When women political candidates deviate from expectations or the views of their party, they are judged far more harshly than men by voters, a new study in Politics & Gender, published on behalf of the American Political Science Association by Cambridge University Press, reveals.
The research also found that voters begin campaigns with greater uncertainty about women candidates than about men, leading them to scrutinise women candidates to a greater extent when forming opinions of them.
The simulated experiment behind the findings
These findings emerged from a computer-based experiment simulating a congressional campaign and election. The researchers asked participants – 1,700 adult Americans – to learn about fictitious general election candidates, evaluate them, and "vote" for the candidate of their choice. The researchers varied whether the candidate in the voter's own party was a man or a woman, and whether they were associated with certain 'transgressions' designed to push participants away from their preferred party's candidate.
The experiment introduced participants to two fictitious candidates – one Democrat and one Republican – running for a congressional office. The in-party candidate was presented as either a man or a woman; gender was conveyed via names (James/Jamie Anderson for Republicans and Patrick/Patricia Martin for Democrats), pronouns, and photographs. The out-party candidate always appeared as a moderate, white man. Along with information about the two candidates' policies and how closely these aligned with their party's views, the researchers offered participants basic demographic and background information about candidates, including a description of their family, a positive newspaper editorial, their work experience, political experience, social philosophy – and eventually even an article about a fake scandal.
In conditions where the candidate's policies aligned with those of their party, and where the scandals were the candidates' only transgressions, the scandals generally played a minimal role. Partisans who saw their in-party candidate caught viewing pornography, laughing at a person who is homeless, or tearing up a copy of the US Constitution, did not significantly decrease their evaluations or likelihood of voting for those in-party candidates, regardless of if they were a man or woman. Only the "embezzle" scandal produced significant decreases, but those were nearly identical for candidates of both genders.
When policy positions were incongruent with expectations, however, more striking
differences emerged. For example, men were permitted to deviate with their policy stances with no penalty, but the 11-point drop in preference for the woman candidate who did the same was nearly equivalent to the decrease for either candidate when policy-congruent but involved in the most severe "embezzle" scandal.
Men get a head start
Lead researcher Dr Tessa Ditonto, Associate Professor in Gender and Politics at Durham University, explained the biases underpinning this uneven playing field.
"Men, who still are by far the majority of office holders in the United States, seem to benefit from a default assumption that they will turn out as expected, based upon predispositions," Ditonto said.
"By contrast, women candidates can expect to need an active campaign amid an electorate that starts out uncertain that women candidates are necessarily good party representatives. Voters are open to learning this but need to see this confirmed before they are convinced.
"Women candidates must work harder to provide the necessary information to voters so that even co-partisans can be assured that she aligns well with the party's platform. Without reinforcing information, voters remain somewhat sceptical and unsure of women candidates, and even partisan voters are willing to examine their other options."
Revelations about the 'tipping point' and other findings
The researchers found a "tipping point" at which partisans – people who expect to prefer their party's candidates' issue stances and personal characteristics – become likelier to vote against their preferred party's candidate. This tipping point arrives when the amount or nature of negative information about an in-party candidate becomes so overwhelming that partisan voters begin to disengage.
"The challenge is that any sort of candidate attribute that deviates from expectations about what a typical candidate of a particular party 'should' look like, pushes people closer to making that switch," Ditonto said.
"And that tipping point arrives more quickly when women politicians are involved, because they're being held to narrower and higher standards while also being scrutinised more."
Voters also expect women candidates to adhere to their party's platform, while giving greater latitude to men to "go maverick". For men, deviating from the party's typical stances can be perceived as bold leadership, while for women it is considered a sign of disloyalty.
Similarly, women officeholders in the US Congress are evaluated more strongly on their party-line votes than their male colleagues. Women seeking elected office, it would seem, are expected to be team-players rather than innovators.
