The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates

Abstract

Partisanship is the primary driver of voter decision-making in the United States. Partisans expect to prefer their party's candidates' issue stances and personal characteristics. Even when they learn negative information, motivated reasoning often keeps them from changing their candidate evaluations or vote choice. However, there is a "tipping point"at which partisans will update their priors and may vote against their preferred party's candidate. This study seeks to determine whether voters are more likely to reach that tipping point when they see a woman in their party, and under what circumstances. We use a unique experimental design to vary a candidate's gender, congruence with major elements of the party platform, and their participation in a scandal. We find that women are often evaluated more negatively and that subjects rely on substantive information more when evaluating women candidates. Our findings suggest that campaigns and campaign information may matter more for women candidates.