Skip to main content
×
Home

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

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.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Ackelsberg Martha. 2003. Broadening the Study of Women’s Participation. In Women and American Politics, edited by Susan Carroll, 175188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Block Jeanne Humphrey, and Block Jack. 1984. Sex Role Identity and Ego Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burns Nancy, Schlozman Kay, and Verba Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell R. 2006. Gender and the Vote in Britain: Beyond the Gender Gap? Colchester: ECPR Press.
Carlsson Fredrik, García Jorge H., and Löfgren Åsa. 2010. Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 47:407421.
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.
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.
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.
Croson Rachel, and Gneezy Uri. 2009. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47:448474.
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.
Dahlberg Stefan. 2009. Voters’ Perceptions of Party Politics – A Multilevel Approach. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press.
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.
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.
Eagly Alice H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior. A Social-role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Evans Geoffrey. 1993. Is Gender on the ‘New Agenda’? European Journal of Political Research 24:135158.
Fox Richard, and Lawless Jennifer L.. 2014. Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition. American Political Science Review 108:499519.
Gallego Aina. 2007. Unequal Political Participation in Europe. International Journal of Sociology 37:1025.
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.
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.
Gilligan Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Givens Terri E. 2004. The Radical Right Gender Gap. Comparative Political Studies 37:3054.
Goffman Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Inglehart Ronald, and Norris Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Jennings M. Kent. 1988. Preface. In The Politics of the Gender Gap, edited by Carol M. Mueller, 713. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
Kitschelt Herbert, and Hellemans Staf. 1990. The Left–right Semantics and the New Politics Cleavage. Comparative Political Studies 23:210238.
Krouwel André. 2012. Party Transformations in European Democracies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Lau Richard R., and Redlawsk David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maccoby Eleanor E., and Jacklin Carol N., eds. 1974. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Markus Gregory. 1982. Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study. American Political Science Review 76:538560.
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.
Minkenberg Michael. 2006. Repression and Reaction: Militant Ddemocracy and the Radical Right in Germany and France. Patterns of Prejudice 40:2544.
Monaghan Rachel. 1999. Terrorism in the Name of Aanimal Rights. Terrorism and Political Violence 11:159169.
Mudde Cas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Ryan John Barry. 2011. Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting. American Journal of Political Science 55:753766.
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.
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2003. CSES Module 1 Full Release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. August 4.
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2007. CSES Module 2 Full Release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. June 27.
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2013. CSES Module 3 Full Release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. March 27.
Utych Stephen M., and Kam Cindy D.. 2014. Viability, Information Seeking, and Vote Choice. The Journal of Politics 76:152166.
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.
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.
Van der Brug Wouter, and van Spanje Joost. 2009. Immigration, Europe and the ‘New’ Cultural Dimension. European Journal of Political Research 48:309334.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Williams John E., and Best Deborah L.. 1982. Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty-nation Study. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Zuckerman Alan S. 2005. The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Harteveld supplementary material
Appendices

 PDF (256 KB)
256 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 66 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1070 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th September 2017 - 22nd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.