IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v55y2011i1p59-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women's Equality in Electoral Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L. Fox
  • Jennifer L. Lawless

Abstract

Based on the second wave of the Citizen Political Ambition Panel Study, we provide the first thorough analysis of how gender affects women and men's efficacy to run for office. Our findings reveal that, despite comparable credentials, backgrounds, and experiences, accomplished women are substantially less likely than similarly situated men to perceive themselves as qualified to seek office. Importantly, women and men rely on the same factors when evaluating themselves as candidates, but women are less likely than men to believe they meet these criteria. Not only are women more likely than men to doubt that they have skills and traits necessary for electoral politics, but they are also more likely to doubt their abilities to engage in campaign mechanics. These findings are critical because the perceptual differences we uncover account for much of the gender gap in potential candidates’ self‐efficacy and ultimately hinder women's prospects for political equality.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard L. Fox & Jennifer L. Lawless, 2011. "Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women's Equality in Electoral Politics," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 59-73, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:1:p:59-73
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Donato Masciandaro & Paola Profeta & Davide Romelli, 2023. "Women and Governance: Central Bank Boards and Monetary Policy," Trinity Economics Papers tep1123, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    2. Nicole R. Foster Shoaf & Tara N. Parsons, 2016. "18 Million Cracks, but No Cigar: News Media and the Campaigns of Clinton, Palin, and Bachmann," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-15, September.
    3. D’Attoma, John & Volintiru, Clara & Steinmo, Sven, 2017. "Willing to share? Tax compliance and gender in Europe and America," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 89397, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Preece, Jessica & Stoddard, Olga, 2015. "Why women don’t run: Experimental evidence on gender differences in political competition aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 296-308.
    5. Mukhwana Laura Nasimiyu & Mukhwana Eugine Sundays, 2023. "Contextual Factors Influencing Women’s Participation in Political Leadership in Kakamega County, Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(6), pages 509-529, June.
    6. Paola Montilla & Magda Catalina Jiménez, 2020. "Elecciones 2018 en Colombia: la competencia política en un escenario de paz," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1176, October.
    7. Pate, Jennifer & Fox, Richard, 2018. "Getting past the gender gap in political ambition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 166-183.
    8. Cella, Michela & Manzoni, Elena, 2023. "Gender bias and women’s political performance," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. KASUYA Yuko & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    10. Mourelatos, Evangelos & Krimpas, George & Giotopoulos, Konstantinos, 2022. "Sexual identity and Gender Gap in Leadership. A political intention experiment," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1187, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Jayme L. Neiman, 2017. "Jackie (and Jill) Robinson in the Statehouse: Gender and Educational Attainment Influences on Office-Holding and Leadership Positions in the U.S. States," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(6), pages 15-20, June.
    12. Lassébie, Julie, 2020. "Gender quotas and the selection of local politicians: Evidence from French municipal elections," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    13. Valerie R. O’Regan & Stephen J. Stambough, 2016. "Political Experience and the Success of Female Gubernatorial Candidates," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-12, April.

    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:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:1:p:59-73. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.