Gender stereotypes and vote choice

By Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2002

774 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c81126da35aa83e760b71bb29e25787b807e96a1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: a conjoint experiment in Japan (2018, background): “Although results across different contexts are mixed, voters are often less informed about women than men as candidates, and may rely on negative stereotypes of how women will perform in office (e.g., Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; Sanbonmatsu 2002).”
When Gender Matters: Macro-dynamics and Micro-mechanisms (2013, background): “Experimental and survey-based research at the citizen-level depicts many complex and subtle ways that candidate sex influences voter attitudes—and thus, indirectly impacts vote-choice (Dolan 2004, 2010; Koch 2000, 2002; Sanbonmatsu 2002).”
The Ties That Double Bind: Social Roles and Women's Underrepresentation in Politics (2018, neutral): “Recognizing, along with the gender-affinity literature, that strong gender preferences may be linked to the gender of respondents, we next examine whether female respondents drive the pro-female preference (Zipp and Plutzer 1985; Sanbonmatsu 2002; Dolan 2008; Philpot and Walton 2007).”
Managers’ Political Beliefs and Gender Inequality among Subordinates: Does His Ideology Matter More Than Hers? (2018, neutral): “reward bias if they are more likely to reward male subordinates with promotions due to concerns that equivalently performing female subordinates lack the leadership qualities necessary for management (Sanbonmatsu, 2002; King and Matland, 2003; Lawless and Pearson, 2008).”
“You Tweet Like a Girl!” (2016, background): “These “masculine” traits are associated with greater perceived competency, especially on foreign policy and economic issues, the so-called “male” issues (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993; Lawless, 2004; Sanbonmatsu, 2002).”
No Place for a Woman: Evidence for Gender Bias in Evaluations of Presidential Candidates (2007, background): “Masculinity and femininity are often conceptualized as personality traits (assertive vs compassionate) and=or policy stances (dealing with education vs. dealing with the military) (e.g., Hernson et al., 2003; Rossenwasser & Dean, 1989; Sanbonmatsu, 2002).”
What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments (2021, background): “Findings from a number of survey and experimental studies lend some support to this hypothesis (Dolan 1998; Plutzer and Zipp 1996; Sanbonmatsu 2002).”
What Voters Want: Reactions to Candidate Characteristics in a Survey Experiment (2014, methodology): “Experimental methods are becoming increasingly popular in research examining candidate evaluations (Birch and Allen, 2011; Druckman et al., 2006; Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993; Rosenberg and McCafferty, 1987; Sanbonmatsu, 2002).”
Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians (2014, background): “For example, Sanbonmatsu (2002) asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement that men are more emotionally suited for politics than women. sensitive.”