Rethinking stereotype reliance

Author(s): Nichole M. Bauer

Source: Politics and the Life Sciences, 32(1):22-42.
Published By: Association for Politics and the Life Sciences
https://doi.org/10.2990/32_1_22
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2990/32_1_22

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Rethinking stereotype reliance
Understanding the connection between female candidates and gender
stereotypes
Nichole M. Bauer
Department of Political Science
Indiana University, Bloomington
1100 E. Seventh Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
nmbauer@indiana.edu

ABSTRACT. Increasing numbers of female candidates are running for Congress in American national elections.
Despite the rise in female candidates running for office, women are not significantly increasing their presence
in the House and Senate. A much hypothesized influence over the electoral fates of female candidates is the
role of gender stereotypes. However, political science scholars have struggled to pinpoint the effect of
stereotypes on vote choice, if there is any effect. This essay compares the way social psychology and political
science scholars theoretically, conceptually and empirically test for gender stereotype influence over
evaluations of female candidates and politicians. Differences emerge in the theoretical assumptions made in
the two disciplines, the types of measures used in research, and the empirical tests conducted to demonstrate
the presence or absence of stereotypes in evaluations of women. The discussion explores how scholars
studying female candidates and politicians can integrate insights from social psychology to clarify the role of
stereotypes in candidate evaluation and choice.

Key words: Gender stereotypes, female candidates, women in politics, gender prejudice, stereotype
activation, stereotype reliance, counter-stereotypic information

A
record-setting 98 women won a seat to
Congress in 2012. Despite this recent surge
of successful female candidates, women re-
main underrepresented at all levels of elected office.
Among other explanations, gender stereotypes have
been identified as a possible contributing factor.
Gender stereotypes might hinder the electoral success
of female candidates because they are at odds with the
behavioral expectations people have for political
candidates. One Washington Post article describes the
delicate balancing act female candidates face, ‘‘Female
candidates traverse a narrow path, avoiding behaviors
that might give rise to stereotypes: Be firm, but not
angry. Be compassionate, but not weepy. Too much
doi: 10.2990/32_1_22
emotion: dangerous.’’1 Such behavioral and perceptual
limitations may indeed make it difficult for female
candidates to run effective and successful campaigns.
Conventional wisdom hints that gender stereotypes
create a performative bind for women to be resolute
and caring at the same time. The roots of this bind rest
with the assumption that stereotypes are automatically
and unavoidably relied on to evaluate female candi-
dates. However, empirical evidence showing gender
stereotypes are to blame for the electoral struggles of
female candidates yields no clear conclusions. Some
studies find gender stereotypes help female candi-
dates,2,3 other studies find they reduce support for
female candidates,4,5 and yet another body of research
shows gender stereotypes have no discernible effect on
support for female candidates.6,7 Given these contrast-

22 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES  S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1

 Rethinking gender stereotypes
ing findings, a question arises: Just, what role do
gender stereotypes play in electoral evaluations of
female candidates? Mixed results point to the need for
clarification regarding when and how gender stereo-
types factor into the voter decision-making calculus.
One reason for the empirical murkiness rests with
the theoretical premises and empirical methods polit-
ical science scholars use to test for the influence of
gender stereotypes. Political behavior studies assume
gender stereotypes always and automatically influence
evaluations of female candidates.7 Huddy and Capelos
outline the prevailing logic:
Voters hold gender stereotypes that depict women as
more nurturing than aggressive, logical or ambitious.
Gender stereotypes of women are at odds with voters’
expectations of politicians as tough, ambitious, and
strategic individuals. Thus, citizens will vote against a
woman politician for being overly nice and insufficient-
ly tough (p. 29).7
Undergirding this logic is the assumption stereotypes
inevitably doom the campaigns of female candidates.
Assuming individuals always use gender stereotypes to
make choices about female candidates means many
scholars do not test for the presence of stereotypes;
rather, scholars focus on discerning the effects of
stereotypes.
Contrasting the approach of political scientists is
work in social psychology testing the process of how
stereotypes come to influence judgments. Social psy-
chology research does not start with the assumption of
automatic stereotype reliance.8 Rather, social psychol-
ogists start with the premise that stereotype reliance
depends on a number of contextual factors, including
characteristics of the decision-making environment and
the decision-maker.9 Research in this field consistently
shows stereotypes to influence perceptions of women in
a controlled and conditional manner. The process of
relying on stereotypes to evaluate women can be quite
complex, however—and not inevitable.
This paper compares how political behavior and
social psychology scholars approach the study of
gender stereotypes, and the implications for under-
standing evaluations of female candidates. The next
section discusses the methodology for identifying the
appropriate and relevant research in both fields. The
following section outlines a definition of gender
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
stereotypes. Next, the essay reviews the divergent
foundational assumptions made in political behavior
and social psychology regarding the automatic versus
controlled nature of stereotypes before discussing
differences in empirical approaches. In the final
sections, I identify several areas for new and innovative
research before discussing the implications of stereo-
types on female candidates.
The study of gender and elections is at a critical
juncture, as political scientists struggle to pinpoint why
women have yet to achieve gender parity in the House,
Senate, state legislatures, and even in executive
positions. Explanations for women’s political under-
representation include such factors as high barriers to
entry in electoral politics and a shortage of willing
candidates.10,11,12,13,14,15,16 Indeed, there are many
factors that influence whether women run for office
and whether they succeed. Yet, the recent increases in
women running for office suggest many of these
obstacles to the ballot are diminishing.17,18 More
women are not only running for Congress, more
female candidates are running in competitive and
well-funded campaigns—yet gender parity is still out
of reach. Research on institutional barriers is important
but offers a limited perspective regarding the many
factors influencing the electoral success of female
candidates. The underrepresentation of women in
elected office is incomplete without an examination
of the individual-level choice process regarding female
candidates. The changing dynamics of the electoral
environment facing women in recent elections, such as
the increasing ideological diversity of the candidate
pool, illustrates the need for fresh insights into how
individuals make electoral choices about female
candidates.
Literature selection process
A large body of research exists on gender stereotypes
in the behavior, psychology, and communication
subfields of political science; indeed, reviewing every
piece of research written on this topic would be
difficult. An extensive review of the political behavior,
gender, and campaigns literature was conducted to
identify the relevant studies for this analysis. For the
social psychology literature, the review took a slightly
different approach. This review started by identifying
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 23

recent research on gender stereotypes and meta-
analyses of existing literature in this area.
Systematically investigating how political science
scholars theoretically approach the study of stereotypes
and empirically measure these forces is the focal point
of this review. A search for relevant research relied on
databases such as JSTOR and EBSCOhost and used the
following terms: ‘‘gender’’ and ‘‘stereotypes,’’ ‘‘gender
stereotypes,’’ and ‘‘female candidates’’ and ‘‘stereo-
types.’’ The determinants of article selection included
whether the researchers aimed to explain evaluations,
perceptions, and voting behaviors for female candi-
dates. The final set of articles includes both survey and
experimental research. Table 1 includes an entry for all
the articles included in this analysis, the article’s
approach to stereotypes, and the general findings.
Important to note is that this literature review does
not encompass the broader voting behavior literature;
however, much of the research on gender stereotypes
notes that the voting behavior research tends to
overlook the role of candidate gender as an influence
over electoral choice. Several canonical works on
voting behavior, including The American Voter, Voting,
and An Economic Theory of Democracy, do not
consider candidate gender as an influence.19,20,21 These
studies focused on vote choice for presidential candi-
dates, all of whom at that time were men; female
candidates for other levels of office were rare. As Dolan
explains, ‘‘One of the major reasons for the lack of
information on public support for women candidates is
that, until recently, the number of women candidates in
American politics was small, so there were too few
cases to study systematically’’ (p. 4).22 After determin-
ing how stereotypes are used to evaluate female
candidates, a next step is to revisit the broader voting
behavior literature to incorporate candidate gender
into models of candidate choice.
Identifying the relevant social psychology research
followed a slightly different approach. The literature
on stereotypes in this discipline is truly voluminous.
The first step in this research selection process was to
identify studies cited in political science research.
Recent political science research depends on psychol-
ogy to define gender stereotypes. For example, many
rely on Hamilton and Sherman’s definition of stereo-
types as culturally shared ideas individuals have about
the appropriate roles and behaviors for women.23
Allport’s research on racial stereotypes is another
24 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
frequent reference. 24 Next, a list of terms was
developed for searching databases housing social
psychology journals. The terms used to find articles
included ‘‘automatic’’ and ‘‘stereotypes,’’ ‘‘gender
stereotypes,’’ ‘‘automatic’’ and ‘‘gender stereotypes,’’
‘‘stereotypes’’ and ‘‘prejudice,’’ and ‘‘women’’ and
‘‘leaders’’ and ‘‘stereotypes.’’ Another way articles were
identified was to rely on meta-analyses published in
social psychology journals that focused on stereotypes.
Bargh and Blair each conducted a meta-analysis of
social psychology research on automatic and controlled
stereotypes and this list provided a helpful starting
point.8,25,26 Much of the research on stereotypes in
social psychology discusses stereotypes broadly, includ-
ing how gender stereotypes, racial stereotypes, and age
based stereotypes might influence behavior. For these
articles, any focus was limited to the sections devoted
to gender stereotypes.
Defining gender stereotypes
Generally, stereotypes are shared beliefs about the
attributes and behaviors of individuals based on their
membership in groups defined by a singular character-
istic such as race, gender, or age.23 Most everyone can
identify stereotypes associated with women, different
racial groups, or age cohorts. Whether right or wrong,
stereotypes are part of shared cultural knowledge, and
stereotypes, such as those about women, even span
cultural boundaries. This section develops a definition
of gender stereotypes and outlines how stereotypes
operate as categorization tools to differentiate between
men and women and, moreover, how stereotypes may
set behavioral expectations for women.
Stereotypes about women are multidimensional
constructs reflecting beliefs about traditional gender
roles, behaviors, and traits.27,28,29 As definitional
boundaries, gender role stereotypes relegate women
to positions in the home as mothers, wives, and
caregivers.30,31 Stereotypic traits associated with wom-
en include compassion, warmth, and emotional sensi-
tivity.32,33 Work in social psychology has uncovered
several consistent findings about how individuals come
to learn about stereotypes as general ideas and how
these ideas permeate cultural conceptions about
women.
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes

Table 1. Political science research on gender stereotypes.

Study Approach to stereotypes
Schneider and Bos, Tests content of stereotypes
forthcoming for female politicians
Schneider, forthcoming Influence of campaign rhetoric Experimental
on application of gender
stereotypes
Bos, 2011 How stereotypes influence
vote choices among
delegates at nominating
conventions
Brooks, 2011 Evaluations of behaviors of
male and female politicians
(measures baseline
stereotype expectations)
Hayes, 2011 Interaction of party and
gender stereotypes
Dolan, 2010 Influence of gender stereotypes Observational
on support for female
candidates
Fridkin and Kenney, Influence of gender stereotypes Observational
2009 on support for female
Senate incumbents
Fridkin et al., 2009 Influence of gender stereotypes Experimental
on support for female
candidates who are targeted
by negative ads
Sanbonmatsu and Interaction of party and
Dolan, 2009 gender stereotypes
Falk and Kenski, 2006 Influence of national political
climate valuing masculine
traits on support for female
candidates
Dolan, 2004 The role of gender stereotypes
in determining electoral
support for women
Lawless, 2004 Stereotypic inferences and
female candidate issue
ratings
Gordon et al., 2003 Influence of gender stereotypes Experimental
on female candidates who
use negative ads
Herrnson et al., 2003 Whether gender stereotypes
restrict female candidate
campaign strategy
Matland and King, Interaction of gender and
2003 partisan stereotypes
Huddy and Capelos, Interaction of party and
2002 gender stereotypes through
a parallel processing model
Method Measures of stereotypes Overall findings
Experimental Trait associations Expectations for female
politicians are not in line
with gender stereotypes
Issue associations Female candidates who use
counter-stereotypic rhetoric
are evaluated highly on
traditionally masculine and
feminine issues
Observational Trait and issue competency Delegates who receive
measures information about female
candidates from secondhand
sources are more likely to
evaluate female candidates
negatively
Experimental Trait associations Stereotypes did not affect
evaluations of female
candidates and individuals
did not have gender
stereotypic expectations
Observational Trait associations Gender stereotyping is limited
and news in the face of partisan
content stereotypes
analysis
Issue and trait associations; Stereotypes, asked about
attitudes toward gender generally, help female
balance candidates
Trait and issue ratings Female Senate incumbents
rated highly on masculine
and feminine traits and
issues
No direct measures; measures Stereotypes protect female
perception of candidate as candidates who are targeted
honest and likely to be a by negative ads
leader
Observational Issue competency ratings Gender stereotyping overrides
the influence of partisan
stereotypes
Observational No stereotype measures Female candidates receive less
support during war
Observational Issue attributions and Candidate sex found to have a
differences in support for limited role on voting
female versus male decisions; significant
candidates variation in year-to-year
support for female
candidates
Observational Traits and issues People prefer candidates with
masculine traits, thus gender
stereotypes hurt female
candidates
Trait ratings of candidates as Female candidates not harmed
caring, trustworthy, and by gender stereotypes when
knowledgeable they attack on masculine
issues
Observational Issue ratings Stereotypes help women
Experimental General candidate Gender stereotypes override
qualification questions partisan stereotypes for
Democratic voters
Experimental Trait associations Stereotypes, in the presence of
other cues, have no effect

P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES  S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 25

 Bauer

Table 1. Political science research on gender stereotypes (cont.).

Study Approach to stereotypes
Sanbonmatsu, 2002 Effect of gender stereotypes on Experimental
support for female
candidates
Smith and Fox, 2001 Gender bias in vote choice
Koch, 2000 Stereotype use as heuristics
Fox and Smith, 1998 Gender bias
McDermott, 1998 Stereotypes as an
informational heuristic
McDermott, 1997 Stereotypes as an
informational heuristic
Kahn 1994 Effect of gender differences in
news media coverage of
male and female candidates
Huddy and Terkildsen, Do individuals value
1993 masculine or feminine traits
in candidates
Huddy and Terkildsen, Origins of issue gender
1993 stereotypes
Alexander and The attribution of masculine
Anderson, 1993 and feminine traits to
female candidates
Kahn, 1992 Effect of stereotypic press
coverage on male and
female candidates
Leeper, 1991 Gender prejudice in candidate
evaluation
Rosenwasser et al., Sexism/gender bias
1987
Kaid et al., 1984 Stereotype use in candidate
evaluation
Sigelman and Sigelman, Gender bias
1982
Sapiro, 1981 Gender bias
Method Measures of stereotypes Overall findings
Issue competency, belief Female voters are more
stereotypes supportive of female
candidates
Observational Vote choice No gender bias detected in
analysis vote choice
Survey Ideology associations Female candidates are
perceived as more liberal
Experimental Vote choice Female candidates suffer at
the ballot box; stereotypes
blamed—though not
measured
Observational Perception of candidate Female candidates perceived
ideology as liberal
Experimental Perception of candidate Female candidates perceived
ideology as liberal
Experimental Overall candidate viability Stereotypes hurt female
and news candidates as the level of
content office increases
analysis
Experimental Trait associations Masculine traits preferred for
candidates
Experimental Trait associations Female candidates portrayed
with masculine traits
evaluated highly on those
traits
Observational Trait attributions and gender Stereotype harm on female
role ideology scale candidates depends on
gender role attitudes of
voters
Experimental Issue and trait associations Stereotypes are used to
and news differentiate between male
content and female candidates
analysis
Experimental Trait and issue associations Female candidate rated
unviable as a contender,
gender stereotypes implied
as the cause
Experimental Gendered task ratings Female candidates rated
poorly at the tasks expected
of politicians
Experimental Trait measures Female candidates rated
highest when they rely on
counter-stereotypic
strategies
Experimental Vote choice measures No evidence of gender bias
found
Experimental Issue competency ratings Female candidate rated poorly
on all dimensions of issue
competency

Stereotypes can be useful in impression formation.34
Individuals rely on stereotypes to learn about appro-
priate social norms and behaviors. Individuals learn
about stereotypes from parents, significant adult
figures, the media, and public representations of
women that reinforce the categorization of people into
gender-based groups.23 By the time children begin
school, they can make stereotypic associations between
women as nurturers and caregivers and fathers as
providers and disciplinarians.35 Once individuals learn
to associate women with stereotypic behaviors and
traits, repeated exposure to stereotypic individuals,
either through personal interactions or media repre-
sentations, reinforces the stereotype. Thus, the stereo-
type socialization process is self-reinforcing:
individuals learn to expect women will embody a set
of characteristics, many women do embody these
characteristics, and this cyclical process confirms the

26 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES  S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1

 Rethinking gender stereotypes
pre-existing beliefs and thus reinforces stereotypic
expectations.
Stereotypes are also categorization tools that distin-
guish between men and women; they differentiate
between the traits individuals expect men and women
to embody. Divided into agentic and communal
characteristics, stereotypes distinguish the appropriate
roles and behaviors for women relative to men.
Communality reflects the role of women as caregivers
and agency refers to the traditional leadership roles of
men. The origins of this distinction lie in the biological
and evolutionary roles of women as denizens of the
home and men as hunters outside the home. Commu-
nal stereotypes are family oriented and promote
nurturing behaviors for women.36 Agentic qualities
are those most valued in leaders, such as assertiveness
and outspokenness.37 Research on agentic and com-
munal stereotypes finds them to align closely with
masculine and feminine stereotypes.38,39
Conceptualizing gender stereotypes
Stereotypes about women, in particular, have both
descriptive and prescriptive components.6,33 First,
gender stereotypes are descriptive because they provide
a ‘‘standard of comparison in construing the impli-
cations of. . .behavioral information’’ for men and
women (p. 676).40 Descriptive stereotypes refer to
observable traits exhibited by woman and those by
men—women are more compassionate and men are
tougher.41 The emphasis on descriptive stereotypes is
that they come from observable characteristics: ‘‘gen-
der stereotypes consist of beliefs about the character-
istics women do possess, whereas the prescriptive
component consists of beliefs about the characteristics
women should possess’’ (p. 666).42
Prescriptive stereotypes specify the behavioral ex-
pectations for women. Prentice and Carranza explain
that stereotypic prescriptions for women reflect ‘‘tra-
ditional emphases on interpersonal sensitivity, niceness,
modesty, and sociability’’ (p. 275).33 Prescriptive
stereotypes lead to the expectation, before actual
observation of behaviors and characteristics, that
women behave in a stereotype-consistent manner.
Women who are not emotional might even be
perceived negatively because they failed to conform
to stereotypic expectations.43 Prescriptive gender ste-
reotypes have the greatest potential for limiting the
success of women attempting to take on nontraditional
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
leadership roles that might require them to behave in
counter-stereotypic ways.
The content of descriptive and prescriptive stereo-
types are essentially the same, but the way individuals
use these mental representations to form judgments
differs. Descriptive stereotypes may emerge in judg-
ment after observing the behavior of a woman. For
instance, an individual might see a female politician cry
and then rely on descriptive stereotypes to explain her
behavior. In this instance, descriptive stereotypes reflect
widespread knowledge of gender stereotypes. The
distinction between descriptive and prescriptive stereo-
types is nuanced, but conceptually important for
political behavior research. Gender stereotypes func-
tion more as prescriptions for behavior than descriptive
accounts or representations, and when used this way
may constrain the behaviors of women.
The prescriptive versus descriptive distinction can
help scholars understand how individuals use stereo-
types to develop expectations for women and how
individuals use stereotypes to evaluate actual behaviors
of women. Brooks identifies a tension between
descriptive stereotypes as beliefs defining what women
are and prescriptive stereotypes defining acceptable
behaviors for women—and how this tension can create
a dilemma for women in politics.6 Prescriptively,
stereotypes can have negative effects for women who
behave in counter-stereotypic ways. The political
climate demands female candidates break with gender
stereotypes to run successful campaigns and be
effective legislators in office. Candidates are expected
to exhibit toughness, aggressiveness, and assertiveness,
but these are counter-stereotypic characteristics for
women.7 This creates a dilemma for female candidates.
Female candidates may choose to break stereotypic
expectations, but this path is fraught with risks—
female candidates may suffer a backlash for being
unfeminine. Alternatively, female candidates can con-
form to stereotypic expectations and risk negative
evaluations as viable political contenders. The exact
effect of stereotypes on female candidates depends on
how and when stereotypes form candidate evaluations.
Stereotypes are gender differentiation tools: they can
explain observed behaviors of women and lead
individuals to develop expectations for the behaviors
of women. However, just because people know about
gender stereotypes does not mean such ideas will
always be salient and relied upon in judgment. Indeed,
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 27

stereotypes can serve many purposes, but they have an
ambiguous role in electoral politics. The next section
contrasts how scholars in political science and social
psychology study stereotypes. Understanding the the-
oretical differences in how these disciplines approach
this area can offer news insights into the role of
stereotypes in politics.
Divergent assumptions: Stereotypes as
automated versus controlled processes
Stereotypes are ubiquitous cultural constructs defin-
ing the appropriate social roles and behaviors for
women.3,23 Both political science and social psychol-
ogy began the study of stereotypes from the same
observation that stereotypes are part of shared cultural
knowledge. This ubiquity led to an assumption in both
fields of stereotype reliance as automatic and inevita-
ble. Social psychology has revised this assumption and
now characterizes stereotypes as regulated and con-
text-dependent processes.44,45,46 This difference in how
political science and social psychology approach
stereotypes emerged because social psychologists em-
braced a more direct focus on clarifying the process of
stereotype reliance while political science is more
concerned with the effects of stereotypes on political
judgments.
Prior to the 1990s, social psychology posited that
individuals are hardwired to make stereotypic associ-
ations between certain personality traits and members
of stereotyped groups.47 As Devine and Sharp explain,
‘‘many theorists have assumed that stereotype activa-
tion occurred effortlessly when people come in contact
with members of the stereotyped group’’ (p.
61).46,48,49,50 Research illustrating the ubiquity of
stereotypes as universal concepts is used to justify
assumptions about stereotype reliance. If ‘‘everyone
knows’’ that women are expected to be emotionally
sensitive, then encountering a woman should activate
this shared knowledge. This logic parallels how the
stereotype automaticity assumption is justified in
political science research. Studies in social psychology
prior to the 1990s built empirical findings on this
critical assumption of stereotype reliance as automatic
and inevitable.
Deaux and Lewis’ study on how gender stereotypes
influence judgments about women illustrates the
28 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
stereotype automaticity assumption—and the tenuous-
ness of this assumption.51 The authors conducted
several experiments varying the type of gender stereo-
typic information given to participants. Not surpris-
ingly, providing individuals with gender stereotypic
information about women led these individuals to
make stereotypic judgments about women. However,
the authors do not measure the evaluations of women
absent stereotypic information. The author’s do show
that trait stereotypic information activates broader
stereotypes about behaviors, but the baseline state of
stereotype reliance is not considered. One possible
explanation for their findings rests with the use of a
stimulus providing subjects with only stereotypic
information. Providing subjects with counter-stereo-
typic information or measuring baseline stereotypes
could have led to very different evaluations of women.
Bargh and colleagues challenged the assumption of
stereotype automaticity in arguing that automatic
processes should have four characteristics: they should
be unintentional, uncontrollable, the individual must
be unaware of using stereotypes, and they must be
cognitively efficient.8 Testing whether the process of
stereotype reliance possesses these four traits found
little evidence to support the conclusion that stereo-
types are automatic but instead pointed to stereotype
reliance as a conditional process. Stereotypes have
become more complex in part because cultural norms
promoting gender egalitarianism have made individu-
als more aware of the potential influence of stereotypes
on judgment. Awareness of stereotypes and social
desirability pressure may lead some to control and even
suppress the use of stereotypes in judgment.52 For the
automatic stereotype assumption to hold, stereotypic
ideas would have to be top of mind at almost all times,
ready to apply to every member of a stereotyped group
that individuals might encounter. Such a sequence of
judgment would be cognitively exhausting.
Early research in social psychology measured stereo-
type application rather than stereotype activation—an
approach similar to how current work in political
science investigates stereotypes. The assumption of
stereotype automaticity prevailed at first and scholars
sought to determine how these presumed ideas
influenced judgments. Stereotypes were thought to be
characterized by ‘‘high resistance to change and
invariance across context and strategy’’ (p. 244).25 If
stereotypes are deeply engrained associations, then
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
most people should categorize and evaluate individuals
based on their membership to a stereotyped group in a
similar manner. In other words, there should be little
variation in experimental studies asking individuals to
categorize people based on a visible stereotype;
however, empirical tests of stereotype application
reveal a lot of inconsistency in stereotype strength
among subjects.53
Research on voting behavior and the fate of female
candidates has not moved away from this assumption
of automatic stereotypes. Research on heuristics, which
shows that gender operates as a basic informational
cue in voting, contributes to the reliance on the
assumption of automatic activation. Other judgmental
shortcuts, such as partisanship, allow individuals to
make inferences about a political candidate, issue, or
scenario from a compact cue.54,55,56,57,58 Gender in
particular is a rich inference cue providing information
about a female candidate’s partisanship, ideology,
feminist orientation, and issue priorities.59,60,61 Using
gender to associate female candidates with Democratic
partisanship and a liberal ideology led some scholars to
assume stereotypes were responsible for this effect.
Feminine stereotypes associate women with such
traits as compassion and caring for the disadvantaged
and are hypothesized to lead individuals to connect
issues like education and childcare with female
candidates—issues that reinforce the role of women
as mothers. However, the heuristic effects of gender
may reflect the Democratic party membership of many
female candidates who ran for political office at the
national, state, and local levels in the 1980s and 1990s
more than it reflects stereotypes.32 Indeed, many of the
traits and issues associated with women align with
principles of the Democratic party—an association that
could be due to gender stereotypes or partisan
stereotypes.62
Fridkin and Kenney apply the assumption of stereo-
types to a study on evaluations of female candidates.
The authors justify the assumption explaining that,
‘‘We expect that the incumbent’s gender will influence
people’s impressions of men and women senators
running for reelection because of the prevalence of
gender stereotypes among citizens’’ (p. 303). Without
this assumption, not tested in this study, it is difficult to
accurately conclude that ‘‘the gender of the candidate
had a direct influence on overall evaluations of the
sitting senators, producing more favorable views of
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
women senators.’’2 Favorable evaluations of female
incumbents compared to male incumbents serves as
evidence of stereotype reliance in this investigation.
This approach overlooks the malleability of gender
stereotypes and how exogenous factors might lead
respondents to evaluate female incumbents more
favorably. The connection Fridkin and Kenney make
between general knowledge of stereotypes among the
public and reliance on stereotypes in candidate
evaluation represents the approach to stereotypes
undertaken by much of the political behavior litera-
ture.
Testing the automaticity of stereotypes in social
psychology showed the incredible flexibility of these
supposedly rigid associations. Reviews of experimental
research in social psychology journals identified a
number of studies that directly tested the automaticity
of stereotypes and found stereotypes are not uncon-
trollable associations individuals make upon encoun-
tering members of stereotyped groups.25 A literature
review in social psychology by Blair identified 14
studies on gender stereotypes and found high evidence
of stereotype malleability in all of the studies. Blair’s
review identified five factors conditioning the use of
stereotypes, including the motives of the perceiver,
strategies intended to counter stereotypes, the level of
attention in judgment tasks, the configuration of
stimulus cues, and the characteristics of the member
of the stereotyped group. Over the last decade, research
in social psychology has moved away from assuming
automatic stereotypes to testing the conditions of
stereotype activation and application.
If stereotypes are not automatically activated when
individuals encounter a member of a stereotyped
group, then when and how does stereotype activation
take place? Kunda and Spencer elaborate on the
difference between the activation and application of
stereotypes observing that, ‘‘stereotype activation is the
extent to which a stereotype is accessible in one’s mind,
and stereotype application is the extent to which one
uses a stereotype to judge a member of a stereotyped
group’’ (p. 522).63 In other words, stereotype activa-
tion reflects the cognitive accessibility of stereotypes
and application reflects whether and how individuals
use these stereotypes in judgment. Contextual factors
can activate stereotypes by increasing or decreasing
their cognitive accessibility. Passing a woman on the
street is unlikely to trigger stereotypes, but working
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 29

under a female manager may activate stereotypes. This
activation scenario resembles a priming process. A
contextual factor, which in political communication
may take the form of news coverage or campaign
advertising, can make a stereotypic cue highly salient.
With repeated exposure, stereotype constructs become
cognitively accessible frameworks that individuals can
then use in forming impressions of political leaders.
For stereotype application to occur, an individual
must be required to make a judgment about a
stereotyped target, a stage that occurs after stereotype
activation. As Blair and Banaji explain, ‘‘stereotypes
cannot be used in judgment if those stereotypes have
not been previously activated by situational
cues. . .Hence, stereotype activation is a necessary
though insufficient step in stereotyping’’ (p. 1142).64
Activated stereotypes not used in judgment will
dissipate after the contextual prime that activated the
stereotype dissipates. Modeling stereotype reliance as a
process requires measuring both stages of stereotype
use.
Stereotype activation can depend on an individual’s
comprehension goals, level of attention to a member of
a stereotyped group, and levels of motivation in
stereotyping.53,63,65 Comprehension goals refer to the
extent individuals care about the accuracy of their
evaluations, their motivation in making a decision, and
the amount of information they have about the
stereotyped target. Strong partisans who never vote
against their preferred party may have low compre-
hension goals in an election involving a stereotyped
woman. The strong partisan only needs information
about the candidate’s party identification, not the
candidate’s gender, to make a decision.
For a cue to trigger stereotypes, an individual must
pay attention to and be aware of the cue. Referring to a
female candidate as motherly in a campaign ad might
trigger stereotypes, but if an individual does not pay
attention to the ad, then stereotype activation does not
occur. Competing stereotype cues might decrease the
level of attention an individual pays to a single
stereotype cue. For example, individuals might not
apply or even have feminine stereotypes activated in
the content of an African-American woman because
the cue of race might override gender. Situational
factors such as the amount of differentiating informa-
tion individuals have about a stereotype target can also
influence stereotype application. Individuals asked to
30 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
rate the effectiveness of a female senator might rely on
information about the bills she has sponsored to
evaluate her effectiveness as opposed to her gender.
Stereotype application depends, first, on stereotype
activation. After activation, characteristics of the
decision-making or evaluative task and characteristics
of the individual decision-maker determine stereotype
application. Absent the need to evaluate or make a
judgmental decision about a woman, feminine stereo-
types will likely not be applied. The electoral context
contains a variety of motivational factors that might
increase the likelihood of reliance on stereotypes,
including whether an individual plans to vote. A citizen
living in a state with a female Senate candidate may
receive stereotypic information, thus activating stereo-
types, but this particular individual may not be
motivated to vote in the election. Because this person
does not plan to make a choice about the stereotyped
women, he or she will not apply the activated
stereotype.
Kunda and Sinclair test for motivation as a factor
determining the reliance on stereotypes in judgment.9
In particular, they examined whether students receiving
positive feedback from a female instructor were
motivated to evaluate the instructor positively and
therefore had no need for stereotypes in their evalua-
tion. Conversely, they tested whether students who
received negative criticism from their female instructor
would be motivated to evaluate her negatively and
therefore relied on stereotypes to support the negative
evaluative outcome. Motivated reasoning predicts that
stereotype reliance is highly conditional and arises
when individuals perceive a woman as behaving in a
‘‘disagreeable’’ manner. Stereotypes are then used to
evaluate the woman in light of her disagreeable
behavior. Stereotyping as a byproduct of motivated
reasoning supports the conclusion that stereotype
reliance is strategic on the part of the individual
decision-maker.
A variety of motivations can influence stereotype use
in judgment. These include an individual’s concern
with affirming self-worth, how much an individual
cares about making an accurate evaluation of a
member of a stereotyped group, conformance to social
desirability pressures that discourage stereotyping, or
the need to distinguish between two otherwise equal
choices.9,63,65 Sometimes individuals have multiple and
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
conflicting decision-making goals. As Kunda and
Spencer explain:
People who would usually refrain from stereotyping
because they are motivated to avoid prejudice may
nevertheless apply a stereotype if they are sufficiently
driven by self-enhancement goals that can be satisfied
by stereotyping. . .[A]nd people who would usually
apply a stereotype to further comprehension may
nevertheless refrain from applying it when they become
motivated to avoid prejudice (p. 532).63
In some cases, the external decision-making environ-
ment may strengthen an individual’s strategic goals and
influence stereotype application. The goals, decision-
making context, and level of control individuals have
over the activation and application of stereotypes leads
to the conclusion that stereotype reliance upon
encountering a woman, or female candidate, is not
automatic.
Assuming stereotypes always matter for female
candidates means many political science scholars do
not test for how different factors influence stereotype
activation and instead focus on stereotype application.
The stereotype automaticity assumption leads to two
sets of hypotheses in political science research about
how stereotypes influence the electoral fortunes of
female candidates. Stereotypes either provide individ-
uals with an evaluative tool with which to judge female
candidates, or they can constrain the perceived range of
acceptable behavior of female candidates. Under both
of these processes, there is an assumption that gender
stereotypes shape evaluations of female candidates.
Thus, stereotypes become a rubric used to judge
women running for office.66,67,68,69 Two competing
hypotheses emerge from the premise that individuals
expect women to conform to stereotypes. First,
stereotypic women should receive a boost for meeting
voter expectations and counter-stereotypic women
should be subject to a backlash for failing to meet
expectations.43 Second, stereotypic women should be
punished because of the stark mismatch between
gender stereotypes and political norms, and counter-
stereotypic women should be rewarded because they fit
more with the political ideal.
Problematic in this chain of logic about the influence
of stereotypes is that research on gender stereotypes
yields no consistent findings. If gender stereotypes are a
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
constant influence over perceptions of female candi-
dates, their effects should be fairly consistent. Female
candidates who adhere to stereotypes should receive
positive evaluations along dimensions reflecting stereo-
types, such as likability ratings. By contrast, female
candidates who engage in counter-stereotypic cam-
paign strategies should face negative evaluations for
breaking with stereotypes. Gordon and colleagues
tested whether female candidates who engaged in
negative advertising, a counter-stereotypic campaign
tactic for female candidates, suffered from breaking
with expectations.70 The study did not find that female
candidates received a boost by going negative on
masculine issues. Conversely, Hitchon and colleagues
found female candidates did indeed suffer when they
relied on negativity and the authors attributed this
effect to gender stereotypes.43 Not explicitly testing for
the activation of stereotypes points to an empirical and
theoretical gap in these studies because stereotypes
might not have been the driving force behind these
evaluations.
Counter-stereotypic expectations for women are, in
a broader sense, a major factor limiting the activation
of stereotypes in social psychology research. The
political environment is inherently counter-stereotypic
for women. Candidates, politicians, and political
operatives are expected to embody such traits as
confidence, emotional distance, and strategic behav-
ior.7,32 This suggests that voters might not always
expect female candidates to conform to gender
stereotypes—and that female candidates might not
suffer from breaking with stereotypes. Determining
what expectations individuals have for female candi-
dates, and how these expectations relate to stereotypes,
is critical to understanding the influence of stereotypes
in candidate evaluations and electoral choice.
Brooks offers experimental evidence for the notion
that stereotype activation is not automatic when
individuals encounter female candidates. Measuring
whether subjects held baseline stereotype expectations
about female candidate emotionality revealed that
individuals do ‘‘hold strongly gendered stereotypes
about the emotionality of ordinary people, but they do
not seem to hold them about political candidates’’ (p.
603).6 Schneider and Bos probed the automaticity of
gender stereotypes in politics with an experiment
designed to measure whether individuals hold baseline
assumptions about female candidates that align with
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 31

stereotypes.71 If stereotypes are an ever-present mental
representation that individuals automatically turn to,
then expectations expressed for female candidates
should reflect these gender stereotypes. The study
relied on a technique designed to measure the baseline
stereotype content of a particular category of individ-
uals, in this case female politicians (as opposed to just
women generally). Interestingly, participants in the
study did not automatically attribute traditional
women’s traits, such as warmth or emotional sensitiv-
ity, to female politicians. This evidence only suggests
stereotypes may not always be in play for female
candidates but does call into question the assumption
of stereotype automaticity.
The fundamental difference between political science
and social psychology concerning gender stereotypes is
that the former tests the effects of stereotypes and the
latter tests the process of stereotype reliance. The aims
of social psychology research speak more directly to
the broader goal of uncovering the processes and
cognitive tools individuals use in a variety of decision-
making contexts. Conversely, political scientists have a
more narrow concern with delineating how stereotypes
shape political outcomes. This key difference between
understanding a process and understanding an out-
come is one reason why the two disciplines make such
different assumptions about stereotype reliance. Turn-
ing to methods, measures, and analytical techniques
employed in stereotype research in each discipline lends
further insight into how social psychology and political
science differ in the study of stereotypes.
Methodological approaches to stereotypes
Social psychology models stereotype reliance as a
multistage process that at a minimum involves two
steps: activation and then application, whereas the
political science literature assumes stereotype activa-
tion, and only tests for application. Just as these two
disciplines hold different assumptions about the
process of stereotype reliance, they also employ
different methods to measure the presence and effect
of stereotypes. This section reviews the measurement of
stereotypes in empirical research. Social psychology
utilizes a variety of tools to estimate stereotype
activation, including the Implicit Association Test
(IAT), the Go/No Go Association Task (GNAT), and
32 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) false memory
paradigm. Comparing the measurement approaches
between the two disciplines illustrates innovative
measurement methods political science scholars can
incorporate in their research.
A common method used in social psychology, the
IAT requires individuals to make rapid, first impression
associations between stereotype primes and a member
of a stereotyped group. This test specifically measures
implicit stereotypes. The prime can take the form of
photos or adjectives but is usually a small piece of
information flashing on a computer screen.72 For
gender, the IAT might ask individuals to classify words
such as ‘‘gentle’’ or ‘‘assertive’’ as either masculine or
feminine. Administering the IAT test before an
experimental treatment can show how rapidly subjects
use stereotypes to classify words or phrases as
masculine or feminine. At its base, the IAT measures
individual knowledge about stereotypes, but its power
comes in the ability to measure response times. Faster
response times indicate automatic gender stereotypes
and slower response times indicate more complex
cognitive processes at work. Rudman and Glick used
the IAT to assess the type of backlash women who
adopt agentic attributes receive.73 The IAT measured
the content of prescriptive stereotypic expectations that
research participants had for women and found that
people in general expect women to be nice. Another
benefit of the IAT is that it asks individuals to quickly
click through prompts, and the rapid response format
can minimize social desirability pressures because
respondents do not have the opportunity to edit or
over-think their responses.
A drawback of the IAT approach is lack of
agreement on what qualifies as a ‘‘fast’’ response time.
Baseline response times are usually set relative to the
speed of other respondents. The longer it takes an
individual to make a connection between a woman
and, say, the trait of sensitivity, the more this may
either reflect that (a) the stereotype is not very strong,
(b) individuals are suppressing stereotypes, or (c)
stereotype activation requires additional informa-
tion.74 Adapting the IAT in survey research may not
prove practical for political scientists; however, the IAT
is adaptable to experimental design. A possible
approach is to use the IAT prior to a survey
administration to determine whether respondents rely
on feminine traits or political traits when evaluating a
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
female candidate. Identifying a female candidate with
more political traits than feminine traits might offer
evidence that feminine stereotypes are not in play for
women in politics.
Another straightforward method of measuring ste-
reotype activation is the Go/No-Go Association Task
(GNAT).75 This test asks respondents to make associ-
ations between a concept and an attribute. Unlike the
IAT, the GNAT does not require the use of contrasting
attributes and categories. For instance, an IAT for
gender asks individuals to sort attributes as masculine
or feminine, but the GNAT can center on a single
concept such as ‘‘womanhood.’’ To measure the
implicit nature of gender stereotypes about women,
the words presented in the task would all relate to
gender stereotypes with ‘‘distractor’’ words included in
the mix. The participant then indicates, by hitting a
space bar on a computer, whether a word fits the
concept or not. Rather than categorizing attributes as
masculine or feminine, participants only have to
determine whether the attribute relates to stereotypes
about women. The number of correct categorizations
and the time taken to make these associations
determines if an attitude or idea is implicit. Steffens
and Jelenec used the GNAT to test the automaticity of
gender stereotypes about the math abilities of women
in school age children. 76 The concept given to
participants was math and the attributes related to
boys and girls. Essentially, the students classified males
or females as better at math. The author’s used
participant response times to distinguish between
awareness and endorsement of the stereotype-based
belief that women do not excel at math.
Another method is the Deese-Roediger-McDermott
(DRM) false memory paradigm.77,78 With this ap-
proach, participants receive a list of words associated
with a concept, such as femininity. After viewing the
words, participants take a ‘‘surprise’’ memory test
including words in the original set and words related to
the relevant concept. In the case of gender, for instance,
the original word set might have included soft, warm,
and empathetic. Distractor terms added into the
surprise memory test might include emotional or
sensitive. Identifying emotional or sensitive as part of
the original word set, when they were not, might
indicate higher levels of stereotype activation com-
pared to those who do not make this identification.79,80
Introducing the memory test as a surprise prevents
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
participants from allocating additional cognitive re-
sources to the original word set, thus giving a better
baseline estimation of stereotype activation. This
method draws on concepts similar to the IAT but does
not measure response times to the tasks. The method’s
simplicity makes it easily altered to experimental
research and survey designs as well. A criticism is that
the initial presentation of words can prime stereotypes,
thus leading participants to falsely remember feminine
words not in the original word set. Not explicitly
identifying the category the words belong to may avoid
sensitizing research participants.
A drawback of these activation tests is that they may
be better suited for experimental research than surveys
(although survey experiments are becoming increas-
ingly common). Setting up an IAT for a survey is fairly
straightforward as many survey platforms put timers
on questions, but building this into a nonexperimental,
cross-sectional study may be cumbersome. Moreover,
these methods all require measurement before presen-
tation of a more complex stimulus. Administering an
implicit test of automatic stereotype activation in a pre-
test/post-test experimental design is possible but
researchers would have to take precaution to ensure
the pre-test does not prime subjects before presenting
the stimulus. Building in a week or two delay between
the pre-test and presentation of the stimuli would limit
priming effects from the initial stereotype activation
measurement. However, this method may prove
difficult to implement in studies with opt-in samples
from platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(MTurk) or the Cooperative Congressional Election
Study (CCES)—although asking for email addresses
does enable follow-up requests.81 The benefit of these
methods is that they allow for a more precise
measurement of automatic processes.
As mentioned, political science scholars measure
stereotypes based on their application. There are three
dominant measurement techniques: differences in vote
choice preferences between male or female candidates,
differences in issue expertise attributions between male
and female candidates or leaders, and differences in
trait attributions. The first approach measures differ-
ences in preference for a hypothetical male or a female
candidate in experiments or surveys. In this research,
‘‘gender stereotypes’’ are used to explain any differenc-
es in candidate preferences, though other factors may
drive preferences between male and female candi-
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 33

dates.82 Studies with observational data recording the
vote share received by male and female candidates is
another method. These studies tend to find little
difference between male and female vote share and
conclude gender bias is no problem for female
candidates.83 However, as Anzia and Berry point out,
this measurement approach overlooks the challenges
female candidates might face on the campaign trail to
win over voters.84 Moreover, some experimental
research does conclude that gender stereotypes are an
obstacle for female candidates. Fox and Smith present-
ed subjects with a hypothetical male or female
candidate and found that fewer subjects expressed
support for the female candidate compared to the male
candidate.5 Understanding whether gender stereotypes
are an obstacle for female candidates is a first step to
determining the challenges female candidates must
surmount on the campaign trail.
A second method political science scholars use to
measure stereotypes is the issue attribution technique.
Here, researchers ask participants in a survey or
experiment to indicate whether a male or female
candidate is stronger on a given issue.3,4,17 The list of
issues include traditional women’s issues, such as
education or health care, masculine issues, such as
terrorism or military affairs, and gender-neutral issues,
such as agricultural policy. Differences in the number
of respondents choosing the female, male, or neither
candidate (politician) as stronger on an issue serves as
the basis for determining if gender stereotypes have a
harmful or helpful impact on female candidates. In one
study by Leeper, respondents were not provided with a
neutral response category.4 The study asked subjects to
rate the candidate they saw in their experimental
condition (either a male or a female), and then used a t-
test to assess statistically significant differences in mean
ratings. Gender differences emerged in just three of the
nine issues. This is not overwhelming evidence of
stereotype reliance in candidate evaluations, and
indicates that stereotypes might not be the evaluative
tool individuals rely on to distinguish between male
and female candidates.
Survey based research asking subjects to select a
male candidate, female candidate, or neither as
strongest on an issue tends to yield the highest
proportion of responses in the neutral category. A
study by Lawless concludes that gender stereotypes are
a bane because ‘‘citizens prefer men’s leadership traits
34 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
and characteristics, deem men more competent at
legislating around issues of national security and
military crises, and contend that men are superior to
women at addressing the new obstacles generated by
September 11, 2001’’ (p. 480).17 However, this
conclusion may be overblown given that on four of
the six issue attributions, most respondents selected the
neutral response option. Of course, Lawless’ finding
that respondents who placed masculine issues such as
terrorism at the top of the issue agenda and believed
male candidates best at that issue did express lower
support for female candidates—but this does not
characterize the majority of the sample. Testing the
salience of gender stereotypes and then linking these
beliefs to evaluations of female candidates might offer
more information about what types of individuals are
most likely to rely on stereotypes.
Trait attributions are the third approach to measur-
ing gender stereotypes in political science. These
questions tend to follow the same format as the issue
attribution questions, and when there is a neutral
response option, it is usually the modal choice. In one
study about reliance on stereotypes to evaluate female
candidates, respondents indicated they perceived nei-
ther candidate more likely to embody three of the four
traits tested.3 This finding is not unique. That so many
subjects do not stereotype female candidates on
questions about political issue competencies or trait
attributions suggests the process of stereotype reliance
is at the very least complex. If stereotypes automati-
cally influenced candidate perceptions, then female
candidates should consistently be identified with
stereotypic traits and issues.
Trait measures may offer more insight into stereo-
type activation than stereotype effects. Survey research
can easily employ these types of questions by asking
respondents if they expect female candidates to display
a trait such as ‘‘aggressiveness,’’ and then measure the
response with a scale with one end anchored by ‘‘no
aggression’’ on the low end and ‘‘high aggression’’ on
the high end. This differs from approaches asking
respondents to indicate whether men or women are
more likely to display a trait, which may be measuring
stereotype knowledge more than stereotype reliance.
Trait scales can also establish whether individuals hold
stereotypic expectations for female candidates. Brooks
uses this approach with a question about candidate
emotionality to measure baseline stereotype expecta-
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
tions.6 Her study asks respondents to rate how much
they expect the candidate in question to be emotional/
unemotional on a scale of 1–7. Brooks asks these
questions before the experimental manipulation to
measure baseline candidate emotionality and finds
individuals do not have stereotypic expectations for
female candidates. Allowing for a time lag between the
initial measure of stereotypes, introduction of a
stimulus, and subsequent measure of stereotype reli-
ance is a simple method to test for changes in
stereotype activation; if stereotypes are always activat-
ed, there should be little change in stereotype measures.
Research in political science utilizes a variety of
methods to test stereotype application, but many of the
empirical results suggest stereotypes function in a
conditional manner. Several processes may be at work
in existing political science research on gender stereo-
types. First, providing research participants with a
neutral response option could cue social desirability
concerns. The neutral option may appear as the safe
choice because researchers cannot infer gender bias.
But selecting neutral could suggest that individuals are
ambivalent about whether a male or female candidate
is strongest on an issue or they may not have enough
information to make an informed judgment. Another
possibility is that stereotypes are not strong enough
considerations to influence whether a respondent feels
a male or female candidate is strongest on an issue.
Examining the effects of stereotypes without investi-
gating the process of stereotype reliance makes it
difficult to understand how these mental representa-
tions might be constraining the political opportunities
for women.
Avenues for new research on gender,
stereotypes, and politics
Applying the insights and theoretical framework
from social psychology to political science research can
yield a rich and fruitful research agenda. Several ways
political science scholars can better understand gender
stereotypes include: treating stereotypes as a condi-
tional influence, using stereotype measures to better
understand gender prejudice, exploring how parallel
versus competing stereotypes influence decision-mak-
ing, and turning to more nuanced measurement
techniques to test for stereotype influence.
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Determining whether individuals have stereotypic or
counter-stereotypic expectations for female candidates
offers a starting point for future research. Blair has
found that counter-stereotypic expectations result in
reduced stereotype activation—an outcome that might
have implications for female candidates.25 Several
political science studies do examine how the campaign
context can activate or suppress gender stereotypes.
Kahn has undertaken several investigations of gender
differences in the types of news coverage male and
female candidates receive.69,85 Female candidates
receive news coverage highlighting their personal and
family lives, along with their electoral viability.
Moreover, women tend to receive less coverage overall.
Other studies find that female candidates are more apt
to receive coverage discussing their clothing choices
and personal appearance over their professional
qualifications86—a type of news coverage with the
capacity to activate stereotypes. A number of other
studies have measured differences in the quantity and
quality of media coverage received by female candi-
dates, the news media’s reliance on stereotypic traits,
and whether female candidates play to stereotypes on
websites or in campaign ads.66,69,87,88 Hayes coded
newspaper articles during an election for whether they
depicted candidates in light of masculine or feminine
traits.89 Merging the news coverage data with survey
data allowed Hayes to conclude that stereotypic news
coverage did not shift perceptions of female candidates
away from the dominant cue of partisanship.
Measuring baseline expectations at the individual
level is another approach to understanding the
influence of stereotypes. One possible research design
would be to conduct a survey measuring stereotypes
before a campaign season begins in earnest, then
analyze how stereotypes emerge in campaign coverage,
and again measure stereotypes in the closing weeks of
the campaign. Including an implicit association test or
go/no go task association in a large-scale survey such as
the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey may
not be a practical approach for measuring baseline
stereotypes, but there are several scales designed to
measure stereotypes based on the implicit stereotype
research. Rudman and colleagues created a stereotype
battery based on the implicit association test re-
search.74 The scale asks subjects to rate a stereotype
target along a series of trait dimensions: strong-weak,
harsh-lenient, hard-soft, cold-warm, and distant-car-
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 35

ing. Averaging these components produces an index
estimating levels of stereotype activation. In this index,
a higher score indicates a more feminine stereotypic
perception of the female candidate. Brooks has a
similar trait-based measure of stereotypes.6 Huddy and
Terkildsen’s scale asks participants to rate candidates
along a series of masculine and feminine trait
dimensions, and differences in the ratings are used to
construct a measure of stereotypes.32 These scales may
be most useful for measuring stereotype activation
before and after the introduction of a stimulus.
Removing the assumption that stereotypes are
automatic allows researchers to systematically test for
possible conditions leading to stereotype activation and
application. Bos examined how stereotypes influenced
the impressions of female candidates formed by
delegates at state nominating conventions.90 The study
showed that when delegates received information from
secondhand sources, as opposed to information orig-
inating from the candidate, stereotypes were relied on
to form impressions. Other areas where stereotypes
might have a conditional influence include the tone of
the campaign environment or reactions to a female
legislator’s behavior once elected to office. Do displays
of anger and aggression, and other counter-stereotypic
behavior lead individuals to judge female leaders more
harshly than male leaders? Also, how do individuals
judge female candidates who engage in leadership
behavior conforming to stereotypes, such as engaging
in consensus building?
Alternative analytical techniques can also provide a
more concrete understanding of stereotypes. Stereotype
influence might be strongest as a mediating variable on
evaluations of female candidates in experimental
research. Krupnikov and Bauer adopt this approach
to understanding how stereotypes affect judgments of
female candidates who launch a negative advertising
campaign.91 In this study, stereotypes only influenced
candidate judgments under a narrow set of condi-
tions—when the female candidate and subject identi-
fied with different political parties, and when the
female candidate initiated the negativity. Here stereo-
types influenced evaluations of the female candidate as
a mediating variable. Imai and colleagues92 and
Malhotra and Krosnick93 demonstrate the ability of
mediation analyses in their research, and these tech-
niques offer a more nuanced way to explore the
conditionality of stereotype influence.
36 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
Next, research is scant on how competing or parallel
stereotypes work in political science. Democratic party
stereotypes and gender stereotypes overlap, possibly
indicative of a parallel processing model of stereotype
reliance. Hayes as well as Sanbonmatsu and Dolan test
for whether partisan stereotypes overpower gender
stereotypes or vice versa, and each come to contrasting
conclusions.89,94 Developing a better understanding
about when different types of competing or overlap-
ping stereotypes come into play can clarify pertinent
questions about when gender stereotypes have an effect
on female candidates. The intersection of race and
gender stereotypes is a relatively untouched area of
research. Philpot and Walton argue that for black
female candidates, racial and gender stereotypes will
mutually reinforce one another.95 Do other racial and
ethnic stereotypes have a competing influence on
female candidates? Other possibilities for exploring
how individuals react to candidates fitting into multiple
stereotypes include looking at age and gender, race and
age and gender, and incorporating the influence of
partisan stereotypes.
A somewhat undeveloped area is the influence of
gender prejudice or sexism. Some research has shown
that levels of prejudice moderate stereotype reliance.46
Studying the intersection of gender stereotypes and
prejudice in a political context is an area ripe with
opportunity for new and innovative research.46 Gender
stereotypes are widely held sets of beliefs about the
typical traits or behaviors of women. For a variety of
reasons, people sometimes make these simplistic
associations between women and a prescribed set of
characteristics. Often individuals use stereotypes as an
informational heuristic and not to justify discrimina-
tory attitudes or practices.59,60,61 Sexism, on the other
hand, reflects discrimination against women and here
stereotypes are tools employed to justify an imbalanced
power structure between women and men.96,97,98
Questions gauging levels of sexism include supporting
women’s equity issues, favoring more gender parity in
government, general support for feminist positions,
and expressing support for a future female presi-
dent.82,99 None of these questions, however, addresses
the more complex issues of gender prejudice.
Glick and Fiske define sexism as a special case of
prejudice marked by ambivalence toward women.
Sexism has both a hostile and benevolent component.
The hostile component, the more blatant form of
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
sexism, is characterized by anger toward women and
the belief that women do not belong in the work-
force.96 Most people know and agree that hostile
sexism is not acceptable. The benevolent element of
sexism appears to result in better treatment of women
but reflects paternalism and shifts the balance of power
in favor of men.96 Glick and Fiske define benevolent
sexism as a ‘‘set of interrelated attitudes toward women
that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotyp-
ically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively
positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend
to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial
(e.g., helping) or intimacy seeking (e.g., self-disclo-
sure)’’ (p. 461).96
Some people are comfortable expressing ‘‘benevolent
sexist’’ attitudes because there is nothing immediately
negative that jumps out in these beliefs. Benevolent
sexism has the greatest potential to influence evalua-
tions of female candidates, Glick and Fiske argue,
because it is subtle. Furthermore, people with benev-
olent sexist attitudes may sometimes vote for female
candidates; those with hostile sexist attitudes are
unlikely to ever consider voting for a female candidate.
Incorporating measures of sexism in research on vote
choice can clarify whether individuals hold biased
attitudes toward female candidates.
Physiological measures offer another way scholars
can gain a better understanding about the influence of
stereotypes and how individuals react to ‘‘nontradi-
tional’’ candidates. The ease of measuring changes in
heart rate, pupil dilation, and subtle changes on the
surface of the skin can detect when and whether social
desirability forces are at work.100,101 Biological mea-
sures are increasingly common in communication,
psychology, and political science research.102 Measur-
ing physiological reactions can offer more insight
about the automaticity of stereotypes and can more
accurately assess when individuals suppress stereotypes
than self-report measures. Increased heart rate and
increased pupil dilation can indicate more thoughtful
processing indicative of stereotype suppression. Sup-
pression occurs when a stereotype is activated but then
associated attitudes are suppressed to avoid appearing
sexist or discriminatory. Those who suppress stereo-
typic responses might initially make a rapid association
between a woman and gender stereotypes, but these
individuals will then take time to edit these associa-
tions. The act of suppressing stereotypes and not using
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
stereotypes at all would be difficult to detect with self-
report scales because the outcome of low stereotype
scores would be similar in both situations.
Discussion
Women’s political underrepresentation is not a new
phenomenon. Indeed, female politicians face unique
challenges in the political arena. Empirical research has
yet to explain how individuals evaluate and make
decisions about whether to vote for female candidates.
This empirical gap is particularly striking considering
the robust body of research showing female legislators
have a distinct impact on perceptions of effective
representation and on the substantive policy issues
considered by a legislature. Many of the benefits
afforded by having more women in positions of
political influence connect with gender stereotypes,
but it is not clear if these stereotypic outcomes shape
voting decisions for female candidates.
Among the substantive policy outputs women bring
to government are support for reproductive healthcare
services for women and legislation designed to curb
sexual harassment.103 Female legislators also provide
important symbolic benefits to women as a group
through floor statements, speeches, and cosponsorship
activities.104,105 Anzia and Berry find female legislators
bring more federal dollars to their districts than male
legislators, providing representative benefits not just to
women but all members of their district.84 The
presence of women in the legislature can substantially
influence the items on the legislative agenda, policy
outcomes, and the tone of debate in government.
However, voter perceptions of female candidates might
be limiting the opportunities for women to provide
these policy benefits by winning elective office.
Women comprise approximately half of the U.S.
population, but constitute just 20 percent of Congress.
Increasing the number of women in elected office
creates a legislature more representative of the popu-
lation it serves. Descriptive representation occurs when
the legislature closely resembles the characteristics of
the electorate it represents. Normative democratic
theorists argue a legislature becomes more legitimate
when it resembles the demographic characteristics of
the population.106 Surveys have shown that women
want descriptive representation, which only comes
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 37

from having more women in elected office.107,108,109
This desire among women to be represented by women
is thought to reflect the sentiment that women feel
excluded from the political system, suggesting a lack of
faith in the representational capacities of govern-
ment.105 Evidence of a gender affinity effect, where
women are most likely to support female candidates,
reinforces this point.110 Increasing the number of
women in office leads to increased voter turnout,
political engagement, and higher levels of knowledge
among women in the electorate.10,13,14,17,106 More-
over, studies find broad support among the population,
including men and women, for increasing the number
of women in office.3 Considering the consistent level of
support for female candidates among the general
public, it is puzzling that female candidates often face
difficulties persuading voters.
Many of the benefits female policymakers bring to
office reflect gender stereotypes; however, it is not clear
if this legislative activity shapes individual perceptions
for female candidates and how these perceptions might
factor into voting decisions. Political science needs a
firmer grasp on how external forces shape women’s
ability to be effective leaders within the legislature.
Stereotypic perceptions may not be unique to the
campaign trail, as these perceptions may re-emerge in
the behavioral expectations for women in political
office. As leaders, female members of Congress must
balance expectations to represent both their district
and to represent the interests of women in general.105
Because of the ways female candidates must balance
these expectations, the challenges they face on the
campaign trail are likely to reemerge once elected. Even
if women project images of political toughness, they
may still have to overcome stereotypic depictions in
news coverage of their legislative accomplishments.
These obstacles pose a challenge for many female
political leaders and may limit their electoral and
legislative success.
References
1. ‘‘The rules for female candidates,’’ The Washington Post,
November 7, 2007, Style, p. C01.
2. Kim L. Fridkin and Patrick J. Kenney, ‘‘The role of gender
stereotypes in U.S. Senate campaigns,’’ Politics and Gender,
2009, 5: 301–329.
3. Kathleen Dolan, ‘‘The impact of gender stereotyped
38 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
Bauer
evaluations on support for women candidates,’’ Political
Behavior, 2010, 32: 69–88.
4. Mark Stephen Leeper, ‘‘The impact of prejudice on female
candidates: An experimental look at voter inference,’’
American Political Quarterly, 1991, 19(2): 248–261.
5. Richard L. Fox and Eric R.A.N. Smith, ‘‘The role of
candidate sex in voter decision-making,’’ Political Psycholo-
gy, 1998, 19(2): 405–419.
6. Deborah Jordan Brooks, ‘‘Testing the double-standard for
candidate emotionality: Voter reactions to the tears and anger
of male and female candidates,’’ Journal of Politics, 2011, 73:
597–615.
7. Leonie Huddy and Teresa Capelos, ‘‘Gender stereotyping
and candidate evaluation: Good news and bad news for
women politicians,’’ in The Social Psychology of Politics, eds.
Victor C. Ottati, R. Scott Tindale, John Edwards, Fred B.
Bryant, Linda Heath, Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar, and Posavac
Emil J. (New York: Kluwer Publishers, 2002).
8. John A. Bargh, ‘‘The four horsemen of automaticity:
Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social
cognition,’’ in The Handbook of Social Cognition, eds.
Robert S. Wyer, Jr. and Srull Thomas K. (Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994).
9. Ziva Kunda and Lisa Sinclair, ‘‘Motivated reasoning with
stereotypes: Activation, application, and inhibition,’’ Psy-
chological Inquiry, 1999, 10(1): 12–22.
10. Janet Clark, ‘‘Getting there: Women in political office,’’
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 1991, 515: 63–76.
11. Kira Sanbonmatsu, ‘‘Political parties and the recruitment
of women to state legislatures,’’ Journal of Politics, 2002, 64:
791–809.
12. Rebecca E. Deen and Thomas H. Little, ‘‘Getting to the
top: Factors influencing the selection of women to state
legislatures,’’ State and Local Government Review, 1999, 31:
123–134.
13. Carol Nechemias, ‘‘Geographic mobility and women’s
access to state legislatures,’’ Western Political Quarterly,
1985, 38: 119–131.
14. Joan Acke, ‘‘Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in
organizations,’’ Gender and Society, 2006, 20: 441–464.
15. Diane D. Blair and Jeanie R. Stanley, ‘‘Personal
relationships and legislative power: Male and female
perceptions,’’ Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1991, 16: 495–
507.
16. Phillip Paolino, ‘‘Group-salient issues and group repre-
sentation: Support for women candidates in the 1992 Senate
elections,’’ American Journal of Political Science, 1995, 39:
294–313.
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
17. Jennifer L. Lawless, ‘‘Women, war, and winning elec-
tions: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era,’’
Political Research Quarterly, 2004, 57: 479–490.
18. Jennifer L. Lawless, Becoming a Candidate (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2012).
19. Angus Campbell, Phillip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller,
and Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960).
20. Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N.
McPhee, Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a
Presidential Campaign (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1954).
21. Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy
(New York: Harper & Row, 1957).
22. Kathleen A. Dolan, Voting for Women: How the Public
Evaluates Women Candidates (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
2004).
23. David L. Hamilton and Steven J. Sherman, ‘‘Stereo-
types,’’ in Handbook of Social Cognition eds. Robert S. Wyer
and Thomas K. Srull, Volume 2 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
1994), pp. 1–68.
24. Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley, 1954).
25. Irene V. Blair, ‘‘The malleability of automatic stereotypes
and prejudice,’’ Personality and Social Psychology Review,
2002, 6(3): 242–261.
26. Anne M. Koenig, Alice H. Eagly, Abigail A. Mitchell,
and Tina Ristikari, ‘‘Are leader stereotypes masculine? A
meta-analysis of three research paradigms?’’ Psychological
Bulletin, 2011, 137(4): 616–642.
27. Amanda B. Diekman and Alice H. Eagly, ‘‘Stereotypes as
dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present,
and future,’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
1999, 26(10): 1171–1188.
28. Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, ‘‘Role congruity
theory of prejudice toward female leaders,’’ Psychological
Review, 2002, 109: 573–598.
29. Alice H. Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, ‘‘The advantages of
an inclusive definition of attitude,’’ Social Cognition, 2007,
25: 582–602.
30. Laurie A. Rudman and Stephen E. Kilianski, ‘‘Implicit
and explicit attitudes toward female authority,’’ Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000, 26: 1315.
31. Roger D. Masters, ‘‘Evolutionary biology and political
theory,’’ American Political Science Review, 1990, 84(1):
195–210.
32. Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen, ‘‘Gender stereo-
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
types and the perception of male and female candidates,’’
American Journal of Political Science, 1993, 37: 119–147
33. Deborah A. Prentice and Erica Carranza, ‘‘What women
and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t
have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes,’’
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2002, 26: 269–281.
34. Mahzarin R. Banaji, Curtis Hardin, and Alexander J.
Rothman, ‘‘Implicit stereotyping in person judgment,’’
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, 65, 272–
281.
35. Sara E. Hill and Ross Flom, ‘‘18- and 24-month-old’s
discrimination of gender consistent and inconsistent activi-
ties,’’ Infant Behavior and Development, 30(1): 168–173.
36. John T. Jost and Aaron C. Kay, ‘‘Exposure to benevolent
sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences
for specific and diffuse forms of system justification’’ Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005, 88: 498–509.
37. Crystal L. Hoyt, Stefanie K. Johnson, Susan Elaine
Murphy, and Kerry Hogue Skinnell, ‘‘The impact of blatant
stereotype activation and group sex-composition on female
leaders,’’ Leadership Quarterly, 2010, 716–732.
38. Madeline E. Heilman and Tyler G. Okimoto, ‘‘Why are
women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied
communality deficit,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007,
91(1): 81–92.
39. Jennifer L. Eberhardt and Susan T. Fiske, ‘‘Affirmative
action in theory and implementation: Issues of power,
ambiguity, and gender versus race,’’ Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 1994, 15, 201–220.
40. Alan J. Lambert and Robert S. Wyer Jr. ‘‘Stereotypes and
social judgment: The effects of typicality and group
heterogeneity,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990, 59(4): 676–691.
41. Madeline E. Heilman, ‘‘Description and prescription:
How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the
organizational ladder,’’ Journal of Social Issues, 2001, 57(4):
657–674.
42. Diana Burgess and Eugene Borgida, ‘‘Who women are,
who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender
stereotyping in sex discrimination,’’ Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 1999, 5(3): 665–692.
43. Jacqueline Hitchon, Chang Chingching, and Rhonda
Harris, ‘‘Should women emote? Perceptual bias and opinion
change in response to political ads for candidates of different
genders,’’ Political Communication, 1997, 14(1): 49–69.
44. Galen V. Bodenhausen and C. Neil Macrae, ‘‘Stereotype
activation and inhibition,’’ in Stereotype Activation and
Inhibition, ed. Robert S. Wyer. Jr. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1998).
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 39
 Bauer
45. John A. Bargh, ‘‘The cognitive monster: The case against
the controllability of automatic stereotype effects,’’ in Dual
Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. Shelley Chaiken
and Yaacov Trope (New York: Guilford Press, 1999).
46. Patricia G. Devine, ‘‘Stereotypes and prejudice: Their
automatic and controlled components,’’ Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 1989, 56: 680–690.
47. Susan T. Fiske, ‘‘Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimi-
nation,’’ in Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Daniel T.
Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, 4th ed. (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1998), pp. 357–411.
48. Patricia G. Devine and Lindsay B. Sharp, ‘‘Automaticity
and control in stereotyping and prejudice,’’ in Handbook of
Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, ed. Todd D.
Nelson, (New York: Psychology Press, 2009), pp. 61–88.
49. Marilyn P. Brewer, ‘‘A dual process model of impression
formation,’’ in Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 1, eds.
Thomas K. Srull and Robert S. Wyer, Jr. (Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988), pp. 1–36.
50. John F. Dovidio, Nancy Evans, and Richard B. Tyler,
‘‘Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive repre-
sentations,’’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1986, 22(1): 22–37.
51. Kay Deaux and Laurie L. Lewis, ‘‘Structure of gender
stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gen-
der label,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1984, 46(5): 991–1004.
52. John F. Dovidio, Kerry Kawakami, and Samuel L.
Gaertner, ‘‘Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating
explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup
level,’’ in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, ed. Stuart
Oskamp (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
2000), pp. 137–163.
53. Laurie A. Rudman, Richard D. Ashmore, and Melvin L.
Gary, ‘‘‘Unlearning’ automatic biases: The malleability of
implicit prejudice and stereotypes,’’ Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81(5): 856–868.
54. Paul M. Sniderman, Richard A. Brody, and Philip E.
Tetlock, Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political
Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
55. Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Shickler,
Partisan Hearts and Minds (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2002).
56. Paul Allen Beck, Russell J. Dalton, Steven Greene, and
Robert Huckfeldt, ‘‘The social calculus of voting: Interper-
sonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential
choices,’’ American Political Science Review, 2002, 96(1):
57–73.
57. Robert S. Erikson, ‘‘Economic conditions and the
40 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
presidential vote,’’ American Political Science Review,1989,
83: 567–573.
58. Michael B. Mackuen, Robert S. Erikson, and James A.
Stimson, ‘‘Peasants or bankers? The American electorate and
the U.S. economy,’’ American Political Science Review, 1992
86: 597–611.
59. Monika L. McDermott, ‘‘Voting cues in low-information
elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable
in contemporary United States elections,’’ American Journal
of Political Science, 1997, 41(1): 270–283.
60. Susan Welch, ‘‘Are women more liberal than men in the
U.S. Congress?’’ Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1985, 10(1):
125–134.
61. Jeffrey W. Koch, ‘‘Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to
infer candidates’ ideological orientations?’’ Journal of Poli-
tics, 2000, 62(2): 414–429.
62. John R. Petrocik, ‘‘Issue ownership in presidential
elections, with a 1980 case study,’’ American Journal of
Political Science, 1996, 40(3): 825–850.
63. Ziva Kunda and Steven J. Spencer, ‘‘When do stereotypes
come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-
based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and
application,’’ Psychological Bulletin, 2003, 129(4): 522–544.
64. Irene V. Blair and Mahzarin BanajiR. , ‘‘Automatic and
controlled processes in stereotype priming,’’ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70(6): 1142–1163.
65. Steven Fein and Steven J. Spencer, ‘‘Prejudice as self-
image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating
others,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997,
73: 31–44.
66. Costas Panagopolous, ‘‘Boy talk/girl talk: Gender differ-
ences in campaign communication strategies,’’ Women and
Politics, 2004, 26: 131–155.
67. Judith S. Trent and Teresa Sabourin, ‘‘Sex still counts:
Women’s use of televised advertising during the decade of the
80’s,’’ Journal of Applied Communication Research, 1993,
21: 42.
68. Susan Gluck Mezey, ‘‘Does sex make a difference? A case
study of women in politics,’’ Western Political Quarterly,
1978, 31: 492–501.
69. Kim Fridkin Kahn, ‘‘Gender differences in campaign
messages: The political advertisements of men and women
candidates for the U.S. Senate,’’ Political Research Quarterly,
1993, 46: 481–502.
70. Ann Gordon, David M. Shafire, and Ann N. Crigler, ‘‘Is
negative advertising effective for female candidates? An
experiment in voters’ use of gender stereotypes,’’ Harvard
International of Press/Politics, 2003, 8(3): 35–53.
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1
 Rethinking gender stereotypes
71. Monica C. Schneider and Angela L. Bos, ‘‘Measuring
stereotypes of female politicians,’’ Political Psychology,
forthcoming.
72. Anthony G. Greenwald, Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan
L. K. Schwartz, ‘‘Measuring individual differences in implicit
cognition: The Implicit Association Test,’’ Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74: 1464–1480.
73. Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick, ‘‘Feminized man-
agement and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden
costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle
managers,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1999, 77: 1004–1010.
74. Laurie A. Rudman, Anthony G. Greenwald, and Debbie
E. McGhee, ‘‘Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit
gender stereotypes: Self and in-group share desirable traits,’’
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001, 27: 1164–
1178.
75. Brian A. Nosek and Mahrazin Banaji, ‘‘The Go/No Go
Association Task,’’ Social Cognition, 2001, 19(6): 625–666.
76. Melanie C. Steffens and Petra Jelenec, ‘‘Separating
implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language:
Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men,
but not for girls,’’ Sex Roles, 2011, 64: 324–335.
77. James Deese, ‘‘On the prediction of occurrence of
particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall,’’ Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58: 17–22.
78. Henry L. Roediger, III and Kathleen B. McDermott,
‘‘Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented
in lists,’’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, & Cognition, 1995, 21, 803–814.
79. Alison P. Lenton, Irene V. Blair, and Reid Hastie,
‘‘Illusions of gender: Stereotypes evoke false memories,’’
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2001, 37(1): 3–
14.
80. Irene V. Blair, Jennifer E. Ma, and Alison P. Lenton,
‘‘Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit
stereotypes through mental imagery,’’ Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 2001, 81(5): 828–841.
81. Adam Berinsky, Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz,
‘‘Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:
Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk,’’ Political Analysis, 2012,
20(3): 351–368.
82. Kira Sanbonmatsu, ‘‘Gender stereotypes and vote
choice,’’ American Journal of Political Science, 2002, 46(1):
20–34.
83. Richard L. Fox, ‘‘Congressional elections: Where are we
on the road to gender parity?’’ in Gender and Elections, eds.
Susan J. Carroll and FoxRicahrd L. (New York: Cambridge
University Press), pp. 97–116.
P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
84. Sarah F. Anzia and Christopher R. Berry, ‘‘The Jackie
(and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outper-
form congressmen?’’ American Journal of Political Science,
2011, 55(3): 478–493.
85. Kim Fridkin Kahn, ‘‘Does being male help? An investi-
gation of the effects of candidate gender and campaign
coverage on evaluations of U.S. Senate candidates,’’ Journal
of Politics, 1992, 54: 497–517.
86. Caroline J. Heldman, Susan J. Carroll, and Stephanie
Olson, ‘‘‘She brought only a skirt’: Print media coverage of
Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the Republican presidential nomi-
nation,’’ Political Communication, 2005, 22: 315–335.
87. Kim Fridkin Kahn and Edie N. Goldberg, ‘‘Women
candidates in the news: An examination of gender differences
in U.S. Senate campaign coverage,’’ Public Opinion Quar-
terly, 1991, 55(2): 180–199.
88. Kathleen Dolan, ‘‘Do women candidates play to gender
stereotypes? Do men candidates play to women? Candidate
sex and issues priorities on campaign websites,’’ Political
Research Quarterly, 2005, 58(1): 31–44.
89. Danny Hayes, ‘‘When gender and party collide: Stereo-
typing in candidate trait attribution,’’ Politics & Gender,
2011, 7: 133–165.
90. Angela L. Bos, ‘‘Out of control: Delegates’ information
sources and perceptions of female candidates,’’ Political
Communication, 2011, 28: 87–109.
91. Yanna Krupnikov and Nichole M. Bauer, ‘‘The rela-
tionship between campaign negativity, gender, and campaign
context,’’ Political Behavior, forthcoming.
92. Kosuke Imai, Luke Keele, Dustin Tingley, and Teppei
Yamamoto, ‘‘Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning
about causal mechanisms from experimental and observa-
tional studies,’’ American Political Science Review, 2011,
104(4): 765–789.
93. Neal Malhotra and Jon A. Krosnick, ‘‘Retrospective and
prospective performance assessments during the 2004 elec-
tion campaign: Tests of mediation and news media priming,’’
Political Behavior, 2007, 29(2): 249–278.
94. Kira Sanbonmatsu and Kathleen Dolan, ‘‘Do gender
stereotypes transcend party?’’ Political Research Quarterly,
2009, 62(3): 485–494.
95. Tasha S. Philpot and Hanes Walton, Jr., ‘‘One of our
own: Black female candidates and the voters who support
them,’’ American Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 49–62.
96. Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske, ‘‘The Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism,’’
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70: 491–
512.
97. Lynda A. King and Daniel W. King, ‘‘Sex-role egalitar-
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1 41
 Bauer
ianism scale: Development, psychometric properties, and
recommendations for future research,’’ Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 1997, 21: 71–87.
98. Maureen C. McHugh and Irene Hanson Frieze, ‘‘The
measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and com-
mentary,’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1997, 21: 1–16.
99. Kathleen Dolan and Kira Sanbonmatsu, ‘‘Candidate
gender and experimental political science,’’ in the Cambridge
Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N.
Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur
Lupia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
100. Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott, ‘‘Disgust and
political preferences,’’ PS: Political Science and Politics,
forthcoming.
101. John E. Newhagen, ‘‘Beyond self-report: Using latency
to respond to model the question answering process on web-
based public opinion surveys,’’ in the Sourcebook for Political
Communication Research, eds. Erik P. Bucy and R. Lance
Holbert (New York: Routledge, 2011).
102. Douglas R. Oxley, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford,
Matthew V. Hibbing, Jennifer L. Miller, Mario Scalora, Peter
K. Hatemi, and John R. Hibbing, ‘‘Political attitudes vary
with physiological traits,’’ Science, September 19, 2008, 321:
1667–1670.
103. Michele L. Swers, ‘‘Are women more likely to vote for
42 P OLITICS AND THE L IFE S CIENCES
women’s issues bills than their male colleagues?’’ Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 1998, 23: 435–448.
104. Michele L. Swers, The Difference Women Make: The
Policy Impact of Women in Congress (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2002).
105. Kim Quaile Hill and Patricia A. Hurley, ‘‘Symbolic
speeches in the U.S. Senate and their representational
implications,’’ Journal of Politics, 2002, 64: 219–231.
106. Hannah F. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).
107. Cindy Simon Rosenthal, ‘‘The role of gender in
descriptive representation,’’ Political Research Quarterly,
1995, 48: 599–611.
108. Jane Mansbridge, ‘‘Should blacks represent blacks and
women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’,’’ Journal of
Politics, 1999, 61(3): 627–657.
109. Kira Sanbonmatsu, ‘‘Gender-related political knowl-
edge and the descriptive representation of women,’’ Political
Behavior, 2003, 25: 367–388.
110. Kathleen Dolan, ‘‘Is there a ‘gender affinity effect’ in
American politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in
U.S. House elections,’’ Political Research Quarterly, 2008,
61: 79–89.
 S PRING 2013  VOL . 32, NO . 1