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.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 4-30 |
Number of pages | 27 |
Journal | Politics and Policy |
Volume | 45 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Feb 1 2017 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2017 Policy Studies Organization
Keywords
- Candidate Evaluation
- Candidate Strategy
- Election Campaigns
- Female Politicians
- Gender Issues
- Gender Stereotypes
- Issue Disagreement
- Legislative Politics
- Masculine and Feminine Traits
- Maverick Candidates
- Political Parties
- Voting Behavior