Research Papers & Projects
Trickle Up Representation? How Gendered Traits Affect Candidate Pipelines
While research on women’s underrepresentation has focused primarily on upper level offices, we know fairly little about the types of women who run for (and which types win) the far more numerous, diverse lower level political offices available. Our ignorance in this area has substantial consequences. Because outcomes in the early stages in the political pipeline affect candidate pools further along, conclusions about what underlies women’s candidacy and success at higher levels are still prone to selection effects.
Using comprehensive data of all local California elections, I compare background information such as parenthood, age, and occupational experience for men and women across local political offices. Specifically, I examine how the gendered nature of different career backgrounds and parenthood provide information about who runs for office and for which offices they run (e.g., school board vs. city council). I compare how the relationship between gendered candidate characteristics and winning elections differs by office type. Finally, I examine which local office holders seek to move up the political pipeline, analyzing how dynamics at lower levels affect the pool of candidates and eventual winners at upper levels. I supplement these analyses with information from official state and local voter guides, mailed to registered voters each election season. Together, these analyses provide a more comprehensive understanding of women’s underrepresentation as a function of gendered attributes, specifically at the local level.
Funded by the Stanford Center for American Democracy and Institute for Research in the Social Sciences
Who Wins Where? Gender Stereotypes of Qualifications and Offices in Entry-level Elections
Despite the gender gap in electoral representation, research demonstrates that women and men win elections equally often, conditional upon running (Lawless & Fox 2010). Yet while women excel in feminine-coded school board races (Anzia & Bernhard 2022), voters report preferences for masculine backgrounds like finance over nursing (Karpowitz et al. 2024). This mismatch suggests that women candidates navigate competing demands. I argue that voters prefer stereotype alignment between race-type and qualifications when assessing women candidates: they favor feminine qualifications in feminine-coded races and masculine qualifications in masculine-coded races. However, voters preferring traditional gender norms favor women with feminine qualifications, regardless of race-type.
I test this theory using a conjoint experiment of entry-level offices. Democrats prefer stereotype alignment between race-type and qualifications yet in feminine-coded races penalize women for misalignment. Republicans prioritize gender norms over stereotype alignment, penalizing women with masculine qualifications in masculine-coded races. Given the advantage of political experience, this has implications for women’s upward mobility, especially as more women pursue masculine-coded careers.
Funded by the Stanford Center for American Democracy and Institute for Research in the Social Sciences and the Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior (EPOVB) Section of the American Political Science Association
The Masculine/Feminine Double Bind: A Survey Experiment of Gendered Elections
While most studies show no aggregate penalty against women in elections, recent scholarship on intra-party races has demonstrated that candidates—especially women—do face a“double-bind”with regard to their self-presentation; voters prefer women who fit traditional profiles (i.e.married/parent/caregiver) while preferring candidates who often fulfill different criteria. However, research has relied on 1) high level competition, which masks selection effects and perceived candidate competency and 2) text-heavy survey experiments lacking common audio/visual signals of gendered presentation. Because gender biases are not always or primarily explicit, experimental evaluations of candidates are more likely to reflect real world evaluations with the additional of these audio/visual cues than text-only cues. Therefore, existing findings of differences in candidate evaluations may be magnified (and/or extend to a wider range of voters) when treatments are more realistic and therefore have the chance to activate implicit biases.
Building on the experimental vignettes in previous studies, I conduct a survey experiment using audio recordings of campaign positions with manipulation to create a more masculine or more feminine timbre. I also add candidate portraits and socio-demographic information with modifications to signal relative femininity and masculinity. In short, I am able to better test the validity of current research on voter biases against female and/or feminine candidates. Using a nationally diverse sample of verified voters, I find that across both parties, women face a penalty for feminine self-presentation, though evidence of the “double-bind” regarding likeability and competence is weaker than in previous work. I also find that among Republicans, this more feminine self-presentation puts women candidates at a significant disadvantage in intra-party elections. Link.
Recipient of APSA Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior Section John Sullivan Award for best paper by a graduate student at the previous APSA Annual Meeting, 2022
Funded by the Stanford Center for American Democracy and Institute for Research in the Social Sciences
Misperceptions, Falling in Line, or Status Threat? Reducing Negative Attitudes Toward Mail-In Voting
With Alena Smith
In the past two elections, many conservative Americans have expressed hostility toward votes cast by mail, typically citing concerns about election fraud. Other sources of concern might stem from the threat of losing more elections to the Democrats or falling in line with elite rhetoric, especially that of Donald Trump. Using summaries of previous work in political science, news reporting, and different remarks by Donald Trump as treatment conditions, we test whether hostility toward mail-in voting is reduced by a) correcting misperceptions about the security of election outcomes of mail-in voting procedures, b) establishing key elites' acceptance of mail-in voting in certain circumstances, c) limiting the perceive electoral threat of mail-in voting, or d) some combination of the above.
Funded by the Stanford Center for American Democracy and Institute for Research in the Social Sciences and Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society