反刻板印象性别策略对美国大选候选人评价的影响

Ding Wang, Jennifer L. Merolla, Arielle Manganiello
{"title":"反刻板印象性别策略对美国大选候选人评价的影响","authors":"Ding Wang, Jennifer L. Merolla, Arielle Manganiello","doi":"10.1017/s1743923x23000314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Women who ran for office in 2018 used a variety of strategies on the campaign trail, with some highlighting more masculine traits and others more feminine traits, but the latter was more common than in prior years. We ask how effective these strategies are for trait evaluations, perceptions of leadership and competence, likeability, and vote choice and how this effect varies based on respondent’s views about the role of women in society. To explore these relationships, we use data from a two-wave panel conducted in the winter of 2019. Results from our experiment show that female candidates who highlight more masculine traits are perceived as more agentic, less communal, and more competent, and, importantly, they do not appear to suffer from a backlash effect. Those higher in sexism also evaluate women who display these qualities as more competent, though as less warm and likable.","PeriodicalId":203979,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Gender","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations in American Elections\",\"authors\":\"Ding Wang, Jennifer L. Merolla, Arielle Manganiello\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1743923x23000314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Women who ran for office in 2018 used a variety of strategies on the campaign trail, with some highlighting more masculine traits and others more feminine traits, but the latter was more common than in prior years. We ask how effective these strategies are for trait evaluations, perceptions of leadership and competence, likeability, and vote choice and how this effect varies based on respondent’s views about the role of women in society. To explore these relationships, we use data from a two-wave panel conducted in the winter of 2019. Results from our experiment show that female candidates who highlight more masculine traits are perceived as more agentic, less communal, and more competent, and, importantly, they do not appear to suffer from a backlash effect. Those higher in sexism also evaluate women who display these qualities as more competent, though as less warm and likable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":203979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics & Gender\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics & Gender\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x23000314\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Gender","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x23000314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2018年竞选公职的女性在竞选过程中使用了各种各样的策略,其中一些突出了更多的男性特征,另一些则突出了更多的女性特征,但后者比前几年更常见。我们询问这些策略在特质评估、对领导力和能力的看法、受欢迎程度和投票选择方面的效果如何,以及这种效果如何根据受访者对女性在社会中的角色的看法而变化。为了探索这些关系,我们使用了2019年冬季进行的双波面板的数据。我们的实验结果表明,突出男性特征的女性候选人被认为更有主见、更少群体性、更有能力,而且重要的是,她们似乎没有受到反弹效应的影响。那些性别歧视程度较高的人也会认为表现出这些品质的女性更有能力,尽管不那么热情和讨人喜欢。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Effect of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations in American Elections
Women who ran for office in 2018 used a variety of strategies on the campaign trail, with some highlighting more masculine traits and others more feminine traits, but the latter was more common than in prior years. We ask how effective these strategies are for trait evaluations, perceptions of leadership and competence, likeability, and vote choice and how this effect varies based on respondent’s views about the role of women in society. To explore these relationships, we use data from a two-wave panel conducted in the winter of 2019. Results from our experiment show that female candidates who highlight more masculine traits are perceived as more agentic, less communal, and more competent, and, importantly, they do not appear to suffer from a backlash effect. Those higher in sexism also evaluate women who display these qualities as more competent, though as less warm and likable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Women, Men, and Elections: Policy Supply and Gendered Voting Behaviour in Western Democracies. By Rosalind Shorrocks. New York: Routledge, 2022. 258 pp. $48.95 (paperback), $136.00 (hardcover). ISBN: 9780367353605. Gender and Violence Against Political Actors. Elin Bjarnegård and Pär Zetterberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2023. 312 pp. The Suffragist Peace: How Women Shape the Politics of War. Robert F. Trager and Joslyn N. Barnhart. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. 272 pp. $19.99 (hardcover). ISBN: 9780197629758. Partisanship, Independence, and the Constitutive Representation of Women in the Canadian Senate Female Youth in Contemporary Egypt: Post-Islamism and a New Politics of Visibility. By Dina Hosni. New York: Routledge, 2023. 240 pp. $170.00 (cloth), ISBN: 9781032131689; $47.65 (eBook), ISBN: 9781003227960.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1