Voter Attitudes Toward Women in Politics

As part of CAWP's Research Inventory on Gender & Politics, this overview focuses on current and past research, with particular emphasis on the latest findings, related to voter attitudes toward women in politics. This overview captures the state of knowledge to increase understanding of current political realities, support research-based interventions, and generate future research questions and agendas.

Voter Attitudes Toward Women in Politics and research hub image

One area of investigation among researchers who study women and American politics is into voter attitudes toward women in politics. This includes studies on whether and how women are evaluated differently than men as political candidates and/or leaders. Other research has measured public opinion about how well women are or at what level they should be represented in politics. In addition, researchers have sought to better understand how voter identities shape their perceptions of women’s capacity to win and lead, or their feelings about political institutions and outcomes. While women have made significant progress toward gender parity in officeholding, voter knowledge and opinions about women’s representation also matter in motivating efforts to promote greater equality. 

Gender Stereotypes and Gendered Standards 

A robust literature exists on gender and intersectional stereotypes of women political candidates and officeholders. Early studies focused on gender stereotypes as a hindrance to women candidate recruitment, emergence, and success. They found gender disparities in trait attributions and perceptions of issue expertise. More specifically, research showed that women candidates were more likely than their male counterparts to be viewed as warm, compassionate, honest, and expressive – all traits more commonly associated with femininity over masculinity – and less likely than their male counterparts to be viewed as assertive, aggressive, tough, and decisive — all traits more commonly associated with masculinity over femininity.1 Likewise, when evaluating perceptions of politicians’ issue expertise, men fared better than women on masculine-typed issues like defense, foreign trade, and taxes, and women fared better than men on feminine-typed issues like daycare, education, and social welfare.2 While these findings suggest areas of both advantage and disadvantage for women in U.S. politics, scholarship on “role incongruity” established how trait and issue expertise expectations of leaders, especially those in politics, have been congruent with traits and expertise associated with masculinity and men, whereas stereotypes of femininity most associated with and expected of women are more incongruous with expectations of political leaders.3

A study of U.S. public opinion polls between 1946 and 2018 found a persistent and growing advantage of women over men on communal traits (e.g. affectionate, emotional), no significant change in men’s advantage over women on agentic traits (e.g. ambitious, courageous), and closure of the gender gap in perceptions of competence.4 But how well do these trends apply to evaluations of political leaders? In a meta-analysis of research evaluating gender stereotypes of political candidates between 1981 and 2021, Susan Banducci, Joanna Everitt, and Elisabeth Gidengil found a consistent but weak attribution of feminine personality traits and issue competencies to women and masculine personality traits and issue competencies to men.5

Findings from some recent studies show more notable shifts in stereotypic perceptions, with women politicians being viewed as equally assertive as men, equally competent on national security and economic issues, and even more capable of leadership, more intelligent, and more likely to work well under pressure than their male counterparts.6 In most of these studies, women also retain their advantage over men on stereotypically feminine traits such as compassion and honesty.7 Daphne Van der Pas, Loes Aaldering, and Angela Bos provide the clearest evidence of evolution in voter perceptions by replicating Monica Schneider and Angela Bos' 2014 study, which showed that women defined as “female politicians” lost some of the stereotypic advantages attributed to women on traits like empathy and integrity while still being viewed as deficient in stereotypically masculine traits valued for political leadership.8 About a decade later, Van der Pas, Aaldering, and Bos found that expectations of women politicians have improved in areas of both feminine and masculine advantage, including improved ratings on communality (e.g. caring, compassionate, sympathetic), integrity, and competence.9

How influential are stereotypic perceptions on evaluation of women candidates and officeholders? Multiple studies show that women candidates do not incur a gender penalty – and may even have small advantages over men – based upon stereotype associations, especially when tested in real-world contests instead of campaign simulations.10 A common finding across these studies is that partisanship overwhelms gender in campaigns, even if gender attitudes among voters persist.11 Relatedly, many experimental tests of the influence of candidate gender on vote choice in U.S. elections have found either no gender effect or a slight advantage to women.12 While many of these experimental studies do not specify the level or type of office being contested, those that do show how women candidates may be more at risk of electoral penalty at the presidential level; specifically, Yoshikuni Ono and Barry Burden’s survey of voters in 2016 found no gender effect on vote choice in simulated U.S. House elections, but a persistent disadvantage to women candidates in presidential contests even after accounting for voters’ gender stereotypes.13

Women candidates’ conscious efforts to address voters’ gender stereotypes while campaigning may explain findings that they are not penalized in election results.14 In experimental studies, researchers still find evidence that women politicians are penalized when they violate stereotypic expectations.15 Stereotypes may also be more consequential when activated in campaign settings. For example, Pamela Aronson and Matthew Fleming document the electoral boost to women candidates who challenged masculine dominance within the #MeToo era of the 2018 election,16 while multiple studies have found that women candidates can suffer in times of national security threats or war.17

A series of campaign simulations have shown that voters are both more likely to search for competence-related information for women than men candidates and are more likely to be influenced by that information when they are evaluating women instead of men.18 When women candidates and their teams are aware of these differences in voter expectations or evaluations, they can adjust strategy in ways that might ultimately obscure evidence of gender bias in election outcomes. Among those strategic adjustments are decisions on whether and when to run for office. In an analysis of U.S. House elections from 2006 to 2018, Sarah Fulton and Kostanca Dhima found that women’s equal (or even greater) rates of success to men were because the women who ran for office were more qualified than their male counterparts.19 Specifically, they find that women Democrats would have incurred a vote penalty if they were equally qualified to their male counterparts. 

Being held to different or higher standards is not unique to women candidates. Women officeholders receive more issue requests than men20 and more complaints than men when constituents are upset over policy decisions.21 Women legislators are also held to different accountability standards than men. They are more likely than men to be penalized for not being timely enough in responding to constituents,22 and constituents are more likely to account for the policy records of women than men officeholders in both approval ratings and vote choice.23 Women officeholders are responsive to these standards, perceiving “gendered vulnerability” and engaging in more work than their male counterparts to ensure re-election.24 Responsive to multiple and intersecting group interests, Black and Latina women legislators are especially active in bill sponsorship and policy leadership.25 For more, see overview of Women in Elective Office

Partisan Differences in Gendered Attitudes and Evaluation

Evaluations of women candidates and officeholders are also conditioned by party. For example, while Jennifer Wolak found no difference in constituent approval ratings of legislators by gender, she did find that congresswomen faced a slight gender penalty among constituents who did not share their party affiliation and a slight gender advantage among co-partisan constituents.26 Partisan alignment does not remove gendered scrutiny, however. In a congressional campaign simulation conducted in 2020, Tessa Ditonto, David Andersen, and David Peterson found that while party loyalty diminishes the impact of any gendered perceptions on vote choice, in-party voters were more likely to penalize women than men for policy incongruence with party positions.27

These findings are consistent with research that has shown that voters consider both gender and party in evaluating candidate traits and issue expertise. While Kira Sanbonmatsu and Kathleen Dolan showed that “gender stereotypes transcend party,” meaning that both Democratic and Republican voters see differences between women and men politicians, they also found that Democratic women are more likely than Republican women to benefit from the gender stereotypes held by their party’s voters.28 Monica Schneider and Angela Bos provide additional evidence that voters engage in “parallel processing” of gender and party when evaluating candidate traits and issue expertise.29 Researchers continue to assess whether this has distinctly positive or negative effects for women in either party. For example, many studies have found that gender stereotypes are more likely to advantage Democratic women than Republican women due to the valuation of stereotypically feminine traits and issue expertise among Democrats30 and the perception that women are more liberal than men.31 However, Republican women can also benefit from partisan expectations that they are more likely to hold masculine traits and issue expertise.32

Democrats and Republicans also hold different views about women’s political leadership, which can shape recruitment, evaluation, and support of women both inside and outside of their own party. For example, Pew’s 2018 survey on women leadership showed that 71% of Democrats, compared to 48% of Republicans, believed women in high political offices were better than men at being compassionate and empathic.33 Nearly half of Democrats (44%) reported that women were better than men at maintaining a tone of civility and respect, while 23% of Republicans said the same. Notably, Republicans were much less likely than Democrats to view these qualities as essential to good leadership, viewing men as superior on the traits they value most such as working well under pressure and standing up for what they believe in. And when asked about the value of being assertive – a stereotypically masculine trait – for women in politics, 61% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats said it would help. 

Intersectional Stereotyping

Gender stereotypes also operate concurrently with other identity-based expectations. In their work on sexual orientation and candidacy, Alesha Doan and Donald Haider-Markel offer the concept of “intersectional stereotyping” – “stereotyping that is created by the combination of more than one stereotype that together produce something unique and distinct from any one form of stereotyping standing alone” – as an analytical tool by which to better incorporate multiple axes of identity into research on political behavior.34 Researchers have adopted intersectional frameworks to better understand how both gender and racial/ethnic identities shape the experiences and evaluations of women in U.S. politics. Despite past emphases on the “double disadvantage” confronted by women in historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, more recent intersectional research has described the potential advantages of the distinct positionality vis-á-vis race and gender for Black35 and Latina36 women politicians, including their ability to attract support from those voters with shared gender and racial identities.37

These advantages do not negate the distinct challenges the same women confront as candidates and officeholders. For example, Jessica Carew used a 2011 survey data to document that elite Black women were viewed as more trustworthy and compassionate than elite whites, more ethical than elite white men, and more hard-working than elite white women.38 However, they were also viewed as more bossy and emotional than elite men. Using survey experiments, Sarah Allen Gershon and Jessica Lavariega Monforti found that while Black and white women suffered no notable penalty against their opponents in voter evaluations, Latinas’ opponents were seen as superior in both leadership abilities and experience.39 Ivy Cargile documents the lower ratings that Latina candidates receive among white respondents on both stereotypically masculine and feminine traits that are valued in officeholders.40

The association of liberalism with women candidates is also important to evaluate at the intersection of race and gender. Black women candidates are often viewed as the most liberal candidates compared to those with other race-gender identities.41 And Latinas are perceived as more liberal than women candidates presented without a distinct racial identification.42 While a strong association with liberalism should benefit Black women in Democratic primaries, Philip Chen and Ashley Sorenson document an “ideology-electability paradox” confronting Black women candidates; any advantage Black women gain from being viewed as the most liberal is erased by perceptions that they are less electable than other candidates who are white or male.43 For more, see overviews of Asian American, Black, and Latina Women in Politics

Sex, Sexism, and Gendered Evaluations

Partisan differences in preferences for gendered traits inform candidate evaluations regardless of sex of the candidate or those evaluating them. For example, Christopher Karpowitz and colleagues found a correlation between candidate sex and gendered trait/expertise attribution, emphasizing that it is the masculine preference (not male preference) of Republicans that penalizes women and those who present in stereotypically feminine ways.44 The same penalty is not evident among Democratic voters, who are more likely to value stereotypically feminine traits and issue expertise in political leadership.45 In another experimental study, Damon Roberts and Stephen Utych found that candidates’ use of feminine or masculine language was more influential on voter support than candidate sex.46 Using feminine language cued liberalism in ways that increased support from liberal voters, while masculine language cued the conservativism that boosted support from conservative voters. For more, see overview of Women Candidates and their Campaigns

Scholars have also measured the influence of sexism on evaluations of women in U.S. politics. In one study, Nicholas Winter found that support for feminine candidates goes down and support for masculine candidates goes up – regardless of candidate sex – as benevolent sexism rises.47 Other studies have found a direct and negative relationship between individuals’ level of hostile sexism and their likelihood of approving of or voting for women politicians.48 In studying constituent approval ratings of congresswomen, Wolak found this relationship is conditioned by partisanship, such that the penalty for women officeholders among hostile sexists is significantly smaller if the constituent and officeholder share partisanship.49 Drawing from their study of gubernatorial primaries in 2022, Kathleen Dolan and Jennifer Lawless argue that while women candidates do receive less positive evaluations from sexist voters, the electoral penalty of those perceptions is nearly negligible because there “just aren’t enough of them in primary elections to make much of a difference.”50

Women Supporting Women?

A recurring question among both researchers and practitioners is if women voters are more likely to vote for women candidates on the basis of gender affinity. While some research has shown that shared gender identity does make women voters more likely than men to support women candidates,51 those effects are limited and conditional on factors like issue saliency, shared partisanship, incumbency, and whether it is a high or low-information election.52 Katelyn Stauffer and Colin Fisk use the uniqueness of top-two general elections in California and Washington – where candidates of the same party can compete against each other at the general election stage – to show that women voters were more likely than men to vote for women candidates in same-party, mixed-gender congressional elections between 2012 and 2018.53 However, in evaluating the presidential election of 2016, Marzia Oceno, Nicholas Valentino, and Carly Wayne found no gender affinity in support for Hillary Clinton.54 Instead, they found that voters’ levels of anti-feminism and modern sexism were more influential to their support for Clinton than was their own sex. Using an experimental approach instead of relying on real-world election data to measure the effects of candidate sex on vote choice, Ono and Burden found that women were no more likely to vote for women over men candidates for U.S. House or president; however, they did find that men in their study show a preference for men over women candidates.55 

In his analysis of 1992 U.S. Senate election exit polls, Philip Paolino clarified that women are motivated to support women candidates when and because they believe that women candidates will be most likely to pay attention to gender-salient issues.56 A more recent study from Ryan Bell and Gabriel Borelli found that endorsements from marginalized groups (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation) are more impactful on voter behavior than candidate identities alone; for example, an endorsement from a gender equality organization matters more than a candidate being a woman.57 While they also found some base preference for women candidates among women participants, their findings suggest that “associational effects” matter more than affinity effects rooted in shared identity. 

The correlation between gender and party is also important in interpreting affinity effects. Multiple studies using hypothetical match-ups show that Democratic voters actually prefer women candidates, while Republicans show either no clear gender preference or a preference for men.58 When asked more directly who they view as better political leaders in an August 2022 survey, Republicans were more likely (27%) than Democrats (4%) to say that “men generally make better political leaders than women.”59 In contrast, more Democratic women (27%) and men (23%) than Republican women (5%) and men (2%) agreed that “women generally make better political leaders than men.”60 These data demonstrate that respondent party matters more than respondent gender in these views, which may reflect assumptions among Republicans that women political leaders are most commonly Democrats. Finally, because women candidates and officeholders are disproportionately Democrats and women voters are more likely to back Democrats over Republicans, women are more likely than men to back women candidates in two-party contests due more to their partisan than sex preference. 

Celeste Montoya and colleagues surveyed respondents about the importance of shared identities in candidate evaluation.61 They found that it is shared race and gender identities, not gender identity alone, that increases voter perceptions that candidates will represent their interests. The same authors also found that feelings of minority linked fate, defined as perceptions that “what happens generally to racial and ethnic minorities in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life,” were more influential to Black and Latina women’s perceptions of representation than to the perceptions of their male counterparts.62 These studies, along with more robust research in race and politics, serve as a reminder that identity-based affinity effects in U.S. politics and elections are unlikely to operate along a single axis in any setting. For more, see overview of Women Voters

Voter Knowledge of and Opinions on Levels of Women’s Political Representation 

Are people in the U.S. aware of women’s political underrepresentation? While findings vary by study, the most consistent finding is that a majority of Americans misestimate women’s political representation. In a national survey conducted in February 2019, Burden and Ono found that respondents on average overestimated women’s congressional and state legislative representation.63 Sanbonmatsu’s analysis of 2018 data showed that 29.2% of Americans over-estimated, 39.6% underestimated, and 31.2% estimated correctly the percentage of women in Congress.64 Consistent with her research from nearly two decades prior, she found that those who overestimated women’s political representation were less supportive of electing more women to office, while those who underestimated women’s political representation expressed support for increasing it.65 Republicans have been among the most likely to overestimate the number of women in political office.66

Republicans are also less likely than Democrats to express a desire for more women in political office. While 77% of Democrats agreed that the country would be better off with more women in political office in an August 2022 PerryUndem survey, just 17% of Republicans agreed.67 Three-quarters of Democrats and 29% of Republicans in a 2023 Pew survey reported that there are too few women in high political offices today; at the time of the survey, women held 28.2% of seats in the U.S. Congress and 31.3% of statewide elective executive offices nationwide.68 In both surveys, Republican women were more likely than Republican men and Democratic women were more likely than Democratic men to support more women in politics. They were also more likely than their male counterparts to identify gendered obstacles – such as higher standards, gender discrimination, lack of encouragement, or voter and party leader bias – as reasons for women’s political underrepresentation.69 Still, Democrats are more likely to attribute women’s political underrepresentation to systemic biases that are out of women’s control while Republicans are more likely to believe that women’s underrepresentation is due to familial demands, because they have less political interest than men, and/or because they are lacking in the right experience for officeholding.70 Kathleen Dolan and Michael Hansen found that those people who blame the system for women’s underrepresentation are more likely to want more women in office while those who blame women are less likely to express a desire for more women officeholders.71

In a 2022 YouGov survey, 58% of Democrats and 32% of Republicans said it was very or somewhat important that “elected officials in this country are representative of Americans overall in regard to their gender.” Likewise, 61% of Democrats and 34% of Republicans said it was important that U.S. elected officials were representative of Americans in regard to race/ethnicity.72 Multiple recent surveys have asked separately about their support for more women and more women of color in political office. Slightly fewer respondents express support for increasing the number of women of color officeholders specifically than women generally.73 In Sanbonmatsu’s study, Democrats and people of color were less likely to show more support for the category of women over women of color, while non-Hispanic white respondents were less supportive of increasing representation for women of color than respondents of color.74 Looking at women respondents by racial identification specifically, Yalidy Matos, Stacey Greene, and Kira Sanbonmatsu found that white women expressed the least support – compared to Black women, Latinas, and women identifying in “other” racial categories – for having more women of color in Congress.75

Many scholars have investigated whether the number of women in political office affects things like citizen trust, engagement, ambition, or perceptions of efficacy — especially among women and other historically underrepresented groups. Stauffer finds, however, that beliefs about women’s inclusion are more impactful.76 Specifically, she finds that Americans who estimate a higher percentage of women are in Congress have more trust in government, report higher levels of efficacy, hold more positive views of the legislative process, and express more satisfaction with how Congress functions.77 Citizens who perceive more gender inclusive state legislatures also view those institutions as more responsive to the concerns of people like them.78 For more, see overview of Women in Elective Office

Suggested Citation: Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Paru Shah. 2026. CAWP Research Inventory on Gender & Politics. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Endnotes 

1Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Andersen. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attributions of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46: 527–45; Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993a. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47; Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

2 Alexander and Andersen 1993; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a; Kahn 1996

3 Eagly, Alice H., and Steven J. Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–98; Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993b. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 503–25; Koenig, Anne M., Alice H. Eagly, Abigail A. Mitchell, and Tiina Ristikari. 2011. “Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms.” Psychological Bulletin 137 (4): 616–42. 

4 Eagly, Alice, Christa Nater, David I. Miller, Michèle Kaufmann, and Sabine Sczesny. 2020. “Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018.” American Psychologist 75 (3): 301–15.

5 Banducci, Susan, Joanna Everitt, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 2025. "Studying Gender Stereotypes of Political Candidates Over Four Decades." European Journal of Politics and Gender (Online): 1-27.

6 Gothreau, Claire, and Lasse Laustsen. 2025. "Shifting Stereotypes About Men and Women Candidates: Experimental Evidence from the United States." Politics & Gender 21 (4): 742–66; Cormack, Lindsey, and Kristyn L. Karl. 2022. "Why Women Earn High Marks: Examining the Role of Partisanship and Gender in Political Evaluations." Politics & Gender 18 (3): 768–97; Horowitz, Juliana Menasce, Ruth Igielnik, and Kim Parker. 2018. “Women and Leadership 2018.” Pew Research Center, September 20. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/; Van der Pas, Daphne, Loes Aaldering, and Angela L. Bos. 2024. “Looks Like a Leader: Measuring Evolution in Gendered Politician Stereotypes.” Political Behavior 46: 1653–75. 

7 Horowitz, Igielnik, and Parker 2018; Van der Pas, Aaldering, and Bos 2024

8 Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2014. “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians.” Political Psychology 35 (2): 245–66. 

9 Van der Pas, Aaldering, and Bos 2024

10 Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2013. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dolan, Kathleen, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2023. “Gender Bias in Primary Elections? Survey Says No.” Paper presented at the spring meeting of the National Capital Area Political Science Association’s American Politics Workshop, Washington, DC, June 6; Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigning in a Polarized Era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

11 Dolan 2014; Hayes and Lawless 2016; Ono, Yoshikuni, and Barry C. Burden. 2018. “The Contingent Effects of Candidate Sex on Voter Choice.” Political Behavior 41: 583–607.

12 Schwarz, Susanne, and Alexander Coppock. 2021. "What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments." The Journal of Politics 84 (2): 655–68.

13 Ono and Burden 2018

14 Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

15 Schneider, Monica C., Angela L. Bos, and Madeline DeFilippo. 2022. "Gender Role Violations and Voter Prejudice: The Agentic Penalty Faced by Women Politicians." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (2): 117–33; Sweet-Cushman, Jennie. 2022. "Legislative vs. Executive Political Offices: How Gender Stereotypes Can Disadvantage Women in Either Office." Political Behavior 44 (1): 411–34; Rohrbach, Tobias. 2025. "Are Women Politicians Kind and Competent? Disentangling Stereotype Incongruity in Candidate Evaluations.” Political Behavior 47 (1): 411–34.

16 Aronson, Pamela, and Matthew R. Fleming. 2023. Gender Revolution: How Electoral Politics and #MeToo are Reshaping Everyday Life. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

17 Holman, Mirya R., Jennifer L. Merolla, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2011. “Sex, Stereotypes, and Security: A Study of the Effects of Terrorist Threat on Assessments of Female Leadership.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 32 (3): 173–92; Schneider, Bos, and DeFilippo 2022

18 Ditonto, Tessa M., Allison J. Hamilton, and David P. Redlawsk. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Information Search, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 335–58; Ditonto, Tessa. 2017. “A High Bar or a Double Standard? Gender, Competence, and Information in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 39 (2): 301–25. 

19 Fulton, Sarah A., and Kostanca Dhima. 2021. "The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections." Political Behavior 43 (4): 1611–37.

20 Butler, Daniel M., Elin Naurin, and Patrik Öhberg. 2022. "Constituents Ask Female Legislators to Do More." The Journal of Politics 84 (4): 2278–82.

21 Håkansson, Sandra. 2024. "Explaining Citizen Hostility against Women Political Leaders: A Survey Experiment in the United States and Sweden." Politics & Gender 20 (1): 1–28.

22 Costa, Mia. 2021. "He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator-Constituent Communication." Politics & Gender 17 (4): 528–51.

23 Kaslovsky, Jaclyn, and Jon C. Rogowski. 2022. "Under the Microscope: Gender and Accountability in the US Congress." American Political Science Review 116 (2): 516–32.

24 Lazarus, Jeffrey, and Amy Steigerwalt. 2018. Gendered Vulnerability: How Women Work Harder to Stay in Office. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

25 Reingold, Beth, Kerry L. Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26 Wolak, Jennifer. 2024. "Partisan Bias and Evaluations of Women in Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 12 (5): 1074–92.

27 Ditonto, Tessa, David J. Andersen, and David A. M. Peterson. 2025. “The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates.” Politics & Gender (Online): 1–31. 

28 Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kathleen Dolan. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?” Political Research Quarterly 62 (3): 489.

29 Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2016. “The Interplay of Candidate Party and Gender in Evaluations of Political Candidates." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37 (3): 274–94.

30 Bauer, Nichole M. 2018. “Untangling the Relationship between Partisanship, Gender Stereotypes, and Support for Female Candidates.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39 (1): 1–25; Horowitz, Igielnik, and Parker 2018; Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge. 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94; Sanbonmatsu and Dolan 2009

31 Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29; King, David C., and Richard E. Matland. 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 (6): 595–612.

32 Cassese, Erin C., and Mirya R. Holman. 2018. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40: 785–807.

33 Horowitz, Igielnik, and Parker 2018

34 Doan, Alesha E., and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2010. “The Role of Intersectional Stereotypes on Evaluations of Gay and Lesbian Political Candidates.” Politics & Gender 6 (1): 71. See also Cassese, Erin. 2019. “Intersectional Stereotyping in Political Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 

35 Carew, Jessica Denyse Johnson. 2016. “Stereotyping of Black Women in Elections.” In Distinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, eds. Nadia E. Brown and Sarah Allen Gershon. New York, NY: Routledge, 95–115; Gordon, Ann, and Jerry Miller. 2005. When Stereotypes Collide: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Videostyle in Congressional Campaigns. New York, NY: Peter Lang.


36 Bejarano, Christina E. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

37 Cargile, Ivy A. M. 2023. "Stereotyping Latinas: Candidate Gender and Ethnicity on the Political Stage." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 207–25; Philpot, Tasha S., and Hanes Walton, Jr. 2007. “One of Our Own: Black Female Candidates and the Voters Who Support Them.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 49–62.

38 Carew 2016

39 Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavarriega Monforti. 2021. "Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 439–63.

40 Cargile 2023

41 Chen, Philip, and Ashley Sorensen. 2025. "Raced-Gendered Electability: Support, Donations, and Democratic Double Standards for Black Women Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 78 (3): 942–56; Carew 2016

42 Cargile 2023

43 Chen and Sorensen 2025

44 Karpowitz et al. 2024

45 Bernhard, Rachel. 2022. "Wearing the Pants(suit)? Gendered Leadership Styles, Partisanship, and Candidate Evaluation in the 2016 U.S. Election." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 513–45; Karpowitz et al. 2024; Roberts, Damon C., and Stephen Utych. 2022. "A Delicate Hand or Two-Fisted Aggression? How Gendered Language Influences Candidate Perceptions." American Politics Research 50 (3): 353–65.

46 Roberts and Utych 2022

47 Benevolent sexism is rooted in beliefs that men and women have fundamentally different roles and traits, including men’s role to protect women. Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2023. "Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, and American Elections." Politics & Gender 19 (2): 427–56.

48 Hostile sexism refers to beliefs such as women demanding equality are seeking special favors and that women complaining about discrimination cause more problems than they solve. Winter 2023; Wolak 2024

49 Wolak 2024

50 Dolan and Lawless 2023, 19

51 Bell, Ryan, and Gabriel Borelli. 2024. "Marginalization by Proxy: Voter Evaluations at the Intersection of Candidate Identity and Community Ties." Politics & Gender 20 (2): 422–48; McDonald, Jared, and Melissa Deckman. 2023. "New Voters, New Attitudes: How Gen Z Americans Rate Candidates with Respect to Generation, Gender, and Race." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 345–65; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women’s Place. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Stauffer, Katelyn E., and Colin A. Fisk. 2022. "Are You My Candidate? Gender, Undervoting, and Vote Choice in Same-Party Matchups." Politics & Gender 18 (3): 575–604.

52 Dolan, Kathleen. 2008. “Is There a ‘Gender Affinity Effect’ in American Politics?: Information, Affect, and Candidate Sex in U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (1): 79–89; Dolan and Lawless 2023; McDonald and Deckman 2023

53 Stauffer and Fisk 2022

54 Oceno, Marzia, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Carly Wayne. 2023. "The Electoral Costs and Benefits of Feminism in Contemporary American Politics." Political Behavior 45 (1): 153–73.

55 Ono and Burden 2018

56 Paolino, Phillip. 1995. “Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 294–313.

57 Bell and Borelli 2024

58 Kirkland, Patricia A., and Alexander Coppock. 2018. “Candidate Choice Without Party Labels.” Political Behavior 40 (3): 571–91; Saltzer, Sara, and Mary C. McGrath. 2024. "Voter Bias and the Partisan Gender-Gap in Office." Political Behavior 46 (1): 473–500; Stauffer and Fisk 2022; Teele, Dawn Langan, Joshua Kalla, and Frances Rosenbluth. 2018. “The Ties that Double Bind: Social Roles and Women’s Underrepresentation in Politics.” American Political Science Review 112 (3): 525–41.

59 PerryUndem. 2023. “Assessing the State of Public Opinion Toward Women, Gender, Equality – and Abortion.” https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PerryUndem-Landscape-of-Views-toward-Women-Gender-and-Abortion.pdf

60 PerryUndem 2023

61 Montoya, Celeste M., Christina Bejarano, Nadia E. Brown, and Sarah Allen Gershon. 2022. "The Intersectional Dynamics of Descriptive Representation." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 483–512.

62 Bejarano, Christina, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, and Celeste Montoya. 2021. "Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 975.

63 Burden, Barry C., and Yoshikuni Ono. 2020. “Ignorance is Bliss? Age, Misinformation, and Support for Women’s Representation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (4): 838–59.

64 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2021. "Public Support for ‘More’ Women in Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 646–56.

65 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2003. “Gender-Related Political Knowledge and the Descriptive Representation of Women.” Political Behavior 25 (4): 367–88; Sanbonmatsu 2021

66 Burden and Ono 2020; PerryUndem. 2021. “Understanding the 2020 Election, the Electorate, and the Trump Years.”  https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PerryUndem-Post-Election-Survey-Report.pdf; Niebler, Sarah, and A. Lanathea Mathews-Schultz. 2021. “What Do Pennsylvania Voters Think About Gender and Women’s Representation? What We Learned From 2016 and 2018 Exit Polls.” Commonwealth 21 (1): 7–29.

67 Horowitz, Juliana Menasce, and Isabel Goddard. 2023. “Women and Political Leadership Ahead of the 2024 Election.” Pew Research Center, September 27. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/09/27/women-and-political-leadership-ahead-of-the-2024-election/; PerryUndem 2023

68 Horowitz and Goddard 2023; PerryUndem 2023

69 Horowitz and Goddard 2023

70 Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu; Dolan, Kathleen, and Michael Hansen. 2018. “Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women’s Underrepresentation in Elected Office.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (3): 668–80.

71 Dolan and Hansen 2018

72 Orth, Taylor. 2022. “What Americans Think About the Diversity of their Elected Officials.” YouGov, November 18. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/44473-americans-think-about-diversity-elected-officials

73 PerryUndem 2023; Sanbonmatsu 2021

74 Sanbonmatsu 2021

75 Matos, Yalidy, Stacey Greene, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2021. "Do Women Seek ‘Women of Color’ for Public Office? Exploring Women's Support for Electing Women of Color." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 259–73.

76 Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2025. The Politics of Perception How Beliefs about Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

77 Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2021. "Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1226–41; Stauffer 2025

78 Stauffer 2021

  • 1

    Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Andersen. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attributions of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46: 527–45; Huddy, Leonie and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993a. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47; Kahn, Kim Fridkin.1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

  • 2

    Alexander and Andersen 1993; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a; Kahn 1996

  • 3

    Eagly, Alice H., and Steven J. Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–98; Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993b. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 503–25; Koenig, Anne M., Alice H. Eagly, Abigail A. Mitchell, and Tiina Ristikari. 2011. “Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms.” Psychological Bulletin 137 (4): 616–42. 

  • 4

    Eagly, Alice, Christa Nater, David I. Miller, Michèle Kaufmann, and Sabine Sczesny. 2020. “Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018.” American Psychologist 75 (3): 301–15.

  • 5

    Banducci, Susan, Joanna Everitt, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 2025. "Studying Gender Stereotypes of Political Candidates Over Four Decades." European Journal of Politics and Gender (Online): 1-27.

  • 6

    Gothreau, Claire, and Lasse Laustsen. 2025. "Shifting Stereotypes About Men and Women Candidates: Experimental Evidence from the United States." Politics & Gender 21 (4): 742–66; Cormack, Lindsey, and Kristyn L. Karl. 2022. "Why Women Earn High Marks: Examining the Role of Partisanship and Gender in Political Evaluations." Politics & Gender 18 (3): 768–97; Horowitz, Juliana Menasce, Ruth Igielnik, and Kim Parker. 2018. “Women and Leadership 2018.” Pew Research Center, September 20. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/; Van der Pas, Daphne, Loes Aaldering, and Angela L. Bos. 2024. “Looks Like a Leader: Measuring Evolution in Gendered Politician Stereotypes.” Political Behavior 46: 1653–75. 

  • 7

    Horowitz, Igielnik, and Parker 2018; Van der Pas, Aaldering, and Bos 2024

  • 8

    Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2014. “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians.” Political Psychology 35 (2): 245–66. 

  • 9

    Van der Pas, Aaldering, and Bos 2024

  • 10

    Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2013. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dolan, Kathleen, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2023. “Gender Bias in Primary Elections? Survey Says No.” Paper presented at the spring meeting of the National Capital Area Political Science Association’s American Politics Workshop, Washington, DC, June 6; Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigning in a Polarized Era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • 11

    Dolan 2014; Hayes and Lawless 2016; Ono, Yoshikuni, and Barry C. Burden. 2018. “The Contingent Effects of Candidate Sex on Voter Choice.” Political Behavior 41: 583–607.

  • 12

    Schwarz, Susanne, and Alexander Coppock. 2021. "What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments." The Journal of Politics 84 (2): 655–68

  • 13

    Ono and Burden 2018

  • 14

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

  • 15

    Schneider, Monica C., Angela L. Bos, and Madeline DeFilippo. 2022. "Gender Role Violations and Voter Prejudice: The Agentic Penalty Faced by Women Politicians." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (2): 117-33; Sweet-Cushman, Jennie. 2022. "Legislative vs. Executive Political Offices: How Gender Stereotypes Can Disadvantage Women in Either Office." Political Behavior 44 (1): 411–34; Rohrbach, Tobias. 2025. "Are Women Politicians Kind and Competent? Disentangling Stereotype Incongruity in Candidate Evaluations.” Political Behavior 47 (1): 411–34.

  • 16

    Aronson, Pamela, and Matthew R. Fleming. 2023. Gender Revolution: How Electoral Politics and #MeToo are Reshaping Everyday Life. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

  • 17

    Holman, Mirya R., Jennifer L. Merolla, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2011. “Sex, Stereotypes, and Security: A Study of the Effects of Terrorist Threat on Assessments of Female Leadership.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 32 (3): 173–92; Schneider, Bos, and DeFilippo 2022

  • 18

    Ditonto, Tessa M., Allison J. Hamilton, and David P. Redlawsk. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Information Search, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 335–58; Ditonto, Tessa. 2017. “A High Bar or a Double Standard? Gender, Competence, and Information in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 39 (2): 301–25. 

  • 19

    Fulton, Sarah A., and Kostanca Dhima. 2021. "The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections." Political Behavior 43 (4): 1611–37.

  • 20

    Butler, Daniel M., Elin Naurin, and Patrik Öhberg. 2022. "Constituents Ask Female Legislators to Do More." The Journal of Politics 84 (4): 2278–82.

  • 21

    Håkansson, Sandra. 2024. "Explaining Citizen Hostility against Women Political Leaders: A Survey Experiment in the United States and Sweden." Politics & Gender 20 (1): 1–28.

  • 22

    Costa, Mia. 2021. "He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator-Constituent Communication." Politics & Gender 17 (4): 528–51.

  • 23

    Kaslovsky, Jaclyn, and Jon C. Rogowski. 2022. "Under the Microscope: Gender and Accountability in the US Congress." American Political Science Review 116 (2): 516–32.

  • 24

    Lazarus, Jeffrey, and Amy Steigerwalt. 2018. Gendered Vulnerability: How Women Work Harder to Stay in Office. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

  • 25

    Reingold, Beth, Kerry L. Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 26

    Wolak, Jennifer. 2024. "Partisan Bias and Evaluations of Women in Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 12 (5): 1074–92.

  • 27

    Ditonto, Tessa, David J. Andersen, and David A. M. Peterson. 2025. “The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates.” Politics & Gender (Online): 1-31. 

  • 28

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kathleen Dolan. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?” Political Research Quarterly 62 (3): 489.

  • 29

    Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2016. “The Interplay of Candidate Party and Gender in Evaluations of Political Candidates." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37 (3): 274–94.

  • 30

    Bauer, Nichole M. 2018. “Untangling the Relationship between Partisanship, Gender Stereotypes, and Support for Female Candidates.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39 (1): 1-25; Horowitz, Igielnik, and Parker 2018; Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge. 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94; Sanbonmatsu and Dolan 2009

  • 31

    Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29; King, David C., and Richard E. Matland. 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 (6): 595–612.

  • 32

    Cassese, Erin C., and Mirya R. Holman. 2018. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40: 785–807.

  • 33

    Horowitz, Igielnik, and Parker 2018

  • 34

    Doan, Alesha E., and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2010. “The Role of Intersectional Stereotypes on Evaluations of Gay and Lesbian Political Candidates.” Politics & Gender 6 (1): 71. See also Cassese, Erin. 2019. “Intersectional Stereotyping in Political Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 

  • 35

    Carew, Jessica Denyse Johnson. 2016. “Stereotyping of Black Women in Elections.” In Distinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, eds. Nadia E. Brown and Sarah Allen Gershon. New York, NY: Routledge, 95–115; Gordon, Ann, and Jerry Miller. 2005. When Stereotypes Collide: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Videostyle in Congressional Campaigns. New York, NY: Peter Lang.


  • 36

    Bejarano, Christina E. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

  • 37

    Cargile, Ivy A. M. 2023. "Stereotyping Latinas: Candidate Gender and Ethnicity on the Political Stage." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 207–25; Philpot, Tasha S., and Hanes Walton, Jr. 2007. “One of Our Own: Black Female Candidates and the Voters Who Support Them.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 49–62.

  • 38

    Carew 2016

  • 39

    Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavarriega Monforti. 2021. "Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 439–63.

  • 40

    Cargile 2023

  • 41

    Chen, Philip, and Ashley Sorensen. 2025. "Raced-Gendered Electability: Support, Donations, and Democratic Double Standards for Black Women Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 78 (3): 942–56; Carew 2016

  • 42

    Cargile 2023

  • 43

    Chen and Sorensen 2025

  • 44

    Karpowitz et al. 2024

  • 45

    Bernhard, Rachel. 2022. "Wearing the Pants(suit)? Gendered Leadership Styles, Partisanship, and Candidate Evaluation in the 2016 U.S. Election." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 513–45; Karpowitz et al. 2024; Roberts, Damon C., and Stephen Utych. 2022. "A Delicate Hand or Two-Fisted Aggression? How Gendered Language Influences Candidate Perceptions." American Politics Research 50 (3): 353–65.

  • 46

    Roberts and Utych 2022

  • 47

    Benevolent sexism is rooted in beliefs that men and women have fundamentally different roles and traits, including men’s role to protect women. Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2023. "Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, and American Elections." Politics & Gender 19 (2): 427–56.

  • 48

    Hostile sexism refers to beliefs such as women demanding equality are seeking special favors and that women complaining about discrimination cause more problems than they solve. Winter 2023; Wolak 2024

  • 49

    Wolak 2024

  • 50

    Dolan and Lawless 2023, 19

  • 51

    Bell, Ryan, and Gabriel Borelli. 2024. "Marginalization by Proxy: Voter Evaluations at the Intersection of Candidate Identity and Community Ties." Politics & Gender 20 (2): 422–48; McDonald, Jared, and Melissa Deckman. 2023. "New Voters, New Attitudes: How Gen Z Americans Rate Candidates with Respect to Generation, Gender, and Race." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 345–65; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women’s Place. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Stauffer, Katelyn E., and Colin A. Fisk. 2022. "Are You My Candidate? Gender, Undervoting, and Vote Choice in Same-Party Matchups." Politics & Gender 18 (3): 575–604.

  • 52

    Dolan, Kathleen. 2008. “Is There a ‘Gender Affinity Effect’ in American Politics?: Information, Affect, and Candidate Sex in U.S. House Elections: Information, Affect, and Candidate Sex in U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (1): 79–89; Dolan and Lawless 2023; McDonald and Deckman 2023

  • 53

    Stauffer and Fisk 2022

  • 54

    Oceno, Marzia, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Carly Wayne. 2023. "The Electoral Costs and Benefits of Feminism in Contemporary American Politics." Political Behavior 45 (1): 153–73.

  • 55

    Ono and Burden 2018

  • 56

    Paolino, Phillip. 1995. “Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 294–313.

  • 57

    Bell and Borelli 2024

  • 58

    Kirkland, Patricia A., and Alexander Coppock. 2018. “Candidate Choice Without Party Labels.” Political Behavior 40 (3): 571–91; Saltzer, Sara, and Mary C. McGrath. 2024. "Voter Bias and the Partisan Gender-Gap in Office." Political Behavior 46 (1): 473–500; Stauffer and Fisk 2022; Teele, Dawn Langan, Joshua Kalla, and Frances Rosenbluth. 2018. “The Ties that Double Bind: Social Roles and Women’s Underrepresentation in Politics.” American Political Science Review 112 (3): 525–41.

  • 59

    PerryUndem. 2023. “Assessing the State of Public Opinion Toward Women, Gender, Equality – and Abortion.” https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PerryUndem-Landscape-of-Views-toward-Women-Gender-and-Abortion.pdf

  • 60

    PerryUndem 2023


     

  • 61

    Montoya, Celeste M., Christina Bejarano, Nadia E. Brown, and Sarah Allen Gershon. 2022. "The Intersectional Dynamics of Descriptive Representation." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 483–512.

  • 62

    Bejarano, Christina, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, and Celeste Montoya. 2021. "Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 975.

  • 63

    Burden, Barry C., and Yoshikuni Ono. 2020. “Ignorance is Bliss? Age, Misinformation, and Support for Women’s Representation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (4): 838–59.

  • 64

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2021. "Public Support for ‘More’ Women in Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 646–56.

  • 65

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2003. “Gender-Related Political Knowledge and the Descriptive Representation of Women.” Political Behavior 25 (4): 367–88; Sanbonmatsu 2021

  • 66

    Burden and Ono 2020; PerryUndem. 2021. “Understanding the 2020 Election, the Electorate, and the Trump Years.”  https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PerryUndem-Post-Election-Survey-Report.pdf; Niebler, Sarah, and A. Lanathea Mathews-Schultz. 2021. “What Do Pennsylvania Voters Think About Gender and Women’s Representation? What We Learned From 2016 and 2018 Exit Polls.” Commonwealth 21 (1): 7–29.

  • 67

    PerryUndem 2023

  • 68

    Horowitz, Juliana Menasce, and Isabel Goddard. 2023. “Women and Political Leadership Ahead of the 2024 Election.” Pew Research Center, September 27. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/09/27/women-and-political-leadership-ahead-of-the-2024-election/; PerryUndem 2023

  • 69

    Horowitz and Goddard 2023

  • 70

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu; Dolan, Kathleen, and Michael Hansen. 2018. “Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women’s Underrepresentation in Elected Office.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (3): 668–80.

  • 71

    Dolan and Hansen 2018

  • 72

    Orth, Taylor. 2022. “What Americans Think About the Diversity of their Elected Officials.” YouGov, November 18. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/44473-americans-think-about-diversity-elected-officials

  • 73

    PerryUndem 2023; Sanbonmatsu 2021

  • 74

    Sanbonmatsu 2021, 650–652

  • 75

    Matos, Yalidy, Stacey Greene, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2021. "Do Women Seek ‘Women of Color’ for Public Office? Exploring Women's Support for Electing Women of Color." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 259–73.

  • 76

    Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2025. The Politics of Perception How Beliefs about Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 77

    Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2021. "Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1226–41; Stauffer 2025

  • 78

    Stauffer 2021