IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v8y2020i2p268-284_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How gender affects the efficacy of discussion as an information shortcut

Author

Listed:
  • Krupnikov, Yanna
  • Milita, Kerri
  • Ryan, John Barry
  • Connors, Elizabeth C.

Abstract

There are a number of observed gender differences in the frequency of political discussion, perceived levels of expertise, and importantly, openness to persuasion. This article explores the consequences of these differences for political choices. Given the difficulty in separating influence from homophily with observational data, this paper relies on a group-based experiment. Results suggest that when selecting between candidates, women are more likely to accept information from others, even if the information in the signals is not helpful. Men, on the other hand, often ignore outside signals in favor of sticking with their own choices even when outside signals would be helpful to their decision-making. A reanalysis of a previously published experiment on social communication leads to similar gender differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Krupnikov, Yanna & Milita, Kerri & Ryan, John Barry & Connors, Elizabeth C., 2020. "How gender affects the efficacy of discussion as an information shortcut," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 268-284, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:268-284_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847019000268/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:268-284_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.