IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v14y2026a11650.html

Partisanship and the Gender Gap in Perceptions of Election Integrity: Gender Accentuates the Winner–Loser Gap

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha J. DeRagon

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, USA)

  • Caroline Tolbert

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, USA)

Abstract

Confidence in the accuracy of elections and ballot counting is a foundation of representative government. In the US and cross-nationally, a substantial body of research demonstrates that partisanship and electoral outcomes are the strongest and most consistent predictors of trust in elections. Against this backdrop, the role of demographic factors, and gender in particular, is less well understood. Building on previous research, we expect women to have lower confidence in US elections than men. Since women tend to be stronger partisans than men, we also expect that gender accentuates the winner–loser gap. Using the 2024 Cooperative Election Study, the results show women are less likely to believe national, state, and local elections were conducted fairly. As electoral losers, women Democrats and independents have lower election confidence than men in their parties. As electoral winners, men and women Republicans have similar electoral confidence. We also analyze the 2022 and 2020 elections and find that our results are robust among the electoral losing party; women again have lower election confidence than men. This gender gap in election integrity attitudes has important implications for women’s political participation and polarization in the US.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha J. DeRagon & Caroline Tolbert, 2026. "Partisanship and the Gender Gap in Perceptions of Election Integrity: Gender Accentuates the Winner–Loser Gap," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v14:y:2026:a:11650
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.11650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/11650
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.11650?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cog:poango:v14:y:2026:a:11650. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.