Women politicians face different, more severe criticism compared to male politicians. This study, conducted on 1,700 adult Americans, provides important context to this conversation. It exposes the shallow biases underlying the ways voters judge candidates in elections.
Ditonto’s research displayed the same two fictional candidates. One was a candidate from the Democratic Party, the other from the Republican Party, both competing for the same congressional seat. The results suggest that voters do judge women candidates more harshly for failing to toe the line on their party’s platform. In contrast, men seem to have more leeway to leave these platforms without being punished.
Findings on Gender Bias
The research showcases an incredible bias in the interpretation of male versus female candidates. This gap is created when a candidate breaks from their party’s orthodoxy. As Ditonto explains, men could usually get away with adopting a “maverick” pose, with even severe backlash draining away support. The research uncovered an alarming statistic. Women candidates who did not stick to their stated policy positions lost 11 points in voter support.
This difference represents a blatant double standard in political judgments. Women’s actions are subject to a vastly greater level of scrutiny than those of their male counterparts. These conclusions imply that women candidates are forced to adhere rigidly to party lines in order to attract voter support. Male candidates have the luxury of crossing party lines more safely without jeopardizing their chances of actually winning.
Reactions to Scandals
Furthermore, Ditonto’s study looked at how partisans responded to scandals concerning candidates from their own party. Participants watched fictitious interviews of a male or female candidate. These first drafts solutioned a range of scandals, from viewing pornography to displaying insensitivity towards the homeless. Indeed, the study found that partisans held strong to their ratings. In doing so, they increased their chances of voting for in-party candidates caught up in scandals.
This finding underscores a concerning trend: voters are more forgiving of male candidates’ missteps while holding women to a higher standard. These biases can have huge effects on election outcomes. They can even act as a disincentive for women considering candidacy at all, as they are terrified of facing scathing criticism should they stray a single iota from the party line.
Methodology and Background Information
In order to collect information for this experimental study, Ditonto armed participants with voter demographic and candidate background data of their choosing on the fictional candidates. This cast a wide net, including information about her family upbringing, career history, political experience, social ideology, and at times, articles covering made-up controversies. Gender identity was clearly signaled via names, pronouns, and photos to eliminate ambiguity in participant interpretation.
In the process, they went to great lengths in designing the study to isolate the impacts of gender bias on voter candidate assessments. Concurrently, they controlled for additional variables. Ditonto also showed male and female candidates under the same conditions. Ultimately his goal was to demonstrate the built-in biases that exist within the electorate.
The study has been published and can be accessed via DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X25100159. Consideration of these findings is an important part of the national dialogue on gender representation in political office. They capture the peculiar challenges that women encounter in leadership positions.
