  • Laura Lazarus Frankel
    • 2
  • Nadia Farjood
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceRutgers University-CamdenCamdenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Law SchoolCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations