Women for women? Gender and party bias in voting for female candidates

American Politics Research

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 357-375

  Brians, Craig Leonard ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Congressional elections; Gendered voting; Women candidates

Indexed keywords

EID: 17744374094     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04269415     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (2002). Change and continuity in the 2000 elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2. Anderson, K. (1999). The gender gap and experiences with the welfare state. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 7-19.
3. Balz, D. (2000, April 10). Who wants to be Vice President? No final answer soon. The Washington Post, p. A4.
4. Bennett, S. E., & Bennett, L. L. M. (1992). From traditional to modern conceptions of gender equality in politics: Gradual change and lingering doubts. The Western Political Quarterly, 45, 93-111.
5. Berke, R. L. (2000, May 3). The 2000 campaign: The second spot; invisible, subtle trace is on to reach the heights of no. 2. The New York Times, p. A1.
6. Branton, R., & Norrander, B. (1999, March). Cross-state variations in partisan and electoral gender gaps. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.
7. Brians, C. L. (2004). Women against women? Republicans' electoral strategy versus female Democratic incumbents. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
8. Burns, N., Kinder, D. R., & the National Election Studies. (2003). National election studies, 2002: Pre-/post-election study [data set], Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
9. Burns, N., Kinder, D. R., Rosenstone, S. J., Sapiro, V., & the National Election Studies. (2001). National Election Studies, 2000: Pre-/post-election study [data set]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
10. Chaney, C. K., Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections, 1980-1992. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 311-340.
11. Conover, P. J. (1988). Feminists and the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 50, 985-1010.
12. Conway, M. M., Steuernagel, G. A., & Ahern, D. W. (1997). Women and political participation: Cultural change in the political arena. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13. Cook, E. A. (1998). Voter reaction to women candidates. In S. Thomas & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, present, and future (pp. 56-72). New York: Oxford.
14. Dolan, K. A. (2001). Electoral context, issues, and voting for women in the 1990s. Women & Politics, 23, 21-36.
15. Dolan, K. A. (2004). Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview.
16. Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). The Republican warning. Campaigns & Elections, 16, 24-25.
17. Fox, R. L. (1997). Gender dynamics in congressional elections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Gidengil, E. (1995). Economic man - social woman? The case of the gender gap in support for the Canada-United States free trade agreement. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 384-408.
19. Greene, S., & Elder, L. (2001). Gender and the psychological structure of partisanship. Women & Politics, 22, 63-84.
20. Herrnson, P. S., Lay, J. C., & Stokes, A. K. (2003). Women running "as women": Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. Journal of Politics, 65, 244-255.
21. Hoffman, K. U., Palmer, C., & Gaddie, R. K. (2001). Candidate sex and congressional elections: Open seats before, during, and after the year of the woman. Women & Politics, 23, 37-58.
22. Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 62, 858-874.
23. Kahn, K. F., & Gordon, A. (1997). How women campaign for the U.S. senate. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, media and politics. New York: Oxford.
24. Kaufmann, K. M., & Petrocik, J. R. (1999). The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864-887.
25. King, D. C., & Matland, R. E. (2003). Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31, 595-612.
26. Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates' ideological orientations? Journal of Politics, 62, 414-429.
27. Lewis, C. V. (1999). Are women for women? Feminist and traditional values in the female electorate. Women & Politics, 20, 1-28.
28. Liao, T. F. (1994). Interpreting probability models: Logit, probit, and other generalized linear models. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-101. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Lublin, D., & Brewer, S. E. (2003). The conditioning dominance of traditional gender roles in southern elections. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 379-396.
30. McDermott, M. L. (1997). Voting cues in low information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 270-280.
31. McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 895-918.
32. Mattei, L. R. W., & Mattei, F. (1998). If men stayed home . . . the gender gap in recent congressional elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 411-436.
33. Mattei, F., & Mattei, L. R. W. (1999, March). Explaining the gender gap in presidential approval: Different opinions or divergent priorities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.
34. Miller, W. E., Kinder, D. R., Rosenstone, S. J., & the National Election Studies. (1992). American National Election Study, 1990: Post-election study [Computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor].
35. Miller, W. E., Kinder, D. R., Rosenstone, S. J., & the National Election Studies. (1993). American National Election Study, 1992: Pre- and post-election survey. Conducted by the University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers]. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
36. Norrander, B. (1999). The evolution of the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 566-576.
37. Norton, N. H. (1999). Uncovering the dimensionality of gender voting in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24, 65-86.
38. Plutzer, E., & Zipp, J. F. (1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 30-57.
39. Rosenstone, S. J., Kinder, D. R., Miller, W. E., & the National Election Studies. (1998). American national election study, 1996: Post-election study [data set]. 3rd release. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
40. Rosenstone, S. J., Miller, W. E., Kinder, D. R., & the National Election Studies. (1995). American national election study, 1994: Post-election study [Computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
41. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 20-34.
42. Sapiro, V., Rosenstone, S. J., & the National Election Studies. (1999). National election studies, 1998: Post-election study [data set]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
43. Schlesinger, M., & Heldman, C. (2001). Gender gap or gender gaps? New perspectives on support for government action policies. Journal of Politics, 63, 59-92.
44. Seltzer, R. A., Newman, J., & Leighton, M. V. (1997). Sex as a political variable. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
45. Smeal, E. (1984). Why and how women will elect the next president. New York: Harper and Row.
46. Swers, M. (2001). Understanding the policy impact of electing women: Evidence from research on congress and state legislatures. PS: Political Science & Politics, 34, 217-220.
47. Thomas, E. (1984, November 19). Every region, every age group, almost every voting block: How a coast-to-coast victory was forged (election '84). Time, 124, p. 42.
48. Thompson, S., & Steckenrider, J. (1997). The relative irrelevance of candidate sex. Women and Politics, 17, 71-85.
49. Vennochi, J. (2000, March 31). Nationally, it could be the year of the woman: Locally, it's another story. The Boston Globe, p. A19.
50. Welch, S., & Studlar, D. T. (1996). The opportunity structure for women's candidacies and electability in Britain and the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 861-874.
51. Will, G. F. (2000, March 19). Bush-Powell in 2000. The Washington Post, p. B07.
52. Witt, L., Paget, K. M., & Matthews, G. (1994). Running as a woman: Gender and power in American politics. New York: Free Press.
53. Zeigler, H., & Poole, K. (1985). Political woman: Gender indifference. Public Opinion, 8, 54-56.