Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-ssw5r Total loading time: 0.262 Render date: 2022-08-14T09:52:11.114Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2011

Danny Hayes
Affiliation:
American University

Abstract

Research has shown that voters are willing to stereotype candidates on the basis of their gender, which can sometimes pose obstacles and sometimes prove advantageous for female politicians. But the literature is uncertain about how candidate gender interacts with candidate party affiliation to shape voters' perceptions. In this article, I draw on political psychology, the women and politics literature, and recent work on partisan “trait ownership” to suggest that the application of gender stereotypes will be limited by the salience of partisan stereotypes. I use nationally representative survey data and a content analysis of news coverage from the 2006 U.S. Senate elections to test the argument. Focusing on voter evaluations of candidate traits, I find that party stereotypes are more powerful than gender stereotypes, and that assessments of candidate attributes can be affected by news coverage when candidates are portrayed in ways that challenge traditional partisan images. The results suggest that gender stereotyping is limited by the relevance of party stereotypes, and that as the Republican and Democratic parties continue to polarize at the elite level, the importance of partisan stereotyping is likely to increase.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2011

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

Alexander, Deborah, and Andersen, Kristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 527–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, Elliot. 2004. The Social Animal. 9th ed.New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Aronson, Elliot, and Linder, Darwyn. 1965. “Gain and Loss of Esteem as Determinants of Interpersonal Attractiveness.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1(2): 156–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002a. “The Impact of Candidate Traits in American Presidential Elections.” In Leaders' Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, ed. King, Anthony. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002b. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, Daryl J., and McConnell, H. K.. 1970. “Testing the Self- Perception Explanation of Dissonance Phenomena: On the Salience of Premanipulation Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 14: 2331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, Deborah L., and Williams, John E.. 1990. Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty-Nation Study. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G., Stevens, Daniel, and Wilson, Christian. 2006. “Character Counts?Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (2): 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broverman, Inge K., Vogel, Susan R., Broverman, Donald M., Clarkson, Frank E., and Rosenkrantz, Paul S.. 1972. “Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal.” Journal of Social Issues 28 (2): 5978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., and Fox, Richard L.. 2006. Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1989. “Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (4): 912–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabelko, Kirsten La Cour, and Herrnson, Paul S.. 1997. “Women's and Men's Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (1): 121–35.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, Ap, Macrae, C. Neil, and Haddock, Geoffrey. 1999. “When Recollective Experiences Matter: Subjective Ease of Retrieval and Stereotyping.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (6): 766–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 1998. “Voting for Women in the Year of the Woman.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 272–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004. “The Impact of Candidate Sex on Evaluations of Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (1): 206–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2005. “Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (1): 3144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Priming the Vote.” Political Psychology 25 (4): 577–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1995. “Attitudes as Object-Evaluation Associations: Determinants, Consequences, and Correlates of Attitude Accessibility.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, Jon A.. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., Powell, M. C., Herr, P. M.. 1983. “Toward a Process Model of the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Accessing One's Attitude upon Mere Observation of the Attitude Object.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (4): 723–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., and Williams, Carol J.. 1986. “Attitude Accessibility as a Moderator of the Attitude-Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relations: An Investigation of the 1984 Presidential Election.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (3): 505–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Fowler, Linda L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2009. “Looking for Sex in All the Wrong Places: Press Coverage and the Electoral Fortunes of Gubernatorial Candidates.” Perspectives on Politics 7 (3): 519–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 2003. “Gender Stereotyping in State Executive Elections: Candidate Selection and Success.” Journal of Politics 65 (3): 833–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, Kim L., and Kenney, Patrick J.. 2009. “The Role of Gender Stereotypes in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Politics & Gender 5 (September): 301–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, Kim L., and Kenney, Patrick J.. 2011. “The Role of Candidate Traits Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 6173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, Ruth, Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick. 1985. “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Class, Partisan, and Ideological Schemata.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 850–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 908–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2009. “Has Television Personalized Voting Behavior?Political Behavior 31 (2): 231–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2010. “Trait Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Politics Research 38 (6): 1102–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmreich, Robert L., Spence, Janet T., and Wilhelm, John A.. 1981. “A Psychometric Analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire.” Sex Roles 7 (11): 10971108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S., Lay, J. Celeste, and Stokes, Atiya. 2003. “Women Running ‘as Women’: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies.” Journal of Politics 65 (1): 244–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J., Lo, James, Vavreck, Lynn, and Zaller, John. 2007. “The Opt-In Internet Panel: Survey Mode, Sampling Methodology and the Implications for Political Research.” http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/papers.html (Accessed February 2, 2011).Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Levine, Jeffrey, Morgan, William, and Sprague, John. 1999. “Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 888911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Mondak, Jeffery J., Craw, Michael, and Mendez, Jeanette Morehouse. 2005. “Making Sense of Candidates: Partisanship, Ideology, and Issues as Guides to Judgment.” Cognitive Brain Research 23 (1): 1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huddy, Leonie, and Capelos, Theresa. 2002. “Gender Stereotyping and Candidate Evaluation: Good News and Bad News for Women Politicians.” In The Social Psychology of Politics, ed. Ottati, Victor C., Tindale, R. Scott, Edwards, John, Bryant, Fred B., Health, Linda, O'Connell, Daniel C., Suarez-Balzacar, Yolanda, and Posavac, Emil J.. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2007. “Referendum: The 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 122 (1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1992. “Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate Candidates.” Journal of Politics 54 (2): 497517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1994. “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 162–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Kenney, Patrick J.. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, David C., and Matland, Richard E.. 2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research 31 (6): 595612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 1999. “Candidate Gender and Assessments of Senate Candidates.” Social Science Quarterly 80 (1): 9496.Google Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates' Ideological Orientations?Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens' Impressions of House Candidates' Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 453–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva, Sinclair, L., and Griffin, D.. 1997. “Equal Ratings but Separate Meanings: Stereotypes and the Construal of Traits.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (4): 720–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva, and Spencer, Steven J.. 2003. “When Do Stereotypes Come to Mind and When Do They Color Judgment? A Goal-Based Theoretical Framework for Stereotype Activation and Application.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 522–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunda, Ziva, and Thagard, P.. 1996. “Forming Impressions from Stereotypes, Traits, and Behaviors: A Parallel-Constraint-Satisfaction Theory.” Psychological Review 103 (2): 284308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Stephanie Greco. 2001. “Running as Women? A Comparison of Female and Male Pennsylvania Assembly Candidates' Campaign Brochures.” Women and Politics 22 (2): 107–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Pomper, Gerald M.. 2001. “Effects of Negative Campaigning on Turnout in U.S. Senate Elections, 1988–1998.” Journal of Politics 63 (3): 804–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post– September 11 Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 479–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Fox, Richard L.. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Monika L. 1997. “Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M. 2003. “Political Impressions.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert. New York: Oxford University Press, 394432.Google Scholar
McKee, John P., and Sheriffs, Alex C.. 1957. “The Differential Evaluation of Males and Females.” Journal of Personality 25 (3): 356–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paolino, Phillip. 1995. “Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 294313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, B. K., Lambert, A. J., and Jacoby, L. L.. 2002. “Best Laid Plans: Effects of Goals on Accessibility Bias and Cognitive Control in Race-Based Misperceptions of Weapons.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38 (4): 384–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 472–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenwasser, Shirley M., and Seale, Jana. 1988. “Attitudes Toward a Hypothetical Male or Female Presidential Candidate—A Research Note.” Political Psychology 9 (4): 591–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Dolan, Kathleen. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?Political Research Quarterly 62 (3): 485–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stangor, Charles. 1988. “Stereotype Accessibility and Information Processing.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14 (4): 694708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Shelly E., and Fiske, Susan G.. 1978. “Salience, Attention, and Attribution: Top of the Head Phenomena.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11, ed. Berkowitz, L.. New York: Academic Press, 250–88.Google Scholar
Williams, Leonard. 1994. “Political Advertising in the ‘Year of the Woman’: Did X Mark the Spot?” In The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities, ed. Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Thomas, Sue, and Wilcox, Clyde. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Williams, Leonard. 1998. “Voter Reaction to Women Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Futures, ed. Thomas, Sue and Wilcox, Clyde. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2010. “Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans' Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties.” Political Behavior 32 (4): 587618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions or Revealing Preferences?American Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 579616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
154
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.

When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution
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.

When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution
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.

When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution
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? *