Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:10:43.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personality and Gendered Selection Processes in the Political Pipeline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

Adam M. Dynes ,
Hans J. G. Hassell ,
Matthew R. Miles  and
Jessica Robinson Preece
Adam M. Dynes
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Hans J. G. Hassell
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Matthew R. Miles
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University–Idaho
Jessica Robinson Preece
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most research on the causes of women's underrepresentation examines one of two stages of the political pipeline: the development of nascent political ambition or specific aspects of the campaign and election process. In this article, we make a different kind of contribution. We build on the growing literature on gender, psychology, and representation to provide an analysis of what kinds of men and women make it through the political pipeline at each stage. This allows us to draw some conclusions about the ways in which the overall process is similar and different for women and men. Using surveys of the general U.S. population (N = 1,939) and elected municipal officials such as mayors and city councilors (N = 2,354) that measure the distribution of Big Five personality traits, we find that roughly the same types of men and women have nascent political ambition; there is just an intercept shift for sex. In contrast, male and female elected officials have different personality profiles. These differences do not reflect underlying distributions in the general population or the population of political aspirants. In short, our data suggest that socialization into political ambition is similar for men and women, but campaign and election processes are not.

Keywords

Genderpolitical psychologyrepresentationcandidate emergencepolitical ambition
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 53 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association, 2019

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.)

Footnotes

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers; Jeremy Pope, Kris Kanthak, Kelly Dittmar, and Mirya Holman for their comments; as well as the participants at the 2017 Conference on Elite Personality and Political Institutions at the University of Notre Dame, the “Empirical Advances in the Study of Women and Politics” panel at the 2018 Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference, and the 2019 Women in Subnational Politics Workshop at Tulane University for their feedback. Jessica Preece wishes to acknowledge the support of the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard University.

References

REFERENCES

Aaldering, Loes, and Van Der Pas, Daphne Joanna. 2018. “Political Leadership in the Media: Gender Bias in Leader Stereotypes during Campaign and Routine Times.” British Journal of Political Science. Published online March 5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000795.Google Scholar
Anzia, Sarah F., and Berry, Christopher R.. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 478–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael, Butler, Daniel M., and Preece, Jessica. 2016. “Gender Inequalities in Campaign Finance.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 219–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Nichole M. 2015a. “Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support Female Candidates.” Political Psychology 36 (6): 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Nichole M. 2015b. “Who Stereotypes Female Candidates? Identifying Individual Differences in Feminine Stereotype Reliance.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3 (1): 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Nichole M. 2017. “The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations.” Political Psychology 38 (2): 279–95.Google Scholar
Best, Heinrich. 2011. “Does Personality Matter in Politics? Personality Factors as Determinants of Parliamentary Recruitment and Policy Preferences.” Comparative Sociology 10 (6): 928–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Verba, Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara C. 1994. A Woman's Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Preece, Jessica Robinson. 2016. “Recruitment and Perceptions of Gender Bias in Party Leader Support.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (4): 842–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Volden, Craig, Dynes, Adam M., and Shor, Boris. 2017. “Ideology, Learning, and Policy Diffusion: Experimental Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, Gian Vittorio, Francescato, Donata, Mebane, Minou, Sorace, Roberta, and Vecchione, Michele. 2010. “Personality Foundations of Ideological Divide: A Comparison of Women Members of Parliament and Women Voters in Italy.” Political Psychology 31 (5): 739–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., and Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, Erin C., and Holman, Mirya R.. 2018. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40 (3): 785–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L., and Ryan, John Barry. 2016. “Social Desirability, Hidden Biases, and Support for Hillary Clinton.” Special issue, PS: Political Science and Politics 49: 730–35.Google Scholar
Conroy, Meredith. 2015. Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, Meredith. 2018. “Strength, Stamina, and Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Race.” Politics & Gender 14 (1): 116–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody Ara. 2013. Gendered Recruitment without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women's Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuhadar, Esra, Kaarbo, Juliet, Kesgin, Baris, and Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. 2016. “Personality or Role? Comparisons of Turkish Leaders across Different Institutional Positions.” Political Psychology 38 (1): 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Bryce J., Lasley, Scott, Mondak, Jeffery J., Remmel, Megan L., and Turner, Joel. 2012. “Personality and Legislative Politics: The Big Five Trait Dimensions among US State Legislators.” Political Psychology 33 (2): 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, Kelly. 2015a. “Encouragement Is Not Enough: Addressing Social and Structural Barriers to Female Recruitment.” Politics & Gender 11 (4): 759–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, Kelly. 2015b. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael. Forthcoming. “Do Party Chairs Think Women and Minority Candidates Can Win? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
Dynes, Adam M., Hassell, Hans J. G., and Miles, Matthew R.. 2019. “The Personality of the Politically Ambitious.” Political Behavior 41 (2): 309–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2005. “To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 642–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women's Equality Politics in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraga, Bernard L., and Hassell, Hans J. G.. 2018. “Are Minority and Women Candidates Penalized by Party Politics? Race, Gender, and Access to Party Support.” Working Paper, Indiana University. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2703326.Google Scholar
Fulton, Sarah A. 2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 303–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, and Dowling, Conor M.. 2011. “The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, Hans J. G. 2019. “It's Who's on the Inside That Counts: Campaign Practitioner Personality and Campaign Tactics.” Political Behavior. Published online February 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09535-y.Google Scholar
Hassell, Hans J. G., and Visalvanich, Neil. Forthcoming. “The Party's Primary Preferences: Race, Gender, and Party Support of Congressional Primary Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and Lawless, Jennifer L. 2015. “A Non-Gendered Lens? Media, Voters, and Female Candidates in Contemporary Congressional Elections.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (1): 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., and Schneider, Monica C.. 2018. “Gender, Race, and Political Ambition: How Intersectionality and Frames Influence Interest in Political Office.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 6 (2): 264–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Joshua J., Thoemmes, Felix, Jonkmann, Kathrin, Lüdtke, Oliver, and Trautwein, Ulrich. 2012. “Military Training and Personality Trait Development: Does the Military Make the Man, or Does the Man Make the Military?” Psychological Science 23 (3): 270–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., and Vernon, P. A.. 1996. “The Genetic Basis of Personality at Different Ages: A Cross-Sectional Twin Study.” Personality and Individual Differences 21 (2): 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin, and Woon, Jonathan. 2015. “Women Don't Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 595–612.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Chris F., Quin Monson, J., Preece, Jessica Robinson, and Gimenez, Alejandra Teresita. 2018. “Selecting for Masculinity: The Double Bind and Women's Representation in the Republican Party.” Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference, Boston, August 20–September 2.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2012. Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Fox, Richard L.. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Fox, Richard L.. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Pearson, Kathryn. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women's Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 67–82.Google Scholar
Lo, Min-Tzu, Hinds, David A., Tung, Joyce Y., Franz, Carol, Fan, Chun-Chieh, Wang, Yunpeng, Smeland, Olav B., et al. 2017. “Genome-wide Analyses for Personality Traits Identify Six Genomic Loci and Show Correlations with Psychiatric Disorders.” Nature Genetics 49 (1): 152–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maestas, Cherie D., Fulton, Sarah, Sandy Maisel, L., and Stone, Walter J.. 2006. “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the US House.” American Political Science Review 100 (2): 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maghsoodloo, Saeed, and Huang, Ching-Ying. 2010. “Comparing the Overlapping of Two Independent Confidence Intervals with a Single Confidence Interval for Two Normal Population Parameters.” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 (11): 3295–3305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, Robert R., and Costa, Paul T.. 2005. Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
McCrae, Robert R., and Costa, Paul T.. 2008. “The Five Factor Model of Personality.” In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, eds. John, Oliver P., Robins, Richard W., and Pervin, Lawrence A.. New York: Guilford Press, 159–81.Google Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M.. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, Matthew R., and Haider-Markel, Donald P.. 2018. “Personality and Genetic Associations with Military Service.” Armed Forces & Society. Published online April 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X18765449.Google Scholar
Moore, Robert G. 2005. “Religion, Race, and Gender Differences in Political Ambition.” Politics & Gender 1 (4): 577–96.Google Scholar
Niven, David. 2006. “Throwing Your Hat Out of the Ring: Negative Recruitment and the Gender Imbalance in State Legislative Candidacy.” Politics & Gender 2 (4): 473–89.Google Scholar
Oliver, Sarah, and Conroy, Meredith. 2018. “Tough Enough for the Job? How Masculinity Predicts Recruitment of City Council Members.” American Politics Research 46 (6): 1094–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payton, Mark E., Miller, Anthony E., and Raun, William R.. 2000. “Testing Statistical Hypotheses Using Standard Error Bars and Confidence Intervals.” Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 31 (5–6): 547–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and McGhee, Eric. 2013. “What It Takes to Win: Questioning ‘Gender Neutral’ Outcomes in US House Elections.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 439–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preece, Jessica Robinson. 2016. “Mind the Gender Gap: An Experiment on the Influence of Self- Efficacy on Political Interest.” Politics & Gender 12 (1): 198–217.Google Scholar
Preece, Jessica, and Stoddard, Olga. 2015. “Why Women Don't Run: Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Political Competition Aversion.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 117: 296–308.Google Scholar
Ramey, Adam J., Klingler, Jonathan D., and Hollibaugh, Gary E. Jr. 2017. More than a Feeling: Personality, Polarization, and the Transformation of the US Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Monica C., and Bos, Angela L.. 2016. “The Interplay of Gender and Party Stereotypes in Evaluating Political Candidates.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37 (3): 274–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Monica C., Holman, Mirya R., Diekman, Amanda B., and McAndrew, Thomas. 2016. “Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women's Political Ambition.” Political Psychology 37 (4): 515–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specht, Jule, Egloff, Boris, and Schmukle, Stefan C.. 2011. “Stability and Change of Personality across the Life Course: The Impact of Age and Major Life Events on Mean-Level and Rank-Order Stability of the Big Five.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 (4): 862–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 330–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig, Wiseman, Alan E., and Wittmer, Dana E.. 2013. “When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers than Men?” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 326–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vukasović, Tena, and Bratko, Denis. 2015. “Heritability of Personality: A Meta-analysis of Behavior Genetic Studies.” Psychological Bulletin 141 (4): 769–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Dynes et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Dynes et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 829.2 KB