Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:51:09.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Desirability, Hidden Biases, and Support for Hillary Clinton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Ryan L. Claassen  and
John Barry Ryan
Ryan L. Claassen
Affiliation:
Kent State University
John Barry Ryan
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An emerging consensus suggests that women are underrepresented in government because of biases in the recruitment process instead of biases at the ballot box. These results, however, are largely for legislative offices, and research suggests that “male” characteristics are generally associated with executive positions like the presidency. At the same time, some research demonstrates social desirability masks gender biases against women who seek the highest office in the land. We use the historic candidacy of Hillary Clinton to examine if she faces hidden biases in either the primaries or the general election. Two different methods for uncovering hidden biases embedded in national surveys demonstrate small hidden biases that are likely electorally inconsequential.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 730 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bauer, Nichole M. 2016. “Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support for Female Candidates.” Political Psychology 36 (6): 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting for Women Candidates: What Really Matters?” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 96–107.Google Scholar
Feldmann, Linda. 2007. “Hillary Clinton Targets Women’s Vote.” The Christian Science Monitor February 1, 2007.Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2011. “When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution.” Politics & Gender 7: 113–65.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Green, Melanie C., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2003. “Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (1): 79–125.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie and Terklidsen, Nayda. 1993. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 503–25.Google Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. 2012. “Risk Attitudes and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 817–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, Samara and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, Piston, Spencer, and Bauer, Nichole. 2015. “Saving Face: Identifying Voter Responses to Black Candidates and Female Candidates.” Political Psychology 37 (2): 253–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. and Fox, Richard. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Justin. 2015. “In US, Socialist Presidential Candidates Least Appealing.” Gallup Report June 22, 2015.Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn and McGhee, Eric. 2013. “What It Takes to Win: Questioning “Gender Neutral” Outcomes in US House Elections.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 439–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jessi L., Paul, David, and Paul, Rachel. 2007. “No Place for a Woman: Evidence for Gender Bias in Evaluations of Presidential Candidates.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 29 (3): 225–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streb, Matthew J., Burrell, Barbara, Frederick, Brian, and Genovese, Michael A.. 2008. “Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (1): 76–89.Google Scholar