Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-ns2hh Total loading time: 0.305 Render date: 2022-10-02T00:51:32.770Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

More is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

Lonna Rae Atkeson
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Nancy Carrillo
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico

Abstract

This study tests the hypothesis that collective descriptive representation has important benefits for strengthening and legitimizing democratic society. Specifically, we test whether increased proportions of collective female descriptive representation in the statehouse and the presence of a female state executive are important to female citizens' attitudes toward government responsiveness, or external efficacy. We hypothesize that an increase in female collective descriptive representation in the legislative and state executive branches of government will increase female citizens' external efficacy but will be unimportant to males. We pooled American National Election Studies (ANES) data from 1988 to 1998 and used ordered probit techniques to test the hypothesis. In addition to our main independent variable of interest, our model includes state political culture, dyadic descriptive representation, dyadic substantive representation, sociodemographics, political participation, strength of partisanship, and electoral dummy variables as controls. Our results confirm that higher levels of collective female descriptive representation promote higher values of external efficacy for female citizens, suggesting that collective female descriptive representation has important benefits to a democratic society.An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Political Science Association's Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, August 30–September 2, 2001, and the International Society of Political Psychology, Seattle, Washington, July 1–4, 2000. We would like to thank the following people for their comments and support: Anthony Coveny, Randall Partin, and Cherie Maestas.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2007 The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

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.)

References

Abramson, Paul R. 1983. Political Attitudes in America. San Francisco: Freeman.
Abramson, Paul R., and John H. Aldrich. 1982. “The Decline of Electoral Participation in America.” American Political Science Review 76 (3): 50221.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael R., and Edward J. McCaffery. 2000. “Gender and Tax.” In Gender and American Politics: Women, Men and the Political Process, ed. Sue Tolleson-Rinehart and Jyl J. Josephson. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 91113.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 2003. “Not All Cues Are Created Equal: The Conditional Impact of Female Candidates on Political Engagement.” Journal of Politics 65 (4): 104061.Google Scholar
Balch, George I. 1974. “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept ‘Sense of Political Efficacy.’Political Methodology 1 (1): 143.Google Scholar
Barrett, Edith. 1995. “The Policy Priorities of African-American Women in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (2): 22347.Google Scholar
Berkman, Michael B., and Robert E. O'Connor. 1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (1): 10224.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Kerry L. Haynie. 1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 65879.Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burrell, Barbara. 1997. “The Political Leadership of Women and Public Policymaking.” Policy Studies Journal 25 (4): 56568.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Carey, John M., Richard G. Niemi, and Lynda W. Powell. 1998. “Are Women State Legislators Different?” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 87102.
Carroll, Susan J. 1984. “Feminist Scholarship on Political Leadership.” In Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Barbara Kellerman. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 13956.
Citrin, J., and D. P. Green. 1986. “Presidential Leadership and the Resurgence of Trust in Government.” British Journal of Political Science 16 (4): 43153.Google Scholar
Claibourn, Michele, and Virginia Sapiro. 2001. “Gender Differences in Citizen-Level Democratic Citizenship: Evidence from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems.” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Convention, Chicago.
Clarke, Harold D., and A. C. Acock. 1989. “National Elections and Political Attitudes: The Case of Political Efficacy.” British Journal of Political Science 19 (4): 55162.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1972. “Change in the American Electorate.” In The Human Meaning of Social Change, ed. Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse. New York: Sage, 263337.
Craig, Steven C., Richard G. Niemi, G. E. Silver. 1990. “Political Efficacy and Trust: A report on the NES Pilot Study Items.” Political Behavior 12 (3): 289314.Google Scholar
Crowley, Jocelyn Elise. 2004. “When Tokens Matter.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (1): 10936.Google Scholar
Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Day, Christine L. 1994. “State Legislative Voting Patterns on Abortion Restrictions in Louisiana. Women and Politics 14 (1): 4563.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael, and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Diamond, Irene. 1977. Sex Roles in the State House. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dodson, Debra L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.
Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black or Latino Do?American Political Science Review 96 (4): 72943.Google Scholar
Elazar, Danile J. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States. 3d ed. New York: Harper & Row.
Erber, R., and Rick R. Lau. 1990. “Political Cynicism Revisited: An Information Processing Reconciliation of Policy-Based and Incumbency-Based Interpretations of Changes in Trust in Government.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 23653.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven E. 1985. “Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 891913.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven E. 1987. “The Effects of Participation of Political Efficacy and Political Support: Evidence from a West German Panel.” Journal of Politics 49 (2): 44164.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 26480.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Benjamin. 1982. The Consequences of Consent: Elections, Citizen Control and Popular Acquiescence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, and R. Weissberg. 1978. “Elections and the Mobilization of Popular Support.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1): 3155.Google Scholar
Gordon, Stacy Burnett, and Gary M. Segura. 2002. “Looking Good … Feeling Good! Assessing Whether Dyadic and Collective Descriptive Representation Shape Latino Attitudes Towards Government.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, August 28–September 1.
Hansen, Susan B. 1997. “Talking about Politics: Gender and Contextual Effects on Political Proselytizing.” Journal of Politics 59 (1): 73103.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bernadette C., and Clive S. Bean. 1993. “Political Efficacy: A Comparative Study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia.” European Journal of Political Research 23 (2): 26180.Google Scholar
Hero, Rodney E., and Caroline J. Tolbert. 1995. “Latinos and Substantive Representation in the US House of Representatives: Direct, Indirect or Nonexistent.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (3): 64052.Google Scholar
Hill, David B. 1981. “Political Culture and Female Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 43 (1): 15968.Google Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara, Richard Hofstetter, and John Kessel. 1974. “Information and the Vote: A Comparative Election Study.” American Politics Quarterly 2 (1): 13158.Google Scholar
Hougland, James G. Jr., and James A. Christenson. 1983. “Religion and Politics: The Relationship of Religious Participation to Political Efficacy and Involvement.” Sociology and Social Research 67 (4): 40620.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 50325.Google Scholar
Keiser, Lael R., Vicky M. Wilkins, Kenneth J. Meier, and Catherine A. Holland. 2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 96 (3): 55364.Google Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey, 1997. “Women's Engagement in Politics in the Year of the Woman.” American Politics Quarterly 25 (1): 11833.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Politics of Presence? Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 8199.Google Scholar
Leader, Shelah Gilber. 1977. “The Policy Impact of Elected Women Officials.” In The Impact of the Electoral Process, ed. Louis Maisel and Joseph Cooper. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 26584.
Leeper, Mark S. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly 19 (2): 24861.Google Scholar
Mandel, Ruth B., and Debra L. Dodson. 1992. “Do Women Officeholders Make a Difference?” In The American Woman, 1992–95, ed. Sara E. Rix. New York: Norton, 14977.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’Journal of Politics 61 (3): 62857.Google Scholar
Morrell, Michael E. 2003. “Survey and Experimental Evidence or a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (4): 589602.Google Scholar
Mueller, Carol M. 1986. “Nurturance and Mastery: Competing Qualifications for Women's Access to High Public Office?” In Women and Politics: Activism, Attitudes and Office-Holding. Research in Politics and Society, Vol. 2, ed. Gwen Moore and Glenna Spitze. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 21132.
Murphy, Patricia. 1997. Domestic Violence Legislation and the Police: The Role of Socio-Economic Indicators, Political Factors and Women's Political Activism on State Policy Adoption.” Women and Politics 18 (2): 2750.Google Scholar
Nechemias, Carol. 1985. “Geographic Mobility and Women's Access to State Legislatures.” Western Political Quarterly 38 (1): 11931.Google Scholar
Nechemias, Carol. 1987. “Changes in the Election of Women to US State Legislative Seats.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (1): 12542.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. 1998. “The Geography of Gender Power: Women in State Legislatures.” In Women in Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 10317.
Pantoja, Adrian D., and Gary M. Segura. 2002. “Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive Representation in the Statehouse and Political Alienation Among Latinos.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science association, Chicago, April 25–27.
Phillips, Anne. 1998. “Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?” In Feminism and Politics, collection of readings with introduction, Oxford: Oxford University, 22440.
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pollock, Philip H._III. 1983. “The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: A Research Note.” Western Political Quarterly 36 (3): 400409.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosenwasser, Shirley M., and Jana Seale. 1988. “Attitudes Toward a Hypothetical Male or Female Candidate—A Research Note.” Political Psychology 9 (4): 59198.Google Scholar
Saint-Germain, Michelle A. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly 70 (4): 95668.Google Scholar
Saltzstein, Grace H. 1979. “Black Mayors and Police Policies.” Journal of Politics 51 (3): 52544.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When Are Interests Interesting?American Political Science Review 75 (3): 70121.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981/82. “If US Senator Baker Were a Woman: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images.” Political Psychology 2 (1): 6183.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1983. The Political Integration of Women: Roles, Socialization and Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sapiro, Virginia, and Pamela Johnston Conover. 1997. “The Variable Gender Basis of Electoral Politics: Gender and Context in the 1992 US Election. British Journal of Political Science 27 (4): 497523.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., and William Mishler. 2005. “The Nexus of Representation: An Integrated Model of Women's Representation.” Journal of Politics 67 (2): 40728.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Harpreet Mahajan. 1986. “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (1): 4261.Google Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira. 1969. “The Utility of Elazar's Political Culture.” Polity 2 (1): 6683.Google Scholar
Shingles, Richard D. 1981. “Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing Link.” American Political Science Review 75 (1): 7691.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe. 1999. “Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning and Political Action.” American Political Science Review 93 (2): 36378.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill, and Christina Fastnow. 1994. “Comparing Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (3): 70520.Google Scholar
Stenner-Day, Karen, and Mark Fischle. 1992. “The Effects of Political Participation of Political Efficacy: A Simultaneous Equations Model.” Australian Journal on Political Science 27 (2): 282305.Google Scholar
Stewart, Marianne C., Allan Kornberg, Harold D. Clarke, and Alan Acock. 1992. “Arenas and Attitudes: A Note on Political Efficacy in a Federal System.” Journal of Politics 54 (1): 17996.Google Scholar
Tate, Katherine. 2001. “The Political Representation of Blacks in Congress: Does Race Matter?Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (4): 62338.Google Scholar
Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, Sue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics 53 (4): 95876.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Sue, and Susan Welch. 1991. “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators.” Western Political Quarterly 44 (2): 44556.Google Scholar
Thompson, Frank J. 1976. “Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies: Are Passive and Active Representation Linked?Administration and Society 8 (August): 20126.Google Scholar
Tidmarch, Charles M., Lisa J. Hyman, and Jill E. Sorkin. 1984. “Press Issue Agendas in the 1982 Congressional and Gubernatorial Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 46 (4): 122642.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Trudy A. Steuernagel. 2001. “Women Lawmakers, State Mandates and Women's Health.” Women and Politics 22 (2): 139.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2000. “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Version 1.2.2. March 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu (July 15, 2006).
Verba, Sidney, Nancy Burns, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1997. “Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement.” Journal of Politics 59 (4): 105172.Google Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72 (2): 53547.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking.” Journal of Politics 64 (4): 115374.Google Scholar
Whicker, Marcia Lynn, and Malcolm Jewell. 1998. “The Feminization of Leadership in State Legislatures.” In Women in Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 16374.
57
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

More is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

More is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

More is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy
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? *