As female leaders continue to face heightened scrutiny in politics and public life, new research from Monash University reveals female candidates face distinct constraints in how they communicate with voters.
The study, Sentiment on the Campaign Trail: Gender Differences in Candidates' Use of Emotive Language, found that while opposition candidates typically benefit from using negative sentiment to highlight problems and mobilise voter dissatisfaction, female candidates appear less able to deploy these tactics without public backlash.
The study analysed approximately 165,000 tweets from 2,662 candidates during the 2017 and 2019 snap UK elections. The findings showed that women consistently used more positive and less negative language than men, regardless of whether they were incumbents or challengers. The researchers also analysed more than one million replies to candidate tweets and found that women who expressed negative sentiment were disproportionately penalised online.
Lead author of the study, Dr Charles Crabtree, Senior Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, said the findings show women on the campaign trail are navigating a fundamentally different environment than their male counterparts.
"Female candidates aren't simply choosing to be more positive – they're responding to a different set of incentives," Dr Crabtree said.
"We found that when women used negative language, they were more likely than men to face backlash from voters, receiving more negative replies and less engagement online. That creates a strategic dilemma: the kinds of messages that can be effective for men may actually hurt women on the campaign trail."
Dr Crabtree suggested the results reflect a 'double bind' for female candidates; while negative sentiment can be an effective campaign tool, women are disproportionately penalised when they use it.
"Women have a strategic incentive to behave in gender-typical ways to shield themselves from backlash on the campaign trail. Female candidates may avoid negativity not because of socialisation alone, but because they anticipate voter reactions and adjust their behaviour accordingly."
Beyond gender dynamics, the findings also have important implications for political accountability. Negative messaging can be a powerful tool in tight elections to challenge opponents and disrupt the status quo. However, if women are disproportionately penalised for doing so, they may have fewer viable strategies available to them, potentially affecting how they scrutinise government performance and engage in public debate.
Dr Crabtree said the research resonates strongly in Australia, where women's representation in politics has reached historic highs but gendered scrutiny remains a persistent concern.
"We've seen in Australia that female leaders are often judged not just on what they say, but how they say it. Our findings suggest these dynamics shape not only who runs for office, but how candidates campaign once they get there. If voters respond differently to the same behaviour depending on a candidate's gender, that potentially limits the range of strategies available to women and reinforced gendered expectations about political behaviour."
The results shed light on the complex ways election campaigns are gendered and deepen understanding of how emotive rhetoric influences voters.
Researchers said further research is needed into how voters, parties and media respond to women's political communication.
"Addressing gendered reactions to campaign rhetoric is not only a matter of fairness for candidates but is also essential for ensuring that all political candidates challenge power without disproportionate cost, and contribute to healthier democratic debate," Dr Crabtree said.
