Which Candidates Can Be Mavericks? The Effects of Issue Disagreement and Gender on Candidate Evaluations

Abstract

As approval ratings of the U.S. Congress remain depressed, many candidates present themselves as mavericks, willing to counter their party on issues. Yet disagreeing with one's party can be a risky decision and one that is not equally viable for all politicians. In particular, female candidates often face a hostile political climate that privileges “masculine” traits over feminine traits, which may tie female candidates to their party's platform. An experimental study manipulating issue disagreement for a female versus male candidate demonstrates that the female candidate consistently faces harsher penalties in terms of candidate evaluations and voting intentions for disagreeing with her party on multiple issues. Implications for candidate behavior, campaign strategies, and political decision making are discussed. Related Articles Related Media Films: Wall Street Journal. 2016. “Trump, As Outsider, Broke Every Rule on Road to Victory.” November 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = rWnRYDRLF7U Katie.Couric 2014. “Why Aren't There More Women in Politics?” Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = XJBbdr6Z5O8 Jennifer.Manning 2014. “Membership of the 113th Congress: A Profile.” Congressional Research Service. November 24. http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A

Visual Information and Candidate Evaluations: The Influence of Feminine and Masculine Images on Support for Female Candidates

“…These studies assume that masculine stereotypes will benefit female candidates, but our findings suggest otherwise. Our finding that female candidates face a backlash for emphasizing masculine qualities fits with other research showing that counter-stereotypic female candidates face a backlash (Bauer 2017; Bauer, Harbridge, & Krupnikov 2017; Krupnikov and Bauer 2014; Vraga 2017). Our outcome measures focus on perceptions of issue competencies, but future research measuring perceptions of candidate trait attribution can offer more insight into why masculine visuals reduce the perceived viability of female candidates.…”

Running Local: Gender Stereotyping and Female Candidates in Local Elections

“…This experiment only tested the influence of positive masculine traits that reflect the qualities voters desire in political leaders. Female candidates may receive more pushback if they engage in masculine strategies that do not fit with the expectations voters have for good leadership such as airing negative ads or defying party leaders (Bauer et al 2017; Krupnikov and Bauer 2014; Vraga 2017).…”

“…This result comports with the urban politics literature which contends that many of the issues and responsibilities of local offices reflect masculine stereotypic strengths. The positive role of masculinity in evaluations of female candidates also clarifies a debate in the literature on gender stereotyping which offers conflicting findings about whether masculinity benefits (Bauer 2017; Brooks 2013; Holman et al 2016; Holman, Merolla, and Zechmeister 2017) or harms female candidates (Bauer, Harbridge, and Krupnikov 2017; Krupnikov and Bauer 2014; Vraga 2017). Third, I show that candidate sex, partisan identities, and gender stereotypes interact in unique ways at the local level.…”

Assessing the Predictive Value of Parasocial Relationship Intensity in a Political Context

“…Levi and Stoker (2000) conclude that trust in individual politicians, albeit on the decline, still plays a role in citizens' judgments and decision-making processes (see also Bittner, 2015). It has also been shown that trait perceptions of this kind are associated with gendered stereotypes (e.g., Bauer, 2017;Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993;Vraga, 2017). In addition, Chen, Jing, and Lee (2013) provide empirical support for the claim that while both character (i.e., trustworthiness) and competence do matter in citizen judgments of politicians, competence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for trustworthiness to have a meaningful impact.…”