Pragmatic bias impedes women’s access to political leadership

Abstract

Progress toward gender equality is thwarted by the underrepresentation of women in political leadership, even as most Americans report they would vote for women candidates. Here, we hypothesize that women candidates are often disadvantaged by pragmatic bias, a tendency to withhold support for members of groups for whom success is perceived to be difficult or impossible to achieve. Across six studies (N = 7,895), we test whether pragmatic bias impedes women’s access to a highly significant political leadership position—the US presidency. In two surveys, 2020 Democratic primary voters perceived women candidates to be less electable, and these beliefs were correlated with lower intentions to vote for women candidates (Studies 1 and 2). Voters identified many reasons women would be less electable than men, including others’ unwillingness to vote for women, biased media coverage, and higher requirements to prove themselves. We next tested interventions to reduce pragmatic bias. Merely correcting misperceptions of Americans’ reported readiness for a woman president did not increase intentions to vote for a woman (Study 3). However, across three experiments (including one preregistered on a nationally representative sample), presenting evidence that women earn as much support as men in US general elections increased Democratic primary voters’ intentions to vote for women presidential candidates, an effect driven by heightened perceptions of these candidates’ electability (Studies 4 to 6). These findings highlight that social change efforts can be thwarted by people’s sense of what is possible, but this may be overcome by credibly signaling others’ willingness to act collectively.

People Who Accommodate Others’ Sexist Views Are Themselves Perceived to Be Sexist

“…A growing literature suggests that people strategically accommodate the gender prejudice of others due to external pressures and to meet situational goals (e.g., Bateson, 2020; Lucas & Ossoff, 2021; Vial et al, 2021), often contradicting their own egalitarian attitudes (e.g., Corbett et al, 2022; Vial, Brescoll, et al, 2019). Our studies reveal that observers’ perspective on the motivations underlying prejudice accommodation is substantially different.…”

“…People often consider and accommodate others’ gender 1 prejudice against women when making social decisions—a phenomenon that has been documented in different research areas under a variety of labels (Abraham, 2020; Bateson, 2020; Corbett et al, 2022; Fernandez-Mateo & King, 2011; Lucas & Ossoff, 2021; Vial et al, 2021). For example, research on third-party prejudice (e.g., Vial, Brescoll, et al, 2019) shows that individuals in formal roles that entail hiring duties are less likely to hire a woman when they believe that someone who will supervise the new hire harbors prejudice against women—independent of their own personal attitudes toward women.…”

“…Rather than the expression of deep-seated prejudiced views, prejudice accommodation appears to be functional: People strategically accommodate others’ gender and racial prejudices for instrumental reasons to accomplish a goal. For instance, people are more willing to accommodate others’ prejudice when doing so can help one's political party win an election (e.g., Corbett et al, 2022), maintain one's reputation within a professional network (Abraham, 2020), please an authority figure (e.g., Brief et al, 1995), or meet job demands associated with one's professional roles, such as a hiring manager trying to maximize the fit between a job candidate and existing group members (e.g., Fernandez-Mateo & King, 2011; Vial, Dovidio, et al, 2019). Across these different contexts, individual actors who accommodate other people's prejudice do so as a response to external pressures.…”

“…In two studies, we investigated this potential asymmetry between actors’ own experience, which has been documented in past studies, and the perspective of outside observers, which remains underexamined. We did this by integrating the growing literature on prejudice accommodation (Abraham, 2020; Bateson, 2020; Corbett et al, 2022; Fernandez-Mateo & King, 2011; Lucas & Ossoff, 2021; Vial et al, 2021) with attribution theories (e.g., Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Conceptually, our aims were to (a) demonstrate that the accommodation of gender prejudice is generally viewed negatively, (b) provide insight into why this is so, and (c) shed light on contextual factors (e.g., actor gender) that may moderate these responses.…”

“You Had Better Mention All of Them:” Race and Gender Effects in Election Loss Narratives

“…11.It is somewhat surprising that treated white women became less likely to support a female candidate, but not a candidate of color. While we cannot offer a definitive explanation, we speculate that this may stem from the misperception that women have low electability, even when compared to candidates of color (Corbett et al 2022; Mercier, Celniker, and Shariff, n.d.). …”