IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v112y2018i03p525-541_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ties That Double Bind: Social Roles and Women's Underrepresentation in Politics

Author

Listed:
  • TEELE, DAWN LANGAN
  • KALLA, JOSHUA
  • ROSENBLUTH, FRANCES

Abstract

This paper theorizes three forms of bias that might limit women's representation: outright hostility, double standards, and a double bind whereby desired traits present bigger burdens for women than men. We examine these forms of bias using conjoint experiments derived from several original surveys—a population survey of American voters and two rounds of surveys of American public officials. We find no evidence of outright discrimination or of double standards. All else equal, most groups of respondents prefer female candidates, and evaluate men and women with identical profiles similarly. But on closer inspection, all is not equal. Across the board, elites and voters prefer candidates with traditional household profiles such as being married and having children, resulting in a double bind for many women. So long as social expectations about women's familial commitments cut against the demands of a full-time political career, women are likely to remain underrepresented in politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Teele, Dawn Langan & Kalla, Joshua & Rosenbluth, Frances, 2018. "The Ties That Double Bind: Social Roles and Women's Underrepresentation in Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 525-541, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:112:y:2018:i:03:p:525-541_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055418000217/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hou, Yue & Liu, Chuyu & Crabtree, Charles, 2020. "Anti-muslim bias in the Chinese labor market," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 235-250.
    2. Tiffany BARNES & Charles CRABTREE & MATSUO Akitaka & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Women Use More Positive Language than Men: Candidates’ strategic use of emotive language in election campaigns," Discussion papers 22114, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    3. Cynthia Richie Terrell & Courtney Lamendola & Maura Reilly, 2021. "Election Reform and Women’s Representation: Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 332-343.
    4. Gianmarco Daniele & Gemma Dipoppa & Massimo Pulejo, 2023. "Attacking Women or their Policies? Understanding Violence against Women in Politics," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 23207, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    5. Broockman, David E. & Soltas, Evan J., 2020. "A natural experiment on discrimination in elections," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Jon H. Fiva & Max-Emil M. King, 2022. "Child Penalties in Politics," CESifo Working Paper Series 9611, CESifo.
    7. Charles McCLEAN & ONO Yoshikuni, 2020. "How Do Voters Evaluate the Age of Politicians?," Discussion papers 20069, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez & William Kimball & Thomas Kochan, 2022. "What Forms of Representation Do American Workers Want? Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 267-294, March.

    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:apsrev:v:112:y:2018:i:03:p:525-541_00. 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/psr .

    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.