Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-16T02:45:31.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Information Alter Perceptions about Women's Chances of Winning Office? Evidence from a Panel Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2015

Conor M. Dowling  and
Michael G. Miller
Conor M. Dowling
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi
Michael G. Miller
Affiliation:
Barnard College, Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the 113th Congress convened in January 2013, women occupied only 17.9% of the 435 seats in the U.S. House, ranking the United States 80th globally in terms of the percentage of women serving in the lower legislative assembly. The underrepresentation of women is particularly puzzling, as political scientists since the 1990s have consistently shown that women candidates are not of demonstrably less quality than men on average (see Fulton 2012, 2014; Fulton et al. 2006; Lawless and Fox 2010), do not suffer from a gender-related funding disadvantage (Berch 1996; Burrell 2008; Gaddie and Bullock 1995; Fox 2010; Herrick 1995, 1996), and do about as well as men at the polls, accounting for differences in incumbency status (Fox 2010; Smith and Fox 2001).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 55 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2): 271–85.Google Scholar
Berch, Neil. 1996. “The Year of the Woman in Context.” American Politics Quarterly 24: 169–93.Google Scholar
Berinksy, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 351–68.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, Michale D., Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D.. 2011. “Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 3–5.Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara. 2008. “Political Parties, Fund-Raising, and Sex.” In Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. Beth. Reingold. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., and Dittmar, Kelly. 2010. “The 2008 Candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin: Cracking the ‘Highest, Hardest Glass Ceiling.’” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 2nd edition, ed. Carroll, Susan and Fox, Richard. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2010. “Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 663–80.Google Scholar
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael G.. 2014. “Does Time Heal All Wounds? Sex Scandals, Tax Evasion, and the Passage of Time.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47 (2): 357–66.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2008. “Is There a ‘Gender Affinity Effect’ in American Politics? Information, Affect, and Candidate Sex in U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (1): 79–89.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates.” Political Behavior 32 (1): 69–88.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen, and Lynch, Timothy. 2014. “It Takes a Survey: Understanding Gender Stereotypes, Abstract Attitudes, and Voting for Women Candidates.” American Politics Research 42 (4): 656–76.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen, and Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2009. “Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Gender Balance in Government.” American Politics Research 37 (3): 409–28.Google Scholar
Dowling, Conor M., and Wichowsky, Amber. 2014. “Attacks without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12094.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Fein, Jordan, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106 (2): 430–54.Google Scholar
Falk, Erika. 2008. Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Lynda, and Lawless, Jennifer. 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.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L. 1997. Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard L. 2010. “Congressional Elections: Women's Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 2nd edition, ed. Carroll, Susan and Fox, Richard. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fridkin, Kim, and Kenney, Patrick. 2009. “Bad for Men, Better for Women: The Impact of Stereotypes during Negative Campaigns.” Political Behavior 31 (1): 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, Sarah, Maestas, Cherie D., Maisel, L. Sandy, and Stone, Walter J.. 2006. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (2): 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, Sarah. 2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 303–14.Google Scholar
Fulton, Sarah. 2014 “When Gender Matters: Macro-Dynamics and Micro-Mechanisms.” Political Behavior 36(3): 605–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddie, Ronald, and Bullock, Charles III. 1995. “Congressional Elections and the Year of the Woman: Structural and Elite Influences on Female Candidacies.” Social Science Quarterly 76 (4): 749–62.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Gimpel, James G., Green, Donald P., and Shaw, Daron R.. 2011. “How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads?” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 135–50.Google Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah. 1995. “A Reappraisal of the Quality of Women Candidates.” Women and Politics 15 (4): 25–38.Google Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah. 1996. “Is There a Gender Gap in the Value of Campaign Resources?” American Politics Quarterly 24 (1): 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrnson, Paul, Lay, Celeste, and Stokes, Atiya. 2003. “Women Running ‘as Women’: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter Targeting Strategies.” Journal of Politics 65 (1): 244–55.Google Scholar
Hill, Seth J., Lo, James, Vavreck, Lynn, and Zaller, John. 2013. “How Quickly We Forget: The Duration of Persuasion Effects From Mass Communication.” Political Communication 30 (4): 521–47.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., Hill, Seth J., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision-Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters' Limitations in Controlling Incumbents.” American Political Science Review 106 (4): 720–41.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer, and Barabas, Jason. 2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” Journal of Politics 74 (3): 672–84.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim. 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
Koch, Jeffrey. 1999. “Candidate Gender and Assessments of Senate Candidates.” Social Science Quarterly 80 (1): 84–96.Google Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates' Ideological Orientations?” The Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29.Google Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens' Impressions of House Candidates' Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 453–62.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11th Era. Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 479–90.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer, and Pearson, Kathryn. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women's Under-Representation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 67–82.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer, and Fox, Richard C.. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Regina, and Rose, Melody. 2010. Hillary Clinton's Race for the White House. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan, and Reifler, Jason. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–30.Google Scholar
Plutzer, Eric, and Zipp, John. 1996. “Identity Politics, Partisanship, and Voting for Women Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (1): 30–57.Google Scholar
Rosenwasser, Shirley Miller, and Dean, Norma G.. 1989. “Gender Role and Political Office: Effects of Perceived Masculinity/Femininity of Candidate and Political Office.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 13 (1): 77–85.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34.Google Scholar
Smith, Eric, and Fox, Richard L.. 2001. “A Research Note: The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): 205–21.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles, and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in Political Information Processing.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.Google Scholar