Research Papers & Projects
Who Wins Where? Gender Stereotypes of Qualifications and Offices in Entry-level Elections
Research shows that voters rely on gender stereotypes when evaluating candidates, but how this impacts women's representation remains unclear. Do voters favor masculine traits broadly or prefer different traits in different contexts? I adjudicate between these explanations using variation in gendered stereotypes across entry-level local offices, where voters are especially likely to rely on stereotypes in the absence of partisan cues and prior elected experience. I argue that voters favor stereotype alignment, preferring feminine qualifications in feminine-coded races and masculine qualifications in masculine-coded races.
In a conjoint experiment, I vary gendered qualifications (occupation, community experience) to test this theory. Voters reward stereotype alignment, penalizing women candidates for misalignment—especially in feminine-coded races. Yet among Republican voters, women candidates with masculine occupations face a penalty in masculine-coded races, suggesting backlash against gender norm violations. These findings have implications for women’s upward mobility, especially as more pursue masculine-coded careers and seek higher office.
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
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 from contested 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. 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 the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences
Welcome to the Jungle? The Effect of Voting System Reforms on Descriptive Representation
Amid rising dissatisfaction with the two major parties, several states have reformed how candidates are elected. Though often meant to curb polarization or reduce one-party dominance, these reforms may unintentionally shape who runs for and who wins elected offices. This study examines how “top-two” or “jungle” primaries affected women’s descriptive representation in the state legislatures of California, Washington, and Alaska. I assess how these changes influenced both the supply of women candidates and their electoral success, using descriptive analysis and the synthetic control method.
Findings show modest but consistent effects: under California’s jungle primary, women ran less often and won fewer seats than they would have under the prior system. These effects are most pronounced in the Assembly, a common entry point to elected office. These results caution that institutional reforms, though well-intentioned, can produce unintended consequences, shaping political opportunity structures and slowing progress on descriptive representation. Policymakers and citizens should consider these impacts when evaluating or proposing electoral system changes.
Misperceptions, Falling in Line, or Electoral Threat? 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.
We find that information treatments alone shift neither favorability toward mail-in voting nor likelihood to vote by mail in the future. However, Republican voters are responsive to information treatments when coupled with pro-mail-in voting statements; when elites are not signaling opposition to vote-by-mail, voters find the information about security and electoral threat more credible and shift their opinions accordingly. However, Republican voters are less likely to oppose restricting vote-by-mail in the electoral threat condition specifically, suggesting that fear of losing elections, not security, may primarily explain opposition to the franchise.
Funded by the Stanford Center for American Democracy, the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, and the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
A New Evaluation of the Impact of Combining Probability and Non-probability Sample Data
With Jon Krosnick
In recent years, survey researchers have begun to explore the possibility of "sample blending", wherein a questionnaire is administered simultaneously to a probability sample selected randomly from a population and also to a non-probability sample of people who volunteer to complete questionnaires without compensation but have not been selected using any purposing method. A great deal of research shows that probability samples continue to yield highly accurate characterizations of populations, whereas non-probability samples yield notably less accurate measurements. Sample blending involves weighting a non-probability sample to match a probability sample using a handful of variables, with the intent that the weighting will eliminate the inaccuracy of the non-probability sample and yield an effectively larger sample size for much lower cost than would be incurred by collecting exclusively probability sample data.
This paper tests the effectiveness of a variety of weighting approaches applied to datasets collected from large probability and non-probability national samples who answered the same long and elaborate questionnaire, which afford opportunities for different analyses.
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, candidates face a penalty for feminine self-presentation, though evidence of the “double-bind” regarding likability 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 the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences