Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-dkwk2 Total loading time: 0.29 Render date: 2021-08-03T18:55:22.541Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2017

Abstract

Some parties are more popular among men, while other parties attract more female voters. This article proposes that these differences can be partially explained by two recurring gender differences in the socio-psychological literature. It argues that men’s generally lower sensitivity to social cues makes them more likely to vote for stigmatized and small parties, whereas women’s greater concern with social harmony is expected to make them less likely to vote for extreme parties. The models are tested at the individual and party levels using three waves of Comparative Study of Electoral Systems data from twenty-eight countries. Ceteris paribus, men are more likely than women to vote for parties that are socially stigmatized or ideologically extreme. This has consequences for the current understanding of gender gaps in voting, and reiterates that voting has important social aspects.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam (email: e.harteveld@uva.nl); Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, and Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg (email: stefan.dahlberg@pol.gu.se); Department of Political Science, Aarhus University (email: andrej.kokkonen@pol.gu.se); Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam (email: w.vanderbrug@uva.nl). Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: doi:10.7910/DVN/XQKBY6 and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123417000138.

References

Ackelsberg, Martha. 2003. Broadening the Study of Women’s Participation. In Women and American Politics, edited by Susan Carroll, 175188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blinder, Scott, Ford, Robert, and Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth. 2013. The Better Angels of Our Nature: How the Antiprejudice Norm Affects Policy and Party Preferences in Great Britain and Germany. American Journal of Political Science 57:841857.Google Scholar
Block, Jeanne Humphrey, and Block, Jack. 1984. Sex Role Identity and Ego Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Schlozman, Kay, and Verba, Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. 2006. Gender and the Vote in Britain: Beyond the Gender Gap? Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Carlsson, Fredrik, García, Jorge H., and Löfgren, Åsa. 2010. Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 47:407421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaney, Carole Kennedy, Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1998. Explaining the Gender Gap in US Presidential Elections, 1980–1992. Political Research Quarterly 51:311339.Google Scholar
Coffé, Hilde. 2013. The Gender Gap in Radical Right Voting Behaviour: Introducing Personality Traits and Support for Strict Migration Policies. Paper presented at the European Conference on Politics and Gender, Barcelona, 21–23 March.Google Scholar
Costa, Paul Jr Terracciano, Antonio, and McCrae, Robert R.. 2001. Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:322331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, Rachel, and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47:448474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2007. Gender Differences in Policy Preferences and Priorities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 12–15 July.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Stefan. 2009. Voters’ Perceptions of Party Politics – A Multilevel Approach. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Derek, and Ortegren, Marc. 2011. Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias. Journal of Business Ethics 103:7393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolezal, M. 2010. Exploring the stabilization of a political force: The social and attitudinal basis of green parties in the age of globalization. West European Politics 33:534552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior. A Social-role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey. 1993. Is Gender on the ‘New Agenda’? European Journal of Political Research 24:135158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard, and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2014. Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition. American Political Science Review 108:499519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Aina. 2007. Unequal Political Participation in Europe. International Journal of Sociology 37:1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth. 1995. Economic Man – Social Woman? The Case of the Gender Gap in Support for the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement. Comparative Political Studies 28:384408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger, Nathalie. 2009. Towards a Modern Gender Gap in Europe? A Comparative Analysis of Voting Behavior in 12 Countries. The Social Science Journal 46:474492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Givens, Terri E. 2004. The Radical Right Gender Gap. Comparative Political Studies 37:3054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Clark, Ronald A., and Lafferty, Barbara A.. 2005. Tendency to Conform: A New Measure and its Relationship to Psychological Reactance. Psychological Reports 96:591594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harteveld, Eelco. 2017. Replication Data for: Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics, doi: 10.7910/DVN/XQKBY6, Harvard Dataverse, V1.Google Scholar
Harteveld, Eelco, van der Brug, Wouter, Dahlberg, Stefan and Kokkonen, Andrej. 2015. The Gender Gap in Populist Radical Right Voting: Examining the Demand Side in Western and Eastern Europe. Patterns of Prejudice 49:103134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul A., Dalton, Russel J., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1995. Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 39:10251054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immerzeel, Tim, Coffé, Hilde, and van der Lippe, Tanja. 2015. Explaining the Gender Gap in Radical Right Voting: A Cross National Investigation in 12 Western-European Countries. Comparative European Politics 13:263286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2000. The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women’s and Men’s Voting Behavior in Global Perspective. International Political Science Review 21:441463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivarsflaten, E. 2006. Reputational shields: Why most anti-immigrant parties failed in Western Europe, 1980–2005. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia. Available at http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2006/ivarsflaten apsa2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1988. Preface. In The Politics of the Gender Gap, edited by Carol M. Mueller, 713. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Johnson, Monica K., and Marini, Margaret M.. 1998. Bridging the Racial Divide in the United States: The Effect of Gender. Social Psychology Quarterly 61:247258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Banducci, Susan A.. 2008. When Politics is Not Just a Man’s Game: Women’s Representation and Political Engagement. Electoral Studies 27:105115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kentmen, Cigdem. 2010. Bases of Support for the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: Gender, Attitudes Toward Economic Integration, and Attachment to Europe. International Political Science Review 31:285299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Hellemans, Staf. 1990. The Left–right Semantics and the New Politics Cleavage. Comparative Political Studies 23:210238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krouwel, André. 2012. Party Transformations in European Democracies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccoby, Eleanor E., and Jacklin, Carol N., eds. 1974. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory. 1982. Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study. American Political Science Review 76:538560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Nonna, and Sineau, Mariette. 2002. France: The Front National. In Rechtsextreme Parteien–eine mögliche Heimat für Frauen, edited by Amesberger, Helga and Brigitte Halbmayr, 61110. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
Minkenberg, Michael. 2006. Repression and Reaction: Militant Ddemocracy and the Radical Right in Germany and France. Patterns of Prejudice 40:2544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, Rachel. 1999. Terrorism in the Name of Aanimal Rights. Terrorism and Political Violence 11:159169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, Cas, and March, Luke. 2005. What’s Left of the Radical Left? The European Radical Left Since 1989: Decline and Mutation. Comparative European Politics 3:2349.Google Scholar
Pratto, Felicia, Stallworth, Lisa M., and Sidanius, Jim. 1997. The Gender Gap: Differences in Political Attitudes and Social Dominance Orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology 36:4968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rippeyoung, Phyllis L. F. 2007. When Women are Right: The Influence of Gender, Work and Values on European Far-right Party Support. International Feminist Journal of Politics 9:379397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, John Barry. 2011. Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting. American Journal of Political Science 55:753766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Mahajan, Harpreet. 1986. Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly 50:4261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2003. CSES Module 1 Full Release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. August 4.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2007. CSES Module 2 Full Release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. June 27.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2013. CSES Module 3 Full Release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. March 27.Google Scholar
Utych, Stephen M., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2014. Viability, Information Seeking, and Vote Choice. The Journal of Politics 76:152166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Brug, Wouter, and van der Eijk, Cees. 1999. The Cognitive Basis of Voting. In Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, edited by J. Thomassen, 129160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Brug, Wouter, Fennema, Meindert, and Tillie, Jean. 2000. Anti‐immigrant Parties in Europe: Ideological or Protest Vote? European Journal of Political Research 37:77102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Brug, Wouter, and van Spanje, Joost. 2009. Immigration, Europe and the ‘New’ Cultural Dimension. European Journal of Political Research 48:309334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Eijk, Cees. 2011. Analytical Strategies for Comparative Electoral Research: Stacks and Y-hats. Presented at the European Conference on Comparative Electoral Research. Sofia, 1–3 December.Google Scholar
Van der Eijk, Cees, Schmitt, Hermann, and Binder, Tanja. 2005. Left–Right Orientations and Party Choice. In The European Voter, edited by J. Thomassen, 167191. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Eijk, Cees, van der Brug, Wouter, Kroh, Martin, and Franklin, Mark. 2006. Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Electoral Behavior – On the Measurement and Analysis of Utilities. Electoral Studies 25:424447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Spanje, Joost, and van der Brug, Wouter. 2007. The Party as Pariah –- Ostracism of Anti-Immigration Parties and its Effect on their Ideological Positions. West European Politics 30:10221040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Morris, Michael G.. 2000. Why Don’t Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. MIS Quarterly 24:115139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, John E., and Best, Deborah L.. 1982. Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty-nation Study. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S. 2005. The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Harteveld supplementary material

Appendices

Download Harteveld supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 256 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Harteveld et al. Dataset

Link
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *