Which Candidates Can Be Mavericks? The Effects of Issue Disagreement and Gender on Candidate Evaluations

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

As approval ratings of the U.S. Congress remain depressed, many candidates present themselves as mavericks, willing to counter their party on issues. Yet disagreeing with one's party can be a risky decision and one that is not equally viable for all politicians. In particular, female candidates often face a hostile political climate that privileges “masculine” traits over feminine traits, which may tie female candidates to their party's platform. An experimental study manipulating issue disagreement for a female versus male candidate demonstrates that the female candidate consistently faces harsher penalties in terms of candidate evaluations and voting intentions for disagreeing with her party on multiple issues. Implications for candidate behavior, campaign strategies, and political decision making are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4-30
Number of pages27
JournalPolitics and Policy
Volume45
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Keywords

  • Candidate Evaluation
  • Candidate Strategy
  • Election Campaigns
  • Female Politicians
  • Gender Issues
  • Gender Stereotypes
  • Issue Disagreement
  • Legislative Politics
  • Masculine and Feminine Traits
  • Maverick Candidates
  • Political Parties
  • Voting Behavior

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Which Candidates Can Be Mavericks? The Effects of Issue Disagreement and Gender on Candidate Evaluations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this