A critical void in the research on women's underrepresentation in elective office is an analysis of the initial decision to run for office. Based on data from our Citizen Political Ambition Study, the first large-scale national survey of potential candidates, we examine the process by which women and men emerge as candidates for public office. We find that women who share the same personal characteristics and professional credentials as men express significantly lower levels of political ambition to hold elective office. Two factors explain this gender gap: first, women are far less likely than men to be encouraged to run for office; second, women are significantly less likely than men to view themselves as qualified to run. Our findings call into question the leading theoretical explanations for women's numeric underrepresentation and indicate that, because of vestiges of traditional sex-role socialization, prospects for gender parity in U.S. political institutions are less promising than conventional explanations suggest.

No abstract

Gender politics literature stresses the symbolic importance of electing more women to high-level political office. Despite references to the heightened legitimacy that women in politics bring to the political process, and the manner in which they affect constituents’ political attitudes and behavior, little empirical evidence exists regarding the actual benefits of symbolic representation. Using pooled National Election Study data from 1980 to 1998, I attempt to fill a void in the literature, exploring whether the presence of women officeholders affects constituents’ evaluations of their members of Congress, levels of political efficacy and trust in government, and propensity to participate politically. After controlling for party congruence between the representative and his/her constituent, I uncover little evidence of the independent symbolic effects scholars typically ascribe to women’s presence in Congress. Women represented by women tend to offer more positive evaluations of their members of Congress, but this difference does not consistently translate into political attitudes or behavior. The findings represent an initial attempt to use available survey data to explore the extent to which symbolic representation independently affects citizens’ political attitudes and engagement.

Scores of political science studies reveal that female candidates fare as well as their male counterparts. But the percentage of citizens willing to support a woman presidential party nominee has significantly decreased over the last two years. Based on the results of a Knowledge Networks national random sample survey, this article offers the first empirical examination of the manner in which the atmosphere of war might affect women candidates’ electoral prospects. I find that citizens prefer men’s leadership traits and characteristics, deem men more competent at legislating around issues of national security and military crises, and contend that men are superior to women at addressing the new obstacles generated by the events of September 11, 2001. As a result of this gender stereotyping, levels of willingness to support a qualified woman presidential candidate are lower than they have been for decades. These findings carry broad implications for the study of women and politics. If women fare as well as men when the political climate is dominated by issues that play to women’s stereotypical strengths, but are disadvantaged when “men’s issues” dominate the political agenda, then we must reconsider the conclusion that winning elections has nothing to do with the sex of the candidate.

No abstract