Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T21:10:01.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voter Reasoning Bias When Evaluating Statements from Female and Male Political Candidates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2018

Jens Koed Madsen
Jens Koed Madsen*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article examines whether female political candidates are disfavored in terms of persuasiveness potential based on their expertise and trustworthiness. Using a Bayesian argumentation paradigm in which candidates endorse policies, this study shows that male voters regard female candidates as less persuasive than male candidates. A controlled between-subjects experiment among 202 potential voters in the United States suggests that female election candidates are subject to sex biases in two central ways. First, despite agreeing on their trustworthiness and expertise, male voters find highly credible female candidates less persuasive than identical male candidates. Second, female candidates are affected more adversely if they are perceived as lacking in trustworthiness. Male candidates, on the other hand, are affected more negatively if they are perceived as lacking in expertise. Whereas perceived lack of expertise is relatively easy to repair, trustworthiness may be difficult to regain once it is lost. In a political environment in which attack ads are prevalent, this may carry a greater negative impact for female candidates.

Keywords

Bayesian reasoningsource credibilitypolitical persuasionfemale biasreasoning
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 310 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Bauer, Nichole M. 2015. “Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support Female Candidates.” Political Psychology 36 (6): 691–708.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Arla G. 2000. “The Effects of Message Theme, Policy Explicitness, and Candidate Gender.” Communication Quarterly 48 (2): 159–73.Google Scholar
Brauer, Markus, Wasel, Wolfgang, and Niedenthal, Paula. 2000. “Implicit and Explicit Components of Prejudice.” Review of General Psychology 4 (1): 79–101.Google Scholar
Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2010. “A Negativity Gap? Voter Gender, Attack Politics, and Participation in American Elections.” Politics & Gender 6 (3): 319–41.Google Scholar
Carlin, Diana B., and Winfrey, Kelly L.. 2009. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 60 (4): 326–43.Google Scholar
Cavazza, Nicoletta, and Guidetti, Margherita. 2014. “Swearing in Political Discourse: Why Vulgarity Works.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33 (5): 537–47.Google Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly, and Maheswaran, Durairaj. 1994. “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgement.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3): 460–73.Google Scholar
Coffé, Hilde, and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2016. “The Effect of Political Candidates’ Occupational Background on Voters’ Perception of and Support for Candidates.” Political Science 68 (1): 55–77.Google Scholar
Cuddy, Amy J. C., Glick, Peter, and Beninger, Anna. 2011. “The Dynamics of Warmth and Competence Judgments, and Their Outcomes in Organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior 31: 73–98.Google Scholar
Cuddy, Amy J. C., Fiske, Susan T., Kwan, Virginia S. Y., Glick, Peter, Demoulin, Stéphanie, Leyens, Jacques-Philippe, Bond, Michael Harris, et al. 2009. “Stereotype Content Model across Cultures: Towards Universal Similarities and Some Differences.” British Journal of Social Psychology 48 (1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Ditonto, Tessa M., Hamilton, Allison J., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Information Search, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 335–58.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen A. 2014. What Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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 Lynch, Timothy. 2016. “The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Voting for Women Candidates by Level and Type of Office.” Politics & Gender 12 (3): 573–95.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., and Over, David E.. 2004. If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Cuddy, Amy J. C.. 2006. “Stereotype Content and Relative Group Status across Cultures.” In Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding Culture, Intergroup Relations, and Cognition, ed. Guimond, Serge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 249–63.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J. C., and Glick, Peter. 2007. “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 77–83.Google Scholar
Hahn, Ulrike, Harris, Adam J. L., and Corner, Adam. 2009. “Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration.” Informal Logic 29 (4): 337–67.Google Scholar
Hansen, Susan B., and Otero, Laura Wills. 2006. “A Woman for U.S. President? Gender and Leadership Traits before and after 9/11.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 27 (1): 35–60.Google Scholar
Harris, Adam J. L., Hahn, Ulrike, Madsen, Jens K., and Hsu, Anne S.. 2015. “The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.” Cognitive Science 39 (7): 1–38.Google Scholar
Hetsroni, Amir, and Lowenstein, Hila. 2014. “Is She an Expert or Just a Woman? Gender Differences in the Presentation of Experts in TV Talk Shows.” Sex Roles 70 (9–10): 376–86.Google Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Merolla, Jennifer L., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2011. “Sex, Stereotypes, and Security: A Study of the Effects of Terrorist Threat on Assessments of Female Leadership.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 32 (3): 173–92.Google Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Schneider, Monica C., and Pondel, Kristin. 2015. “Gender Targeting in Political Advertisements.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (4): 816–29.Google Scholar
Housholder, Elizabeth E., and LaMarre, Heather L.. 2014. “Facebook Politics: Toward a Process Model for Achieving Political Source Credibility Through Social Media.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (4): 368–82.Google Scholar
Howson, Colin, and Urbach, Peter. 1993. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. 2nd ed. Chicago: Open Court.Google 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.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krosch, Amy R., and Amodio, David M.. 2014. “Economic Scarcity Alters the Perception of Race.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 111 (25): 9079–9084.Google Scholar
Larson, Bridget A., and Brodsky, Stanley L.. 2014. “Assertive Women as Expert Witnesses: A Study of Assertive and Defensive Responses in Male and Female Experts.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 32 (2): 149–63.Google Scholar
Laustsen, Lasse. 2014. “Decomposing the Relationship between Candidates’ Facial Appearance and Electoral Success.” Political Behavior 36 (4): 777–91.Google Scholar
Laustsen, Lasse. 2017. “Choosing the Right Candidate: Observational and Experimental Evidence That Conservatives and Liberals Prefer Powerful and Warm Candidate Personalities, Respectively.” Political Behavior 39 (4): 883–908.Google Scholar
Lee, Yu-Kang. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes as a Double-Edged Sword in Political Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications 33 (2): 203–34.Google Scholar
Leeper, Mark Stephen. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly Research 19 (2): 248–61.Google Scholar
Lundqvist., D., Flykt, A. and Öhman, A.. 1998. The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces—KDEF. Solna: Karolinska Institute. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology Section. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Madsen, Jens K. 2016. “Trump Supported It?! A Bayesian Source Credibility Model Applied to Appeals to Specific American Presidential Candidates’ Opinions.” In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., and Trueswell, J. C., eds., Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 165–70.Google Scholar
Meeks, Lindsey. 2012. “Is She ‘Man Enough’? Women Candidates, Executive Political Offices, and News Coverage.” Journal of Communication 62 (1): 175–93.Google Scholar
Neal, Tess M. S., Guadagno, Rosanna E., Eno, Cassie A., and Brodsky, Stanley L.. 2012. “Warmth and Competence on the Witness Stand: Implications for the Credibility of Male and Female Expert Witnesses.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40 (4): 488–97.Google Scholar
Oaksford, Mike, and Chater, Nick. 2007. Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paolacci, Gabriele, Chandler, Jesse, and Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G.. 2010. “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Judgement and Decision Making 5 (5): 411–19.Google Scholar
Paul, David, and Smith, Jessi L.. 2008. “Subtle Sexism? Examining Vote Preferences When Women Run against Men for the Presidency.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 29 (4): 451–76.Google Scholar
Payne, Brian Keith. 2001. “Prejudice and Perception: The Role of Automatic and Controlled Processes in Misperceiving a Weapon.” Journal of Personality Social Psychology 81 (2): 181–92.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John T.. 1984. “Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Consumer Research 11: 668–72.Google Scholar
Pornpitakpan, Chanthika. 2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (2): 243–81.Google Scholar
Rodeheffer, Christopher D., Hill, Sarah E., and Lord, Charles G.. 2012. “Does This Recession Make Me Look Black? The Effect of Resource Scarcity on the Categorization of Biracial Faces.” Psychological Science 23 (12): 1476–78.Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., and Phelan, Julie E.. 2010. “The Effect of Priming Gender Roles on Women's Implicit Gender Beliefs and Career Aspirations.” Social Psychology 41 (3): 192–202.Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., and Kiliansky, Stephen T.. 2000. “Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Female Authority.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26 (11): 1315–28.Google Scholar
Sassenberg, Kai, Brazy, Paige C., Jonas, Kai J., and Shah, James Y.. 2013. “When Gender Fits Self-Regulatory Preferences: The Impact of Regulatory Fit on Gender-Based Ingroup Favoritism.” Social Psychology 44 (1): 4–15.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. C., and Bos, Angela L.. 2014. “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians.” Political Psychology 35 (2): 245–66.Google Scholar
Schubert, Renate, Brown, Martin, Gysler, Matthias, and Brachinger, Hans Woldgang. 1999. “Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?” American Economic Review 89 (2): 381–85.Google Scholar
Sjöström, Ove, and Holst, Dorthe. 2002. “Validity of a Questionnaire Survey: Response Patterns in Different Subgroups and the Effect of Social Desirability.” Acta Odontologica 60 (3): 136–40.Google Scholar
Smith, Jessi L., Paul, David, and Paul, Rachel. 2007. “No Place for a Woman: Evidence for Gender Bias in Evaluations of Presidential Candidates.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 29 (3): 225–33.Google Scholar
Steele, Claude M. 1997. “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance.” American Psychologist 52 (6): 613–29.Google Scholar
Tormala, Zakary L., and Clarkson, Joshua J.. 2007. “Assimilation and Contrast in Persuasion: The Effects of Source Credibility in Multiple Message Situations.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (4): 559–71.Google Scholar
Walton, Gregory M., and Cohen, Geoffrey L.. 2003. “Stereotype Lift.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (5): 456–67.Google Scholar