Gender and Citizen Responses to Corruption among Politicians: The U.S. and Brazil

  • Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer
  • Justin Esarey
  • Erika Schumacher
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)


Schwindt-Bayer, Esarey, and Schumacher evaluate whether voters perceive of comparable male and female candidates differently in terms of how likely they are to be involved in a corruption scandal and punish them differently when they are involved in corruption. We conducted survey experiments in two countries, the United States (with high electoral accountability) and Brazil (with moderate to low electoral accountability), to determine if differential treatment is the causal mechanism linking women’s representation and corruption. We find only weak and statistically uncertain evidence that citizens perceive women as less corruptible than men in both countries, and we find no evidence that they punish women more harshly than men for corruption scandals.


  1. Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 663–680.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, T. D., & Beaulieu, E. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics & Gender, 10(3), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, T. D., Beaulieu, E., & Saxton, G. W. (2018). Restoring trust in the police: Why female officers reduce suspicions of corruption. Governance, 31(1), 143–161.Google Scholar
  5. Boas, T. C. (2014). Pastor Paulo vs. Doctor Carlos: Professional titles as voting heuristics in Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 6, 39–72.Google Scholar
  6. Boas, T. C. (2016). Pastors for pinochet: Authoritarian stereotypes and voting for evangelicals in Chile. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 3(2), 197–205.Google Scholar
  7. Dolan, K. (2004). Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolan, K. (2014). When does gender matter?: Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esarey, J., & Chirillo, G. (2013). ‘Fairer sex’ or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9(04), 361–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esarey, J., & Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2017). Women’s representation, accountability, and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 1–32, published online January 26.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, R. L., & Smith, E. R. A. N. (1998). The role of candidate sex in voter decision-making. Political Psychology, 19, 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Funk, C. L. (1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior, 18, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, J. W., & Wallack, J. S. (2005). Electoral systems and the personal vote.
  17. McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray, R. (Ed.). (2010). Cracking the highest glass ceiling: A global comparison of women’s campaigns for executive office. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  19. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  20. Samuels, D., & Zucco, C. (2014). The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2016). Does the presence of women in politics reduce corruption in Latin America? Issue Brief, 7/29/16. Houston: James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, Latin America Initiative.
  23. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A., & Reyes-Housholder, C. (2017). Citizen responses to female executives: Is it sex, novelty, or both? Politics, Groups and Identities, 5(3), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A., & Tavits, M. (2016). Clarity of responsibility, accountability, and corruption. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Winters, M. S., & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians? Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A., Marganski, A., Baran, T., & Piotrowski, J. (2016). Corruption and sexual scandal: The importance of politician gender. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 33, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer
    • 1
  • Justin Esarey
    • 1
  • Erika Schumacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations