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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Michael Alvarez & Jian Cao & Yimeng Li, 2021. "Voting Experiences, Perceptions of Fraud, and Voter Confidence," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1225-1238, July.
    2. Barabas, Jason & Jerit, Jennifer & Pollock, William & Rainey, Carlisle, 2014. "The Question(s) of Political Knowledge," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(4), pages 840-855, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexandra Oprea & Daniel J Stephens, 2025. "A minimal standard of democratic competence," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, May.
    2. Simon Richter & Sebastian Stier, 2022. "Learning about the unknown Spitzenkandidaten: The role of media exposure during the 2019 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 309-329, June.
    3. Mitchell Linegar & Betsy Sinclair & Sander van der Linden & R. Michael Alvarez, 2024. "Towards Generalizable AI-Assisted Misinformation Inoculation: Protecting Confidence Against False Election Narratives," Papers 2410.19202, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    4. Daniel Vogler & Morley Weston & Quirin Ryffel & Adrian Rauchfleisch & Pascal Jürgens & Mark Eisenegger & Lisa Schwaiger & Urs Christen, 2023. "Mobile News Consumption and Its Relation to Young Adults’ Knowledge About and Participation in Referendums," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 6-18.
    5. Geoffrey Layman & Frances Lee & Christina Wolbrecht, 2023. "Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 164-183, July.
    6. Daniel Vogler & Morley Weston & Quirin Ryffel & Adrian Rauchfleisch & Pascal Jürgens & Mark Eisenegger & Lisa Schwaiger & Urs Christen, 2023. "Mobile News Consumption and Its Relation to Young Adults’ Knowledge About and Participation in Referendums," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 6-18.
    7. Carelli, Daniel, 2024. "From ignorance to awareness: Quality of collaborative governance enhances public awareness of AMR," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 361(C).
    8. Garz, Marcel, 2018. "Retirement, consumption of political information, and political knowledge," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 109-119.
    9. Lauri Rapeli, 2022. "What is the best proxy for political knowledge in surveys?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Siti Nurshahidah Sah Allam & Mohd Sufiean Hassan & Normah Mustaffa & Mohd Nor Shahizan Ali, 2025. "Developing and Validating a Political Knowledge Questionnaire for First-Time Voters in Malaysia (Undi18)," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 9(9), pages 9282-9291, September.
    11. Ganzach, Yoav, 2018. "Intelligence and the rationality of political preferences," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 59-70.
    12. Rohde, Linnéa Marie, 2024. "Can compulsory voting reduce information acquisition?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 305-337.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.