Loading…

Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States

Research shows that voters often use gender stereotypes to evaluate candidates, which should help women in some electoral contexts and hurt them in others. Yet, most research examines a single context at a time—usually US national elections, where partisanship is strong—and employs surveys and exper...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of political science 2022-10, Vol.52 (4), p.1544-1563
Main Authors: Anzia, Sarah F., Bernhard, Rachel
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413
container_end_page 1563
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1544
container_title British journal of political science
container_volume 52
creator Anzia, Sarah F.
Bernhard, Rachel
description Research shows that voters often use gender stereotypes to evaluate candidates, which should help women in some electoral contexts and hurt them in others. Yet, most research examines a single context at a time—usually US national elections, where partisanship is strong—and employs surveys and experiments, raising concerns that citizens’ responses may not reflect how they actually vote. By analyzing returns from thousands of nonpartisan local elections, we test whether patterns of women's win rates relative to men's match expectations for how the electoral effects of gender stereotyping should vary by context. We find women have greater advantages over men in city council than mayoral races, still greater advantages in school board races, and decreasing advantages in more conservative constituencies. Thus, women fare better in stereotype-congruent contexts and worse in incongruent contexts. These effects are most pronounced during on-cycle elections, when voters tend to know less about local candidates.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0007123421000570
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2718819970</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0007123421000570</cupid><sourcerecordid>2718819970</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsfwFvA82om-ye73qTUKhQ91OJxSZPZmtJNarJV-u3NtgUP4mlmmPd7jxlCroHdAgNxN2OMCeBpxiF2uWAnZABZUSUcgJ-SQb9O-v05uQhhFccyLWFAdhO0Gj2ddejRdbuNsUsqrabdB9LxGlXnvFzT2VYpDIG6hr67Fi0dRY3RssNwT1_wm46_jEarkDbetXTqVIT2uHE2UGP3fnNrOtQxq-cuyVkj1wGvjnVI5o_jt9FTMn2dPI8epolKC9YlGnMpMMsVVJzlrKkKlnNYcAlM67JpeBXvyNKizJUstWRiwapC6zxFkTPIIB2Sm4PvxrvPLYauXrmttzGy5gLKEqpKsKiCg0p5F4LHpt5400q_q4HV_YfrPx-OTHpkZLvwRi_x1_p_6gfCBHxB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2718819970</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ABI/INFORM global</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Cambridge University Press</source><creator>Anzia, Sarah F. ; Bernhard, Rachel</creator><creatorcontrib>Anzia, Sarah F. ; Bernhard, Rachel</creatorcontrib><description>Research shows that voters often use gender stereotypes to evaluate candidates, which should help women in some electoral contexts and hurt them in others. Yet, most research examines a single context at a time—usually US national elections, where partisanship is strong—and employs surveys and experiments, raising concerns that citizens’ responses may not reflect how they actually vote. By analyzing returns from thousands of nonpartisan local elections, we test whether patterns of women's win rates relative to men's match expectations for how the electoral effects of gender stereotyping should vary by context. We find women have greater advantages over men in city council than mayoral races, still greater advantages in school board races, and decreasing advantages in more conservative constituencies. Thus, women fare better in stereotype-congruent contexts and worse in incongruent contexts. These effects are most pronounced during on-cycle elections, when voters tend to know less about local candidates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1234</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-2112</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0007123421000570</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Advantages ; Candidates ; Cities ; Constituents ; Councils ; Experiments ; Gender ; Gender stereotypes ; Hypotheses ; Legislatures ; Local elections ; National elections ; Partisanship ; Political science ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Sex discrimination ; Stereotypes ; Success ; Voters ; Women</subject><ispartof>British journal of political science, 2022-10, Vol.52 (4), p.1544-1563</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4104-0020</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2718819970/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2718819970?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,11667,12824,12826,21366,21373,27901,27902,33200,33588,33962,36037,43709,43924,44339,72703,73964,74211,74638</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Anzia, Sarah F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernhard, Rachel</creatorcontrib><title>Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States</title><title>British journal of political science</title><addtitle>Brit. J. Polit. Sci</addtitle><description>Research shows that voters often use gender stereotypes to evaluate candidates, which should help women in some electoral contexts and hurt them in others. Yet, most research examines a single context at a time—usually US national elections, where partisanship is strong—and employs surveys and experiments, raising concerns that citizens’ responses may not reflect how they actually vote. By analyzing returns from thousands of nonpartisan local elections, we test whether patterns of women's win rates relative to men's match expectations for how the electoral effects of gender stereotyping should vary by context. We find women have greater advantages over men in city council than mayoral races, still greater advantages in school board races, and decreasing advantages in more conservative constituencies. Thus, women fare better in stereotype-congruent contexts and worse in incongruent contexts. These effects are most pronounced during on-cycle elections, when voters tend to know less about local candidates.</description><subject>Advantages</subject><subject>Candidates</subject><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Constituents</subject><subject>Councils</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Gender stereotypes</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Local elections</subject><subject>National elections</subject><subject>Partisanship</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Sex discrimination</subject><subject>Stereotypes</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0007-1234</issn><issn>1469-2112</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsfwFvA82om-ye73qTUKhQ91OJxSZPZmtJNarJV-u3NtgUP4mlmmPd7jxlCroHdAgNxN2OMCeBpxiF2uWAnZABZUSUcgJ-SQb9O-v05uQhhFccyLWFAdhO0Gj2ddejRdbuNsUsqrabdB9LxGlXnvFzT2VYpDIG6hr67Fi0dRY3RssNwT1_wm46_jEarkDbetXTqVIT2uHE2UGP3fnNrOtQxq-cuyVkj1wGvjnVI5o_jt9FTMn2dPI8epolKC9YlGnMpMMsVVJzlrKkKlnNYcAlM67JpeBXvyNKizJUstWRiwapC6zxFkTPIIB2Sm4PvxrvPLYauXrmttzGy5gLKEqpKsKiCg0p5F4LHpt5400q_q4HV_YfrPx-OTHpkZLvwRi_x1_p_6gfCBHxB</recordid><startdate>20221001</startdate><enddate>20221001</enddate><creator>Anzia, Sarah F.</creator><creator>Bernhard, Rachel</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQHSC</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4104-0020</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221001</creationdate><title>Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States</title><author>Anzia, Sarah F. ; Bernhard, Rachel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Advantages</topic><topic>Candidates</topic><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Constituents</topic><topic>Councils</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Gender stereotypes</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Local elections</topic><topic>National elections</topic><topic>Partisanship</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Sex discrimination</topic><topic>Stereotypes</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Anzia, Sarah F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernhard, Rachel</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI-INFORM Complete</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>History Study Center</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>British journal of political science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Anzia, Sarah F.</au><au>Bernhard, Rachel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States</atitle><jtitle>British journal of political science</jtitle><addtitle>Brit. J. Polit. Sci</addtitle><date>2022-10-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1544</spage><epage>1563</epage><pages>1544-1563</pages><issn>0007-1234</issn><eissn>1469-2112</eissn><abstract>Research shows that voters often use gender stereotypes to evaluate candidates, which should help women in some electoral contexts and hurt them in others. Yet, most research examines a single context at a time—usually US national elections, where partisanship is strong—and employs surveys and experiments, raising concerns that citizens’ responses may not reflect how they actually vote. By analyzing returns from thousands of nonpartisan local elections, we test whether patterns of women's win rates relative to men's match expectations for how the electoral effects of gender stereotyping should vary by context. We find women have greater advantages over men in city council than mayoral races, still greater advantages in school board races, and decreasing advantages in more conservative constituencies. Thus, women fare better in stereotype-congruent contexts and worse in incongruent contexts. These effects are most pronounced during on-cycle elections, when voters tend to know less about local candidates.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0007123421000570</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4104-0020</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-1234
ispartof British journal of political science, 2022-10, Vol.52 (4), p.1544-1563
issn 0007-1234
1469-2112
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2718819970
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ABI/INFORM global; Social Science Premium Collection; Politics Collection; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Cambridge University Press
subjects Advantages
Candidates
Cities
Constituents
Councils
Experiments
Gender
Gender stereotypes
Hypotheses
Legislatures
Local elections
National elections
Partisanship
Political science
Polls & surveys
Sex discrimination
Stereotypes
Success
Voters
Women
title Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T11%3A15%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gender%20Stereotyping%20and%20the%20Electoral%20Success%20of%20Women%20Candidates:%20New%20Evidence%20from%20Local%20Elections%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20political%20science&rft.au=Anzia,%20Sarah%20F.&rft.date=2022-10-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1544&rft.epage=1563&rft.pages=1544-1563&rft.issn=0007-1234&rft.eissn=1469-2112&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0007123421000570&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2718819970%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-de5a7e45c192050f960521b2a10dd8ff2938143685ca8da07b096dd53e7501413%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2718819970&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0007123421000570&rfr_iscdi=true