Supply side factors

As the supply-side arguments recognize, individuals who consider seeking political office must personally calculate the risk associated with their choices. To learn how women and men make such calculations, scholarship has turned to examining candidate emergence. ^{Reference Fox and Lawless3} Researchers have pointed to a number of factors that tend to support the political ambition of men and/or depress that of women. An oft-mentioned consideration is that women’s roles as wives and mothers take precedence over or create obstacles to their political ambitions. ^{Reference Stalsburg8,Reference Carroll9,Reference Carroll and Sanbonmatsu10,Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Thomas12,Reference Dodson13,Reference Kirkpatrick14,Reference Lee15,Reference Sapiro16,Reference Stoper, Githens and Prestage17} Others have argued that the perpetual scarcity of women at elite levels suppresses ambition because potential women candidates lack role models. ^{Reference Burrell, Lovenduski and Norris18,Reference Campbell and Wolbrecht19,Reference Mansbridge20,Reference Phillips21}

For those women who run and hold office, familial obligations do seem to weigh heavily in their calculations about their potential political careers. Gaddie finds that elected officials of both genders frequently cite the stresses of reconciling a political career and ambition with family, but women are more burdened than men by this conflict. ^{Reference Gaddie22} Despite the obligations of their elected positions, female state legislators remain primarily responsible for housework and child care, ^{Reference Thomas12} a concern that discourages them from seeking higher office. ^{Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Burt-Way and Kelly23} Silbermann found that women who lived farther away from their state capitols were less likely to run for state office. ^{Reference Silbermann24} Lawless and Fox suggest the women in the candidate pipeline are typically successful in their careers and have already overcome caretaking obstacles to professional success. ^{Reference Lawless and Fox4} Therefore, these women tend to have fewer conscious concerns about the effect of running for political office on their potential for reproductive success and/or continued parental investment. In a study of national party convention delegates, women were more likely than men to feel that their political involvement was limited by having children. ^{Reference Sapiro16} As a result, women were more likely to delay a run for office until their children were grown. A later study of potential candidates in four typical “pipeline” careers—lawyers, business professionals, educators, and activists—found that women whose children were older tended to be more likely to consider a run for office. In this study, women were not more likely than men to be deterred from running for office by familial obligations, but—at the same time—the women who considered political careers were in less traditional family arrangements than their male counterparts. The women in politics were “roughly twice as likely as men to be single or divorced, and they [were] 10 percentage points less likely than professionally similar men to have children.” ²⁵

Demand-side factors

On the demand side of the equation, sexual discrimination likely contributes to the paucity of woman elected officials. ^{Reference Sapiro26,Reference McGlen27} Although there is little evidence of certain overt forms of gender discrimination such as voter bias in contemporary electoral contexts, ^{Reference Burrell, Lovenduski and Norris18,Reference Black and Erickson28,Reference Carroll29,Reference Cook, Thomas and Wilcox30,Reference Darcy and Choike31,Reference Darcy and Schramm32,Reference Dolan33,Reference Fox and Lawless34,Reference Lawless and Pearson35,Reference Thompson and Steckenrider36,Reference Woods37} women continue to face stereotyping by voters, ^{Reference Fox and Smith38,Reference Huddy and Terkildsen39,Reference Koch40,Reference Lawless41,Reference McDermott42,Reference McDermott43,Reference Sanbonmatsu44,Reference Bauer45,Reference Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian and Trounstine46} in the media’s treatment of them, ^{Reference Huddy and Terkildsen39,Reference Devitt47,Reference Falk48,Reference Heldman, Carroll and Olson49,Reference Kahn50,Reference Kahn51,Reference Kahn52,Reference Kahn and Goldenberg53} and in political recruitment. ^{Reference Lawless and Fox4,Reference Burrell, Lovenduski and Norris18,Reference Sanbonmatsu44,Reference Norris54,Reference Norris and Lovenduski55,Reference Crowder-Meyer56,Reference Niven57,Reference Niven58}

Institutional and structural factors in the political system also matter. For example, the advantages of incumbency in U.S. politics serve as a deterrent to all emergent candidates—regardless of gender ^{Reference Duerst-Lahti, Thomas and Wilcox59} —and therefore help perpetuate the overrepresentation of men in elected offices. Furthermore, because U.S. women are underrepresented in local and state political offices as well as key professions such as business and law that tend to be the launching point for political careers, there are fewer women than men in the pipeline for higher political offices.

In the United States, the systems used to choose and elect candidates also limit the demand for women candidates. For example, candidate emergence is entrepreneurial, meaning candidates put themselves forward to compete, typically in a primary. In contrast, in many parts of the world where women are more likely to be candidates, such as Europe, there is a party loyalist model—candidates are picked by party elites. ^{Reference Siavelis and Morgenstern60} This selection process has been shown to increase the number of women candidates. ^{Reference Lovenduski, Krook and Childs61} Many of these same systems also have a proportional representation (PR) system, where candidates are placed on party lists and multiple candidates from these lists are chosen based on the proportion of the vote each party receives. As a result, PR system elections are primarily party-focused, taking the spotlight (and the potential burden of risk) off the individual candidates.

Across the world, many political systems also employ gender quotas of some kind. While the type and success of these quotas varies, scholars generally agree that they have increased the number of women holding elected office. ^{Reference Franceschet, Krook and Piscopo62} Because the U.S. system does not employ quotas, an electoral gatekeeper (such as a party leader) has greater leverage to oppose the selection of a woman candidate. ^{Reference Sanbonmatsu44,Reference Niven58}

The U.S. political system also has cultural dimensions that affect the likelihood that women will seek political office, although perhaps in ways that are difficult to measure. The two-party system in the United States tends to provoke polarization and negativity, whereas parliamentary systems (such as those found in much of Europe) feature multi-party systems that not only encourage coalition and consensus but also require cooperation to function. Given that men are more likely to have a higher social dominance orientation ^{Reference Sidanius, Pratto and Bobo63} and women are more likely to be exhibit political ambition when primed with communal frames, ^{Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64} potential female candidates are likely to find the combative political culture less welcoming than potential male candidates do.

Research by Schneider and her colleagues demonstrates that men and women are both more likely to perceive political careers to be more aligned with male life-strategy goals—power seeking for self-promotion and competition. ^{Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64} When careers are framed in a more egalitarian or communal way, women become more ambitious. ^{Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64} This finding is consistent with the Darwinian feminist perspective that women would theoretically be more likely to pursue and hold political leadership in an egalitarian society. ^{Reference Hannagan65}

The gap in understanding the ambition gap

Clearly, myriad demand-side influences help explain women’s underrepresentation in politics, and Lawless and Fox ^{Reference Fox and Lawless3,Reference Lawless and Fox4} and others have carefully outlined the critical factors that depress the supply side of female candidates. Interestingly, Lawless and Fox identify gender differences in the self-efficacy of potential candidates/elected officials as important factors in determining whether a potential candidate ultimately seeks office. Women’s lack of self-efficacy has thus been touted as a main reason for their lack of political ambition. However, this explanation falls short—it seems unlikely that tremendously successful women in pipeline professions have sufficient confidence to pursue these challenging careers but do not believe they could also succeed in the political arena. I therefore argue that the gender gap in political ambition is, in part, attributable to gendered differences in risk perception and risk aversion. If men, on average, are less likely than women to perceive or be deterred by the risk in a particular electoral environment (electoral risk), they are more likely to emerge as candidates. While research has uncovered numerous factors contributing the gender gap in political ambition, scholars have only just started to consider risk perception and risk aversion. ^{Reference Kanthak and Woon66,Reference Preece and Stoddard67,Reference Sweet-Cushman68}

Cognitive influences: Evolved traits and individual behavior

A fundamental assumption of behavioral genetics is that there are genetic influences underlying all behaviors ^{Reference Buss130} and evolutionary processes throughout our ancestral history have shaped behavior, like other traits. The causal pathways may be lengthy, complicated, and difficult to ascertain, but they exist. Genes are sections of DNA that get translated, leading eventually to the production of distinct enzymes. Without genes, there is no development, no nervous system or brain, and, as a result, no behavior. Through these behaviors, human culture has also evolved. ^{Reference Cosmides, Tooby and Dupré131}

The process of natural selection is the process responsible for adaptations—traits that better enabled their bearers to survive and reproduce in the environments of prehistory and history. Malthus ^{Reference Malthus132} and Darwin ^{Reference Darwin120} argue that because far more organisms are born in any generation than could be supported by the resources available in the environment, individuals inevitably compete for those resources. Individuals with traits best adapted to the particular competitive environment will thrive and produce offspring who are likely also to carry the traits that made the parents successful. ^{Reference Darwin120}

Two critical issues determine whether a trait will be favored: First, does the trait favor the acquisition of resources used for survival and reproduction? Second, does the trait favor the acquisition of one particularly important resource—more and higher quality mates? Genes will be transferred to the next generation only if those initially carrying them possess both the resources to survive and have access to mating opportunities. A gene will increase in frequency, generation after generation, only if it is found in bodies that compete successfully for reproductive resources, including mates. There are thus two sets of intertwined selective pressures at work: Shortages of resources encourage competition for them, and shortages of mates and higher quality mates favor competition for access to them. ^{Reference Darwin120} Risk is inherent to many calculations that individuals must make in both managing resources and reproduction. Trimpop argues that mate selection is inherently a form of social risk taking. ^{Reference Trimpop133} It involves competition both for resources (used to attract mates) and for the mates themselves. ^{Reference Buss134} Both competition for resources and for mates favor risk taking, and some of these risks are inherently political, with implications for power seeking.

Consider the adaptive traits that modern humans have and the selective pressures that would have favored them. Evolutionary theorists make a strong case that the Pleistocene Era is the most convincing place to look for the origins of more recently evolved human behaviors that distinguish modern Homo sapiens from their ancestors (such as Homo erectus). The theoretical justification for this focus is simple: 99 percent of the history of Homo sapiens occurred within hunter-gatherer (HG) societies, ^{Reference Hatemi, McDermott, Hatemi and McDermott135} so most traits distinctive to modern humans would be traits that favored survival and reproduction in environments typical to a HG society. These are almost certainly the traits that modern humans possess. ^{Reference Boehm137} By this logic, the political environment associated with HG societies has influenced how modern humans cope with their own political environments. Cultural anthropologists have argued that not only has the political nature of HG societies affected human nature, but human nature has also affected modern politics. ^{Reference Boehm136,Reference Boehm137}

In HG societies, male and female humans worked together to obtain resources needed for survival, ^{Reference Bird138,Reference Marlowe139} and the division of labor between the sexes has been identified as the origin of traditional gender roles. ^{Reference Lerner140} Women often focused on collecting localized vegetation that, in terms of calories and nutrients, made up the largest portion of the HG diet. For their part, men fished, hunted, and scavenged for meat. While the nutrients obtained from vegetation were mainstays of the diet, meat provided a greater concentration of fat and protein. Skill was needed to obtain this often scarce and unpredictable resource, and those who shared meat with others in the community achieved significant reputational benefits. ^{Reference Kelly141} Successful hunters were therefore likely to wield significant influence within their social group and, as a result, male authority became the norm. ^{Reference Boehm136} For this reason, humankind’s earliest politicians, headmen, were likely exclusively men. ^{Reference Lee142} Because HG societies had little variation in wealth, they tended to be predominantly egalitarian, with leaders emerging to solve conflicts when authority and leadership were required. ^{Reference Hannagan65} Apart from the headman (and perhaps a few skilled and successful hunters), very few men were able to attract and support more than one mate and their children. ^{Reference Irons143} Therefore, while these societies were predominantly ecologically monogamous (a condition that would offer its own set of evolutionary pressures), a few men with greater ambition would succeed in becoming a headman, and be able to attract and support additional mates, father more children, and achieve greater personal reproduction. Their traits, including those that supported their ambition, would increase in frequency in the population, encouraging a tendency toward power seeking in future generations of men.

As Darwinian feminists would surely point out, women in HG societies also have had their own sets of ambitions and a role in political life. Women in HG societies are frequently described as being cooperative, ^{Reference Sell, Griffith and Wilson144} particularly in their gathering duties, ^{Reference Bird138,Reference Marlowe139} but these societies provided opportunities for female competition and power seeking in other aspects of communal life. Low, in her examination of traditional peoples around the world where women have a notable amount of power, identifies numerous ways that women exert their ambition and strength. ^{Reference Low126} She notes that within the Creek Nation, for example, when a woman was cited for bravery, her son would receive a war title. The Saramacca of Guyana had a dual political structure where women held positions of authority in the realm of women’s affairs, while men did the same in more general communal affairs—an arrangement that may seem familiar to women in positions of power in contemporary democracies. Furthermore, although the fabric of egalitarian HG society was secured in part by a delicate balance between men’s limited political authority and women’s aversion to power seeking, women played a “counterdominance” role in society. ^{Reference Hannagan65,Reference Boehm145,Reference Knauft, Sponsel and Gregor146} Women’s counterdominant behaviors would include their approval or disapproval of leaders and their actions, economic efforts, and the absolute dependency of men on women’s childbearing and rearing efforts.

As applied to humans, evolutionary theory suggests that individuals will be inclined to pursue political power (emerge as candidates) to the extent that political power can contribute to their reproductive success or, more specifically, their inclusive fitness, ^{Reference Hamilton147} and evolutionary theory further supports the argument that men are able to derive potentially significant reproductive benefits from being politically ambitious, whereas women derive far fewer benefits from the same behavior. In theory, men can make a virtually unlimited contribution to the future gene pool through polygamous marriages, serial monogamy, taking concubines, and philandering, but the genetic contributions of women are limited by the number of children they are able to successfully gestate, bear, and raise. Therefore, men will be inclined to participate in activities that gain them reproductive opportunities. Namely, competing successfully for power will increase their access to additional resources and these resources can be used to attract mates and help support these mates and any offspring. Indeed, history is full of accounts of wealthy and powerful men with harems full of concubines or, at least, multiple wives and higher than average numbers of children (for example, Genghis Khan, the Ottoman sultans, and the Tiwi elders of Northern Australia). ^{Reference Betzig148} Unlike men, women who use resources to attract multiple mates are not favored by natural selection. Instead, women are primarily predisposed by evolution to behaviors that give them access to resources that will help them raise healthy children. ^{Reference Low126} Women carry the reproductive burden of pregnancy and, in most cases, they have been tasked with most of the early burden of caretaking. ^{Reference Hrdy149,Reference Trivers150} Thus, the sex-differentiated benefits of ambition and caretaking have favored the emergence of traditional gender roles and help explain the evolutionary roots of gender differences in political ambition that we see today: One reason that women are less politically ambitious than men is because, in the environments of our ancestors, there were fewer benefits for females in taking the risk to seek political power.

Environmental influences: Social and cultural environmental expression of evolutionary factors

By this point, one dimension of my argument should be clear: Natural selection has favored men, but not women, who seek power, and this evolutionary reality is reflected in human history up through modern society. Geary summarizes this point:

Chagnon and Irons offer empirical support of this argument by documenting the importance of “cultural success” for men. ^{Reference Chagnon and Irons152} Cultural success is the fulfillment of conscious aspirations, and these authors argue that its importance is a cultural universal. Humans in evolutionary history, traditional societies, and modern cultural environments would all consciously strive toward proximate goals (such as wealth) that would improve their inclusive fitness. For men, cultural success would often be defined in terms of access to and control over resources, and the conscious drive associated with this control could be defined as ambition. Although the ambitious men throughout history who have struggled to achieve cultural success were probably ignorant to the concept of inclusive fitness, most were likely aware of their own culture’s definition of success and knew that there were ample rewards to be had from achieving it. There is typically a close correspondence between gendered cultural definitions of success and factors that are associated with reproductive success. For example, for much of U.S. history, women who were born into wealthy families married at younger ages and gave birth to more children than women who were not from wealthy backgrounds. ^{Reference Essock-Vitale153}

The fact that there is cultural variation in how ambition is defined and recognized is a crucial point that brings attention to the second facet of my evolutionary argument about electoral risk. Genetic dispositions are merely dispositions and must be activated by the social environment. Depending upon the characteristics of specific social environments, such dispositions may be expressed fully, expressed in attenuated form, or not expressed at all. For example, the political ambition of men in HG societies, if successful, was often rewarded by the ability to attract and keep several wives. However, the political ambition of men in modern societies, if successful, is not rewarded the same way because polygamy is widely prohibited by law. In the context of electoral risk assessment, the environment in which individuals are considering the risks of running for political office is at least as meaningful as genetic factors in shaping how they assess those risks.

Perhaps the most important environmental consideration is the long-standing cultural norm in most human societies that politics is men’s business. ^{Reference Sapiro16} This is the norm of public man, private woman. The dominance of public man in human society is reflected in the history of patriarchal institutions, such as legislatures, political parties, courts, businesses, religious organizations, and the media, which have been structured so as to hinder women’s ability to gain access to them and to exercise influence within them. ¹⁵⁴

The history of male domination in the political/public sphere and its primary institutions holds implications from a socialization perspective as well. ^{Reference Enloe155} Patriarchal institutions serve to create what Fox and Lawless refer to as a “masculinized ethos.” ^{Reference Fox and Lawless3} Where a masculinized ethos exists, so does an inherent bias against women and their issues. This bias creates a “gendered psyche,” ^{Reference Fox and Lawless3,Reference Lawless and Fox4} which serves to make traditionally male realms such as politics feel like a man’s world, rather than a woman’s world or a gender-neutral environment. Women may be deterred from participation, and, if they do enter politics, they may conclude that they do not belong, are less effective than men, and cannot exercise influence. It is easy to presume that the differential burden of parenting that persists in human societies would be associated with women’s diminished ambition in general and political ambition in particular. In reality, the effect of the differential burden of parenting on ambition is not clear cut. As many evolutionary theorists have identified, ^{Reference Low126} gender-related traits can almost always be placed on a spectrum full of shades of grey, rather than arranged in a stark binary. In the context of candidate emergence, this means that while men on average tend to be more politically ambitious than women, there will always be exceptions to this tendency—and the overlap on the spectrum may be significant.

When thinking about ambition and gender, it can be useful to consider the prevalence of gender-dominated careers other than politics. In the United States, Census data indicate that men dominate architecture and engineering careers, where they outnumber women two to one. ^{Reference Census156} At the same time, women dominate personal care and service occupations by an even greater margin. ¹⁵⁷ Of course, there may be reasons why biological differences between the sexes would support such culture-based career preferences. ^{Reference Sapienza, Zingales and Maestripieri158,Reference Bussey and Bandura159} For example, as the primary caregivers of children, the professions of nursing or early childhood education may be marginally more attractive to women than men simply because, throughout human history, women’s life history strategies have been more nurturing. Similarly, a career in electoral politics, with its emphasis on power seeking and resource control, might seem less attractive to women because of evolutionary influences. However, overly simplified evolutionary explanations of the disproportionate representation of women and men in different careers cannot account for the near-global phenomenon of advancement toward gender parity in many careers. In most developed societies, the participation of women in the public sphere has increased. These advancements are often attributed in large part to women’s diminished fertility and the lower burden of child care due to modern birth control methods that give women greater control over their own fertility. ¹⁶⁰ While this argument is certainly true, there has not been enough time for human behavior to adapt, as a result of natural selection, to birth control. ^{Reference Schmitt, Shackelford and Buss161,Reference Buss and Schmitt162} Therefore, we do not know how traits like ambition may evolve.

Ultimately, the risk involved in emerging as a candidate for political office is distinct from the risks associated with other pursuits and, as such, may activate different adaptive responses regarding whether to exercise political ambition. Political scientists frequently employ a rational choice operationalization of electoral risk (the risk associated with pursuing political office), which identifies the probability of winning, cost of running, and level of office as the major variables in play in decisions to run for (higher) office. ^{Reference Rohde70} However, deciding whether to seek political office involves a plethora of risk assessments. Obvious and quite general risks include one’s political party backing a different candidate, a better candidate(s) running for the same office, failure to get on the ballot, one’s potential ineffectiveness as candidate/officeholder, failure to be re-elected, dislike for public office, or loss of a campaign. Other risks may feature resource considerations, such as one’s capacity to secure financial support to run an effective campaign, the investment of one’s own resources (financial and otherwise) in a candidacy, and the potential loss of income from other employment sources while running for or holding political office. Risks may also involve aspects of the individual’s personal life and well-being. Running a campaign and holding a political office can take time away from other important obligations (family, job, and so on) and have the potential to harm familial relationships. Family members may also be subjected to negative media attention as well as other forms of stress. Robbins and Dorn theorize that political leadership can have dramatic health consequences. ^{Reference Robins and Dorn163} Specifically, they argue that the stressors of politics may be hard on politicians and their families and lead to addictions and stress-related health issues. Some risk assessments will be unique to the particular office being considered. Scholars of U.S. Congressional elections have examined from many angles how candidate quality affects the cost-benefit analysis that someone considering a candidacy will make, including the incumbency advantage, ^{Reference Carson, Engstrom and Roberts164,Reference Stone, Fulton, Maestas and Maisel165,Reference Trounstine166} party support of a candidacy, ^{Reference Maisel and Stone167} and fundraising capacity. ^{Reference Hernson168,Reference Maestas and Rugeley169,Reference Stone, Maisel and Maestas170,Reference Francia and Herrnson171}

This categorization of risk types is not, by any means, a comprehensive description of every potential risk consideration that an individual evaluates whether or not to seek political office. The crucial point is that electoral risk offers distinct risk-based considerations for someone considering running.

Furthermore, in many contemporary political campaigns, risks, potential risks, or perceived risks can be gendered. In particular, women candidates face the possibility of sexism in media coverage ^{Reference Huddy and Terkildsen39,Reference Devitt47,Reference Falk48,Reference Heldman, Carroll and Olson49,Reference Kahn50,Reference Kahn51,Reference Kahn52,Reference Kahn and Goldenberg53} and recruitment, ^{Reference Niven57,Reference Niven58,Reference Sanbonmatsu172} online harassment, ^{Reference Megarry173} violence, ^{Reference Krook and Sanín174} or fundraising, where women have to work much harder to raise similar amounts as men. ^{Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Jenkins175} Women may also face problematic voter stereotypes associated with their fertility ^{Reference Deason, Greenlee and Langner176} or lack thereof, ^{Reference Dittmar177} or how old their children are. ^{Reference Stalsburg178} Women and men may also face different economic risks by entering the political arena. Sanbonmatsu, for example, finds that women are more likely than men to run for office in districts where the pay for office is lower because women are less likely to play the role of breadwinner in their families. ^{Reference Krook and Sanín174} For these reasons, women interested in political office will assess the electoral risk differently than men in the same position.