Download data and study materials from OSF
Principal investigators:
David Campbell
University of Notre Dame
Email: dave_campbell@nd.edu
Homepage: https://politicalscience.nd.edu/people/david-campbell/
Christina Wolbrecht
University of Notre Dame
Email: wolbrecht.1@nd.edu
Homepage: https://christinawolbrecht.com/
Sample size: 803
Field period: 04/29/2021-07/02/2021
Note: This experiment parallels our other TESS study "The Effects of Exposure to Women Candidates on Political Attitudes," which was among adults instead of adolescents. Accordingly, much of the content here is identical to the adult study.
From Hillary Clinton’s cracked ceiling to Elizabeth Warren’s pinky promises, women candidates often frame their candidacies as opportunities to advance the political empowerment and engagement of women, especially young girls. Advocates argue that more women political leaders signal a more open, fair, and representative political system and provide evidence of the capacity of women for political leadership to women and men alike. In the U.S., some observational studies have found that the presence of women candidates is associated with greater political engagement among women and girls, although findings are mixed. However, previous research has paid less attention to the impact of women politicians on beliefs about democracy or about women as political leaders. We employ a survey experiment among adolescents to gauge the impact of exposure to women candidates on not only political engagement, but attitudes about the responsiveness of the political system and beliefs about the political capacities of women. In addition to questions about gender, we also address the role of partisanship in mediating these effects; in a time of severe partisanship, co-partisan women may have a bigger impact on adolescents than out-partisans. Like the previous observational studies, our experimental findings are mixed. The most consistent finding is that Republican boys become more likely to endorse women as political leaders upon exposure to co-partisan (Republican) women candidates.
H1: Adolescents who are exposed to women candidates who have run successful campaigns will:
(a) express interest in being politically engaged and active
(b) view the political system as responsive
(c) hold egalitarian attitudes on gender roles, including that women are capable of political leadership.
H2: These effects are greater for adolescent girls; i.e., there is greater attitude change among girls than boys.
H3: These effects are greater for co-partisans. That is, Democrats are more likely to respond when exposed to Democratic women candidates; and Republicans have a greater response to Republican women candidates.
The treatment consisted of a fictional news story highlighting the large number of women who ran in the 2020 elections across the country, and for many different offices.
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three versions of the treatment or to a control group that received no story, in order to observe these attitudes in the absence of any information about the 2020 elections. In brief, the three versions of the story are:
1. Non-Partisan Story: The story did not specify whether the surge of women candidates were Republicans or Democrats. The party affiliation of the two candidates quoted in the story was not mentioned.
2. Democratic Story: Text was identical to (1), except that the story emphasized the number of Democratic women who ran in 2020. The two candidates quoted in the story were identified as Democrats.
3. Republican Story: The text was identical to (2), except that the emphasis was on Republican women, and the candidate quotes were attributed to Republicans.
The treatments all mention that these women candidates are bringing “new voices to politics,” with one candidate quoting as saying that she will bring a “fresh perspective to Washington.” Likewise, to ensure plausibility for both parties the story spoke generally of women running for offices at all levels of government.
As visual reinforcement the story included three photos of fictional women candidates with the caption: “Three candidates/Democratic candidates/Republican candidates running for seats in Congress, joining a national surge of women candidates across the country.” Also, both a headline and pull-put box underscored the theme of a “surge” in women candidates in 2020. The headline of the story was “A Big Year for Both Democratic and Republican Women/Democratic Women/Republican Women in the 2020 Elections.” The pull-out box contained a quote from a (fictional) woman candidate: “Women like me will get to work and make a difference for our communities and the rest of the nation,” with the candidate identified as “Charlene Washington, newly-elected Democratic/Republican member of Congress.” The text of the story included still more quotes, one from a winning woman candidate for the House of Representatives (“Amy Johnson,” from Michigan) and another from a scholar (“Maria Gonzalez”) commenting on the historic number of women running for office in recent years.
Political Engagement
Even if you’ve never thought about it, could you see yourself doing any of the following things in the future?
Please rate how likely you are to do any of the following in the future using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is not likely at all and 10 is very likely.
(order randomized)
A. Volunteer in my community
B. Vote in a public election
C. Work in a political campaign
D. Participate in a lawful demonstration
E. Write to public officials
F. Run for political office
In the analysis, items C-F are combined into an additive index, as exploratory factor analysis indicates that they form a common factor. Because they do not load well with the other items, "vote in a public election" and "volunteer in my community" are modeled separately.
Political Responsiveness
Using the slider, please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is disagree and 10 is agree.
(order randomized)
A. The political system helps people with their genuine needs
B. Politicians do not listen to people like me
C. I can make a difference solving problems in my community
D. Democracy is the best way to run this country
Gender Roles
Please use the slider to finish the statement below using a 0-10 scale where 0 is worse, 5 is the same, and 10 is better.
If we had more women in elected office, America would be…
Worse . . .. The same . . . Better
Leadership Traits
Many people think men and women political leaders have different strengths. Others think that there are no gender differences among our elected officials. What do you think?
In general, do you think men or women in high political office are better at each of the following, or is there no difference? Please use the slider below, using a 0-10 scale where 0 is men are generally better, 5 is no difference, and 10 is women are generally better.
(order randomized)
A. Working out compromises
B. Being a strong leader
C. Being honest and ethical
D. Working well under pressure
Items A and C are combined into an index of stereotypically feminine leadership traits, while B and D are similarly combined into a masculine traits index.
Sexist Attitudes
Using the slider, please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is disagree and 10 is agree.(order randomized) A. It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family B. Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States C. Women should be cherished and protected by men D. Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as sexist Items A,B, and D are combined into a Non-Sexism Index, coded so that higher values correspond to less-sexist attitudes. Item C (benevolent sexism) does not load with the other items and is thus modeled separately.
Here we summarize the findings, but for the complete results (including the magnitude of effects and standard errors), please consult the table.
In the following description the non-partisan treatment refers to the news story that describes a surge of women candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties, while the co-partisan treatment refers to how subjects respond when exposed to a story about women candidates from their party (e.g. Democratic subjects, Democratic candidates). Note that the partisan groups (Republicans, Democrats) include partisan leaners, or those subjects who initially indicate that they are independent but, upon follow-up, acknowledge leaning toward one party.
Political Engagement
Overall, there are few results. Boys are less likely to say that they will vote or volunteer in the community when exposed to the non-partisan treatment, while Republican girls are more likely to participate in politics upon reading the co-partisan treatment. Democratic girls are more likely to volunteer following the co-partisan treatment.
Political Responsiveness
Boys in general are less likely to be politically efficacious (believe they can make a difference in their community) after the non-partisan treatment. Republican girls, however, are more efficacious after the co-partisan story. Democratic boys are more likely to endorse democracy--both that it is the best way to govern and that it helps people with their needs--when they read about Democratic women running. Girls in general are more likely to say that politicians listen to people like them when exposed to the non-partisan treatment; the same is true of Democratic girls when they read about co-partisan candidates.
Gender Roles
The most notable findings are among Republican boys. Co-partisan women lead Republican boys to agree that America would be better off with more women in office. They also become more likely to say that women have feminine leadership traits, and hold less-sexist attitudes.
Boys in general also endorse feminine leadership traits when exposed to the non-partisan treatment. Republican girls, on the other hand, show a slight effect (p<.10) for masculine traits when they read about co-partisan women candidates. Girls in general become less likely to hold sexist attitudes when exposed to the non-partisan treatment.
Boys become more likely to endorse benevolent sexism (women should be cherished) after the non-partisan treatment, while Republican girls score lower on benevolent sexism upon exposure to the co-partisan treatment.