Gender on the mind? Gender heuristics and rationalizations in candidate evaluations

Abstract

As more women enter politics, public and scholarly narratives about the extent and nature of gender bias in mediated campaigning environments diversify. Yet there is still little understanding of how voters substantively think about gender in their evaluations of women and men candidates and how voters' thoughts are affected by different types of media coverage. Drawing on literature on gender stereotyping and rationalization, this paper distinguishes two roles in which gender manifests in the candidate evaluation process—as a heuristic and as a rationalization. We empirically investigate these different ways in which gender affects voters' thoughts following neutral and contextually rich candidate stimuli by means of a mixed methods think aloud study. The results show that voters think less—but more positively—about substantive aspects of women's political profiles. These favorable thoughts include heuristic inferences of communal traits for women but not men candidates. Moreover, we find that voter rationalizations involve gender as ex post vote justifications and socially desirable drivers of candidate evaluations. Together, the findings not only showcase the complex roles of gender in voters' candidate evaluations but also the importance of considering the normative context in which vote decisions take place.