Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-mb7zs Total loading time: 0.238 Render date: 2021-06-20T07:22:28.301Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

How gender affects the efficacy of discussion as an information shortcut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2019

Yanna Krupnikov
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States
Kerri Milita
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, United States
John Barry Ryan
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States
Elizabeth C. Connors
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States
Corresponding

Abstract

There are a number of observed gender differences in the frequency of political discussion, perceived levels of expertise, and importantly, openness to persuasion. This article explores the consequences of these differences for political choices. Given the difficulty in separating influence from homophily with observational data, this paper relies on a group-based experiment. Results suggest that when selecting between candidates, women are more likely to accept information from others, even if the information in the signals is not helpful. Men, on the other hand, often ignore outside signals in favor of sticking with their own choices even when outside signals would be helpful to their decision-making. A reanalysis of a previously published experiment on social communication leads to similar gender differences.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Achen, CH and Shively, WP (1995) Cross-Level Inference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ahn, T and Ryan, JB (2015) The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics 27, 380400.10.1177/0951629814531672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, T, Huckfeldt, R and Ryan, JB (2010) Communication, influence, and informational asymmetries among voters. Political Psychology 31, 763787.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00783.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, T, Huckfeldt, R and Ryan, JB (2014) Experts, Activists, and Interdependent Citizens: Are Electorates Self-Educating? New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107706156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, LR and Rapoport, RB (2003) The more things change the more they stay the same: gender differences in political attitude expression, 1952–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly 67, 495521.10.1086/378961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D and Feddersen, TJ (2009) Information aggregation and communication in committees. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London—Series B: Biological Sciences 364, 763769.10.1098/rstb.2008.0256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldassarri, D and Bearman, P (2007) Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review 72, 784811.10.1177/000312240707200507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, TD (2016) Gendering Legislative Behavior: Institutional Constraints and Collaboration. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316534281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, WD, DeMeritt, JHR and Esarey, J (2010) Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: is a product term essential? American Journal of Political Science 54, 248266.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00429.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, O, Baetge, I and Nicklisch, A (2014) hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review 71, 117120.10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, C, Elmendorf, CS and MacKenzie, SA (2015) Lost in space? Information shortcuts, spatial voting, and local government representation. Political Research Quarterly 68, 843855.10.1177/1065912915609437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, RL (1985) The value of biased information: a rational choice model of political advice. The Journal of Politics 47, 530555.10.2307/2130895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A, Converse, PE, Miller, WE and Stokes, DE (1960) The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cialdini, RB (1984) Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
Crawford, VP (2003) Lying for strategic advantage: rational and boundedly rational misrepresentation of intentions. American Economic Review 93, 133149.10.1257/000282803321455197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, VP and Sobel, J (1982) Strategic information transmission strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50, 14311451.10.2307/1913390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R and Gneezy, U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47, 448474.10.1257/jel.47.2.448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, PA, McClurg, SD and Sokhey, AE (2016) The political consequences of gender in social networks. doi: 10.1017/S0007123416000156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, PA and Sokhey, AE (2014) The distribution and determinants of socially-supplied political expertise. American Politics Research 42, 199225.10.1177/1532673X13486924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
Eagly, A and Wood, W (2011) Social role theory. In Lange, PAV, Kruglanski, AW and Higgins, ET (eds), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, vol. 2. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 458476.Google Scholar
Eagly, A and Wood, W (2013) The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, 340357.10.1177/1745691613484767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, A, Wood, W and Diekman, AB (2000) Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal. In Eckes, T and Trautner, HM (eds), The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 123174.Google Scholar
Eveland, WP Jr. and Hutchens, MJ (2013) The role of conversation in developing accurate political perceptions: a multilevel social network approach. Human Communication Research 39, 422444.10.1111/hcre.12011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007) Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10, 171178.10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B (2004) An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In Kremer, K and Macho, V (eds), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen. Gottingen, Germany: Datenverarbeitung, pp. 7993.Google Scholar
Guadagno, RE and Cialdini, RB (2002) Online persuasion: an examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6, 3851.10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R and Sprague, J (1995) Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511664113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R, Levine, J, Morgan, W and Sprague, J (1998) Election campaigns, social communication, and the accessibility of perceived discussant preference. Political Behavior 20, 263294.10.1023/A:1024866630373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R, Johnson, PE and Sprague, J (2004) Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S and Sniderman, PM (2006) The limits of deliberative discussion: a model of everyday political arguments. The Journal of Politics 68, 272283.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00405.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanthak, K and Woon, J (2015) Women don't run? Election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science 59, 595612.10.1111/ajps.12158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, CF and Mendelberg, T (2014) The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, C (1998) The behavioral consequences of political discussion: another look at discussant effects on vote choice. The Journal of Politics 60, 231244.10.2307/2648009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, S and Krupnikov, Y (2016) Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316471050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, AM, Eagly, AH, Mitchell, AA and Ristikari, T (2011) Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137, 616642.10.1037/a0023557CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupnikov, Y and Ryan, JB (2017) Choice versus action: candidate ambiguity and voter decision making. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12, 479505.10.1561/100.00016051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, RR and Redlawsk, DP (1997) Voting correctly. American Political Science Review 91, 585598.10.2307/2952076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, RR, Andersen, DJ and Redlawsk, DP (2008) An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 52, 395411.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00319.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, HG, Johnston, CD and Steenbergen, MR (2012) The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772759.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M and Taber, C (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139032490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A and McCubbins, MD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maddux, WW and Brewer, MB (2005) Gender differences in the relational and collective bases for trust. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8, 159171.10.1177/1368430205051065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendez, JM and Osborn, T (2010) Gender the perception of knowledge in political discussion. Political Research Quarterly 63, 269279.10.1177/1065912908328860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendez, JM and Osborn, T (2011) Two become one? Spouses and agreement in political opinions. American Politics Research 39, 783803.Google Scholar
Milita, K (2015) Election laws and agenda-setting: how election law restrictiveness shapes the complexity of state ballot measures. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 15, 119146.10.1177/1532440015575901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, JB (2011) Social networks as a shortcut to correct voting. American Journal of Political Science 55, 753766.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00528.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, JB (2013) An experimental study of persuasive social communication. Political Communication 30, 100116.10.1080/10584609.2012.737416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, VL (1982) Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. The American Economic Review 72, 923955.Google Scholar
Sniderman, PM (2000) Taking sides: a fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Lupia, A, McCubbins, MD and Popkin, SL (eds), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6784.10.1017/CBO9780511805813.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokhey, AE and McClurg, SD (2012) Social networks and correct voting. Journal of Politics 74, 754761.10.1017/S0022381612000461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, SJ, Steele, CM and Quinn, DM (1999) Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 428.10.1006/jesp.1998.1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D (1990) Gender differences in topical coherence: creating involvement in best friends' talk. Discourse Processes 13, 7390.10.1080/01638539009544747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J and Feldman, S (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36, 579616.10.2307/2111583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Krupnikov et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Krupnikov et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 570 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Krupnikov et al. Dataset

Link
2
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.

How gender affects the efficacy of discussion as an information shortcut
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.

How gender affects the efficacy of discussion as an information shortcut
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.

How gender affects the efficacy of discussion as an information shortcut
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? *