Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on...

Southern Political Science Association

Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and CampaignCoverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate CandidatesAuthor(s): Kim Fridkin KahnSource: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 54, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 497-517Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2132036 .Accessed: 08/09/2011 03:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2132036?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and

Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate Candidates

Kim Fridkin Kahn Arizona State University

This study examines the possibility that the news media, by covering male and female candidates differently, may influence the success of female candidates. A content analysis of newspaper coverage of U.S. Senate campaigns shows that male and female Senate candidates are covered differently in the news. An experiment was conducted to explore the consequences of these differences in coverage, as well as the significance of the candidates' gender, for evaluations of Senate candidates. The experimental results suggest that gender differences in coverage tend to advantage male candidates. For instance, candidates who are covered like male candidates in the news are considered more viable than candidates who are covered like female candidates. Sex stereotypes, on the other hand, can advantage female candidates. Female candidates are viewed as more compassionate and more honest than identical male candidates. The findings from this study support the hypothesis that the mass media may influence a woman's chances of success at the polls. Male and female candidates are covered differently in the news and these differences often produce negative assessments of women candidates.

A although the media play a central role in political campaigns, little is known about the media's impact on voters' political attitudes. Recent work in the noncampaign context shows that the media structure how people think about politics (Iyengar and Kinder 1987; MacKuen 1981; Erbring, Goldenberg, and Miller 1980). However, the electoral consequences of this "media structuring" have received little attention. This study investigates whether news coverage of campaigns advantages certain candidates at the expense of others; in particular, whether the press differentiates between coverage of men and women candidates and whether these differences influence voters' perceptions of the candidates. This study explores the possibility that the media, by treating men and women candidates differently, influence their access to political office.

I would like to thank Edie Goldenberg, John Geer, Pat Kenney, Warren Miller, and Mike Traugott for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Amy Cuzzola for her assistance in data collection.

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICSVo1. 54, No. 2, May 1992 X 1992 by the University of Texas Press

498 Kim Fridkin Kahn

Despite gains in recent years, women still win political office (especially high office) much less frequently than men. Of the 25 women who ran for the U.S. Senate between 1984 and 1990, only two succeeded; one of these women, Barbara Mikulski, defeated another woman. In 1984 and 1986 (the period covered in this study), women candidates won election to the U.S. Senate less frequently than their male counterparts. Male incumbents were reelected 84% of the time, while female incumbents won reelection only 50% of the time; 20% of the male challengers, but none of the 11 women challengers, ran successfully. In open races, men won 56% of the time, female candidates were successful only 25% of the time.1

Although several explanations have been offered for women's lack of electoral success, including inadequate access to political resources and sex stereotyping by voters (e.g., Bernstein 1986; Boles and Durio 1980; Gertzog 1979; Sapiro 1982), inequitable treatment by the press needs to be explored.2 Even when early barriers are overcome and female candidates se- cure their parties' nominations, female nominees are covered differently by the media than their male counterparts (Kahn and Goldenberg 1991). This differential treatment can have real consequences for voter information and candidate preference.

To examine whether news coverage disadvantages female candidates, two questions must be explored. First, are there systematic differences in the way the news media cover male and female candidates? The answer to this question is "yes," as has been demonstrated by analysis of news content reported elsewhere (Kahn and Goldenberg 1991), so the second and more fun- damental question becomes: Does press coverage lead voters to develop more negative evaluations of female candidates and more positive evaluations of male candidates?

To investigate this second question, I designed an experiment. In the experiment, I recreated the gender differences in press coverage found in the content analysis and examined whether these coverage differences influence peoples evaluations of Senate candidates. In addition, the sex of the candidate may influence people's perceptions of Senate candidates. With this

I This dramatic disadvantage for women candidates largely disappears in races for the U.S. House when one controls for incumbency and party (Darcy, Welch, and Clark 1987). This is not surprising given the differences in the electoral context of House and Senate races. In House races, incumbency overwhelms other potential factors like ideology, issues, and the personality of the candidates (Abramowitz 1980; Jacobson 1987; Mann and Wolfinger 1980). In Senate races, incumbency is less powerful and other factors (e.g., issues and candidate characteristics) are more important (Abramowitz 1987; Goldenberg and Traugott 1987; Wright and Berkman 1986).

2Although the media act as an additional resource for incumbents in House races (Clarke and Evans 1983; Goldenberg and Traugott 1984), this may not be the case for Senate contests. Be- cause of the greater competitiveness of Senate races (Abramowitz 1980; Jacobson 1987; Westlye 1983), the better quality of Senate challengers (Jacobson 1987; Squire 1989) and the better media market fit in statewide constituencies (Goldenberg and Traugott 1987), Senate races generate more coverage and more balanced coverage than House races (Kahn 1991).

Does Being Male Help? 499

experimental design, by holding news coverage constant and giving people identical information about male and female candidates, we can see whether people rely on sex stereotypes to differentiate between candidates. Finally, the experimental design allows us to examine the combined impact of both "gender" coverage and sex stereotyping on voters' evaluations of Senate candidates.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Content Analysis

A content analysis of 26 U.S. Senate races from 1982-1986 was conducted to assess potentially important differences in the news coverage of male and female candidates. For each race examined, the largest circulating newspaper within the state was selected for content analysis and every day from September 1 through the day after the election was coded. Any item located anywhere in the newspaper which mentioned either candidate was coded.

Findings from the three literatures of voting, sex stereotypes, and women in politics guided the analysis of media content. To begin, news characteristics known to be significant for a candidate's electoral success were analyzed. For instance, we know that a candidate's viability influences voting decisions and the media often focus on "horserace" issues (e.g., who is ahead in the polls, who has the strongest organization) in political campaigns (Bartels 1987; Brady and Johnston 1987; Patterson 1980). If female candidates are viewed by the press as less viable than male candidates, then the female candidates' viability may be discussed more extensively in' the press and this coverage difference may influence voters' evaluations of the candidates. To explore this possibility, the content analysis examined the amount of horserace coverage each candidate received as well as the press assessments of the candidate's viability.3

Second, content was assessed in terms of anticipated differences between male and female candidates. For instance, past research on sex stereotypes demonstrates that male and female candidates are viewed as more competent in different policy areas. Male candidates, for example, are considered better able to deal with foreign policy while female candidates are considered better equipped to deal with issues related to education (Gallup 1984; Sapiro 1982). If reporters and editors hold these same stereotypes about "male" and "female" issues, then media coverage may reflect them. The content analysis therefore assessed the types of issues discussed for male and female candidates.

The content analysis revealed clear and consistent differences in the

3Intercoder reliability was measured throughout the coding process. Reliability among the three coders was high, never falling below 85% agreement and reaching as high as 100% agreement for some content categories.


campaign coverage of male and female Senate candidates. For instance, female candidates receive less news coverage and the coverage they receive concentrates more on their viability and less on their issue positions. Furthermore, the female candidates' viability coverage is more negative than that of their male counterparts.4

To test whether coverage differences matter, I used the findings from the content analysis to simulate news coverage in an experimental setting. By recreating news coverage patterns, we can see how differences in press coverage influence voters' evaluations of men and women candidates. Based on the content analysis findings, I developed four newspaper articles that represented four distinct coverage patterns: male incumbent coverage, female incumbent coverage, male challenger coverage, and female challenger coverage. Using the news coverage analysis as a guide, a total of 14 characteristics of coverage were varied to create the four Senate articles: four characteristics relate to the amount and prominence of coverage (e. g., length and location of article), six relate to general elements of campaign coverage (e.g., amount of horserace coverage, type of issue coverage), three relate to candidate characteristics and candidate resources (e.g., mention of candidate qualifications, discussion of campaign organization), and one indicates the gender of the author. Table 1 contains a complete listing of the coverage differences represented in the four Senate articles.

To illustrate how differences in news patterns are represented in the four Senate articles, it may be useful to discuss an example. The content analysis of press coverage revealed a systematic difference in the substance of the horserace discussion for men and women candidates. In the content analysis, I rated every press assessment of a candidate's viability on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating "sure loser," 2 indicating "somewhat competitive," 3 indicating "competitive," and 4 indicating "likely winner." The results of the content analysis show that the press gives women candidates more negative viability assessments. Male incumbents are usually described as "sure win- ners," while female incumbents are more likely to be considered "competitive." Among challengers, male candidates are most likely to be described as "competitive," while female candidates are usually described as "somewhat competitive." These modal differences are represented in the four Senate prototype articles.

Experiment

The purpose of the experiment was to see whether gender differences in coverage and/or a candidate's sex influence people's evaluations of men and women candidates. In the experiment, I used a 2 x 4 factorial design with the manipulated variables being the sex of the candidate (male or female)

4 For a more detailed discussion of the results, see Kahn and Goldenberg (1991).

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES IN THE FOUR SENATE ARTICLES

Male Incumbent Female Incumbent Coverage Characteristics Prototype Article Prototype Article

1. Length of Article 12 paragraphs 12 paragraphs 2. Proportion of Paragraphs 50% 50%

about Candidate 3. Prominence Headline and Lead Lead Mention

Mention 4. Location Page 12 Page 11 5. Issues 4 Paragraphs 3 Paragraphs 6. Content of Issues "Male" Issues "Female" Issues 7. Horserace Coverage 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraphs 8. Horserace Assessment "Sure Winner" "Competitive" 9. Criticism 1 Criticism 2 Criticisms

10. Positive and Negative No Mention Mention of Pos. and Neg. Resources Resources

11. Background Mention No Mention 12. Traits Mentioned in Article "Insensitive" "Effective" 13. Tone Neutral Mixture (Positive and

Negative Tone) 14. Sex of Author Male Male

Male Challenger Female Challenger Coverage Characteristic Prototype Article Prototype Article

1. Length of Article 11 paragraphs 8 paragraphs 2. Proportion of Paragraphs 45% 50%

about Candidate 3. Prominence No Headline or Headline and Lead

Lead Mention Mention 4. Location Page 12 Page 18 5. Issues 3 Paragraphs 2 Paragraphs 6. Content of Issues "Male" Issues "Male" Issues 7. Horserace Coverage 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraphs 8. Horserace Assessment "Competitive" "Somewhat less

Competitive" 9. Criticism No Mention No Mention

10. Positive and Negative No Mention Mention of Negative Resources Resource

11. Background No Mention No Mention 12. Trait Mentioned in Article "Strong Leader," No Trait Mentions

"Dishonest" 13. Tone Neutral Neutral 14. Sex of Author Male Female


and the type of news coverage (male incumbent coverage, female incumbent coverage, male challenger coverage, and female challenger coverage), as represented by the four prototype articles.5

Experimental Procedure. Selected residents of the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti community participated in the experiment, which lasted approximately one hour, in the fall of 1988. Volunteers came to a research laboratory on the University of Michigan campus to participate in the study and were ran- domly assigned to one of the eight experimental conditions.6 In each condi- tion, the participants read a newspaper page containing the article about the Senate candidate as well as two other articles about national politics. After reading the entire newspaper page, each participant completed a questionnaire (see appendix for question wording).

Participants. Experimental participants were recruited through advertise- ments in local newspapers and by posters in various public locations. The notices promised payment of $8.00 in return for participating in a University of Michigan "Media and Politics" study One-hundred-seventeen individuals from the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area participated in the experiment. Eighty- seven percent of the participants were white and 13% were nonwhite. Forty percent of the sample was male and 60% was female. The mean age of the participants in the sample was 37.3 years old and the mean education level was 15.3 years. Although this sample of participants is not a representative sample of the nation, nor of the local community, it is a varied sample of a local community.

External Validity. An effort was made to increase the realism of the experimental task, thereby increasing the generalizability of the results. First, in order to obtain candid responses, the experiment was constructed so that participants were unaware of what was expected of them. The experimental questionnaire, for example, included a set of filler questions about attitudes toward the 1988 presidential candidates so that participants would be unsure of the true purpose of the experiment. In addition, participants were pro- vided with a cover story at the start of the experimental session. At the end of the experiment, the participants were asked to report what they believed was the purpose of the experiment; the vast majority simply reported the cover story.7

The external validity of the present study was also enhanced by recruiting

5Copies of the four prototype articles are available upon request. 6 The randomization procedure was effective. The eight experimental conditions were simi-

larly constituted, on average, along the following demographic dimensions: age, education, race, and sex.

I Only four individuals believed the study was concerned with voter sexism.


a nonstudent sample. Past studies of sex stereotyping of political candidates have relied exclusively on student subjects (e.g., Sapiro 1982; Sigelman and Sigelman 1984). Yet since students may be more liberal in their attitudes toward female candidates, the results of these studies may not be generaliz- able to nonstudent samples.

The artificiality of the experimental setting is another potential threat to external validity In particular, the artificial nature of the experiment may make the treatment (e.g., candidate coverage) more powerful than it would be outside the laboratory. To bolster the realism of the experiment, I created a bogus newspaper page which looks like an actual page from a newspaper and a reporter was hired to edit the Senate articles.8

Even with these precautions, the experimental setting remains somewhat artificial. For instance, since participants read only one article about an un- known Senate candidate, the experimental task is not equivalent to what a voter experiences after reading many articles over several months. Thus, there may be greater coverage effects during an actual campaign consisting of a great deal of candidate coverage. Also, the experimental setting may lead to greater sex stereotyping because the participants have so little information about the Senate candidate. Finally, participants in this study are not actu- ally voting for the Senate candidate; instead, they are evaluating the candidate along various trait, issue, and viability dimensions. Yet given recent survey work in the field of electoral behavior, we believe these evaluations of the candidates are valid measures of candidate support. This research demonstrates that voters' perceptions of a candidate's personality, viability, and issue positions influence voters' support for candidates (Abramowitz 1987; Bartels 1987; Brady and Johnston 1987; Kinder 1983; Markus 1982).

RESULTS

The Influence of News Coverage on Candidate Evaluations

The kind of coverage a candidate receives can influence people's evaluations of the candidate as well as eventual vote choice (Bartels 1987; Brady and Johnston 1987; Goldenberg and Traugott 1984; Goldenberg and Traugott 1987; Patterson 1980). By controlling for the status and gender of the candidates, the present experiment allows us to isolate and examine the impact of gender differences in coverage on people's evaluations of candidates.9 As the data in table 2 show, differences in news patterns produce distinct images of the candidates-especially for incumbents. When male

8 A copy of the newspaper page is available upon request. 9 A series of two-way (coverage x gender) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to

assess the independent impact that coverage and gender have on evaluations of Senate candidates. Variables which emerged as statistically significant in this analysis (p < .05) are examined in detail later.


and female candidates are covered in the news like male incumbents, they are considered more viable than candidates (both male and female) who are covered like female incumbents. Similarly, candidates who receive male incumbent coverage are viewed as stronger leaders and are seen as better able to deal with military issues.

Gender differences in incumbent coverage, however, do not always advantage the candidate who is covered like a male incumbent. Participants consider candidates who receive female incumbent coverage to be more compassionate and more honest than candidates who receive male incumbent coverage.10 Candidates who receive female incumbent coverage are also seen as better able to deal with health issues.

Coverage differences between male and female challengers are less influential, producing only one evaluative difference. The data in table 2 show that candidates who receive male challenger coverage are seen as more viable than candidates who receive female challenger coverage. Given that Brady and Johnston (1987) and Bartels (1987), in their studies of primary voting, find that voters' views about a candidate's viability influence vote choice, this particular coverage effect may be especially consequential.

The greater impact of incumbent coverage as compared with challenger coverage may be explained by the longer length of the articles about incumbents. Since the content analysis of campaign coverage determined the length of the four prototype articles, these experimental results suggest that coverage of incumbents-because it is more extensive-may be more consequential than news coverage of challengers.11

The incumbent articles may also be more powerful because participants may rely on senatorial prototypes or schemas to process information about incumbents but not challengers. Since prototypes (or schemas) help guide the encoding, retention, and recall of information (Cantor and Mischel 1979), the use of senatorial prototypes may aid participants in processing articles about incumbents, leading to greater coverage effects for these articles. Kinder et al. (1980) find that voters use presidential prototypes when evaluating incumbents but not presidential challengers; the same process may be at work in the Senate case. 12

10 It is not clear why the female incumbent article produces more positive honesty assessments; honesty is not mentioned in either article. It may be that the female incumbent candidate's unconventional and independent issue priorities are responsible for the high honesty ratings.

11 The content analysis showed that, on average, 12 paragraphs are published each day about both male and female incumbents. In contrast, an average of 11 paragraphs are published each day for male challengers and an average of eight paragraphs are published for female challengers. These averages determined the length, in paragraphs, of each of the four prototype articles.

12 The greater coverage effects found for the incumbent articles may also be because the content of the two incumbent articles is quite different from each other while the two challenger articles vary along fewer dimensions.


TABLE 2

THE IMPACT OF COVERAGE ON EVALUATIONS OF THE SENATE CANDIDATES

Male Incumbent Female Incumbent Coverage2 Coverage

A. Question' (Mean) (Mean) T-Value3 DF

Leadership 2.41 2.80 -2.04 45 Military* 3.14 3.67 -2.27 38 Viability** 1.43 2.33 -4.97 52 Compassion* 2.67 2.04 2.58 46 Health* 3.45 2.67 3.42 44 Honesty* 2.74 2.22 2.48 44

Male Challenger Female Challenger Coverage Coverage

B. (Mean) (Mean) T-Value DF

Viability* 2.50 2.91 -2.03 45

'See the appendix for exact question wordings. 2The smaller the number, the more positive the evaluation. 30ne-tailed p-values are presented for the issues explicitly mentioned in the coverage: via-

bility assessments for all conditions and military assessments in the incumbent conditions. Two- tailed p-values are presented for all other traits and issues.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

The Influence of Candidate Gender: Sex Stereotyping

In addition to the type of coverage the candidate receives, voters may be influenced by a candidate's gender. Research on sex stereotypes suggests that people rely on gender schemas or prototypes to process information in gender-relevant terms (e.g., Bem 1981). According to this research, when people are exposed to deficient or ambiguous information, they rely on their gender schema to fill in information gaps. If we apply this research to the political arena, we would expect voters to use gender as a cue to distinguish between equivalent men and women candidates. Previous experimental and survey work on sex stereotyping in political science (e.g., Gallup 1984; Na- tional Women's Political Caucus 1987; Sapiro 1982; Sigelman and Sigelman 1984) suggests that people do use sex stereotypes when evaluating equivalent male and female candidates.

The present experimental design allows us to examine the prevalence of sex stereotyping by seeing whether participants who are given the same information about male and female candidates use sex stereotypes to draw distinctions between the candidates. The data presented in table 3 suggest that people do evaluate identical male and female candidates differently.


TABLE 3

THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON EVALUATIONS OF THE SENATE CANDIDATES

Male Candidate2 Female Candidate A. Question' (Mean) (Mean) T-Value3 DF

Compassion* 2.69 2.26 2.31 73 Education** 3.75 3.00 3.31 70 Health** 3.64 3.00 2.85 72 Honesty** 3.03 2.26 4.59 76 Honesty and

Integrity* 3.42 2.91 2.48 85 Women** 4.00 2.30 7.47 70 Economy 3.32 3.22 0.45 81 Farm 3.34 3.37 -0.11 74 Knowledge 2.59 2.53 0.39 82 Leadership 2.81 2.73 0.46 76 Military 3.61 3.47 0.65 67

Male Incumbent Female Incumbent B. Question (Mean) (Mean) T-Value DF

Education* 3.43 2.92 2.02 43 Honesty** 2.82 2.17 3.23 44 Women** 3.70 2.20 5.42 43

Male Challenger Female Challenger (Mean) (Mean) T-Value DF

Education** 4.36 3.12 2.92 25 Health** 4.36 2.77 2.77 26 Honesty** 3.36 2.39 3.58 30 Women** 4.50 2.47 5.27 25

'See the appendix for exact question wordings. 2The smaller the number, the more positive the evaluation. 3Two-tailed p-values are presented for all traits and issues. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Participants rate the female candidate as better able to deal with education, health, and women's issues. Participants also believe female candidates are more compassionate and more honest than their male counterparts.

The data in table 3 also illustrate the pervasiveness of "female" stereotypes and the absolute absence of "male" stereotypes. For instance, female candidates are considered more honest and compassionate than male candidates, attributes often ascribed to females. However, attributes such as "strong leader" and "more knowledgeable about economic and defense issues" are not associated with male candidates.

Why is female stereotyping more prevalent than male stereotyping? The


nature of the experimental stimulus (e.g., the content of the Senate articles) may have influenced the pattern of stereotyping found here. In particular, the Senate articles give more information about "male" traits and issues than "female" traits and issues.13 Thus, when asked to evaluate the candidates along the "female" dimensions, participants have little information and therefore turn to sex stereotypes to fill in the information gaps.

By controlling for the status of the candidate, we see that stereotyping only occurs for traits and issues not mentioned at all in the candidate articles (see table 3b). For instance, education and women's issues are not discussed, and participants believe that female candidates can handle these issues better than male candidates. Because "female" issues and traits are discussed less frequently in the actual campaign coverage, these experimental results suggest that sex stereotyping will be more likely to occur along "female" dimensions during election campaigns.

The data in table 3b also show that the frequency of sex stereotyping is somewhat more prevalent for challengers than incumbents. Sex stereotypes are more impressive for the challengers in terms of (1) the number of sex stereotypes found, and (2) the magnitude of the sex differences. Since the media focus more on incumbents than on challengers, people receive less information about challengers-especially female challengers-and people may therefore turn to sex stereotypes to fill in the information gaps (Bruner and Taguiri 1954). Yet it may be that sex stereotyping will be less frequent in the real political environment-as compared to the experimental setting-because voters are exposed to more information about the Senate candidates. 14

The Influence of Candidate Gender and Coverage

The experimental results discussed earlier clearly show that the amount and quality of campaign coverage and the candidate's gender independently influence people's evaluations of Senate candidates. However, we have yet

13 These distinctions between "male" and "female" traits and "male" and "female" issues are based on previous sex stereotype research (Gallup 1984; National Women's Political Caucus 1987; Sapiro 1982) which shows that people associate certain traits (e.g., dependent, compassionate, honest, passive, gentle, emotional, weak leader) with women and women candidates while other traits are more often associated with men (e.g., independent, strong leader, insensitive, aggressive, ambitious). This literature also shows that male candidates are considered better able to deal with certain issues (e.g., foreign policy, defense spending, arms control, the economy) while female candidates are considered better equipped to deal with other issues (e.g., day care, helping the poor, education, health care, women's rights, drug abuse, and the environment).

'4 It would be useful to explore sex stereotyping of Senate candidates in the real political environment with national survey data. Unfortunately, the lack of information about candidate trait and issue assessments in national Senate studies (e.g., the 1988 and 1990 NES Senate Study) makes this exploration impossible.


to examine the combined impact of both news coverage and candidate gender. Given the current differences in campaign coverage of male and female candidates, how may evaluations of male and female candidates differ?

The data in table 4 show that coverage is more influential than gender in evaluating incumbent candidates. Three of these coverage effects advantage the male incumbent, and two lead to more positive evaluations of the female incumbent. Differences in coverage of male and female incumbents lead participants to believe that the male incumbent is more viable, a stronger leader, and better able to deal with military issues. Differences in coverage also lead participants to view the female incumbent as more compassionate and better able to deal with health issues. In terms of sex stereotypes, participants believe the female incumbent is more honest and can deal with women's issues more effectively than the male incumbent. 15

Candidate coverage is much less influential for challengers; differences in coverage of male and female challengers produce no evaluation differences. The one coverage effect found earlier, viability (see table 2), is no longer statistically significant. The statistical interaction effects suggest that viability coverage loses its punch here because female candidates receive a bigger boost from the favorable viability content in the male challenger prototype article.'6 The female challenger is given a mean viability rating of 2.20 when she receives male challenger coverage, as opposed to a mere 3.00 when she receives female challenger coverage. In comparison, the male challenger receives a mean viability rating of 2.71 when he is covered as a male challenger, and that rating only falls to 2.82 with female challenger coverage. These results have striking implications, suggesting that differences in viability coverage are more consequential for female challengers. Because competitive female challengers are so unusual, participants might remem- ber this novel information and the viability discussion is therefore more consequential.

In general, news coverage is less influential for people's evaluations of challengers. In this case, participants receive less information and without senatorial prototypes to help when reading the challenger articles, participants find the processing of the challenger information more difficult. Sex stereotypes, on the other hand, are used to fill in the information gaps and are more prevalent for challengers. These stereotypes consistently advantage the female candidate. Overall, the results of the experiment suggest that differences in patterns of news coverage often lead to more positive evaluations of male candidates, while sex stereotyping consistently benefits female candidates.

15 Differences in evaluations of the incumbents' honesty may be explained by coverage differences (see table 2) as well as by sex stereotyping.

16 In statistical terms, there is a two-way interaction between coverage and candidate gender F(1,43) = 3.00, p < .10 for viability assessments.


TABLE 4

THE COMBINED IMPACT OF CANDIDATE GENDER AND CANDIDATE

COVERAGE ON EVALUATIONS OF THE SENATE CANDIDATES

Male Incumbent Female Incumbent Coverage2 with Coverage with Male Candidate Female Candidate

Question' (Mean) (Mean) T-Value3 DF

Coverage Effects Leadership** 2.50 3.08 -2.70 21 Military* 3.18 3.70 -1.86 19 Viability** 1.40 2.54 -4.40 24 Compassion** 2.83 1.77 3.19 23 Health** 3.73 2.54 4.03 22

Gender Effects Honesty** 3.08 2.00 4.93 23 Women** 4.00 2.08 7.01 21

Male Challenger Female Challenger Coverage with Coverage with

Male Candidate Female Candidate Question (Mean) (Mean) T-Value DF

Coverage Effects Viability 2.71 3.00 -1.20 24

Gender Effects Education** 5.20 3.37 4.91 11 Health** 5.20 3.25 5.47 11 Honesty** 3.57 2.11 5.05 14 Women** 5.17 2.37 6.91 12

'See the appendix for exact question wordings. 2The smaller the number, the more positive the evaluation. 3One-tailed p-values are presented for the issues explicitly mentioned in the coverage: via-

bility assessments for all conditions and military assessments in the incumbent conditions. Two- tailed p-values are presented for all other traits and issues.

*p < .05, **p < .01

The Influence of Candidate Status

Finally, the candidate's status may also influence people's evaluations. This can have important consequences for the electability of women Senate candidates, since women are almost exclusively challengers. In fact, from 1984 to 1986, 11 of the 15 women who ran for U.S. Senate were challengers. By combining male and female candidates and comparing evaluations of challengers and incumbents, we can examine the impact of incumbency on evaluations of candidates. Differences in evaluations of candidates may reflect differences in news patterns for challengers and incumbents. Or, holding news coverage constant, evaluation differences may reflect the effect of


status on candidate evaluation. Although we cannot distinguish between coverage and status effects with this experimental design, we can see whether incumbents given incumbent coverage are evaluated differently from challengers given challenger coverage.

The role of incumbency in congressional elections has received a great deal of attention (e.g., Ferejohn 1977; Fiorina 1977). Recent survey work suggests that voters are not attracted by incumbency per se; rather, incumbents are advantaged because they are more likely to be better known and better liked than their opponents (Jacobson 1987). In the present study, because each candidate is evaluated in isolation (the opponent of the candidate is never mentioned) and because information about the candidates is com- pletely controlled, we can carefully examine the impact of candidate coverage and candidate status on people's evaluations of incumbents and challengers.

As the data displayed in table 5 indicate, participants consistently evaluate incumbents more positively than challengers. Some of these differences can be attributed to differences in the news coverage of incumbents and challengers. For instance, press coverage of the incumbents' viability, as represented in the Senate articles, is more positive than the viability coverage challengers receive. These coverage differences probably encourage participants to view incumbents as more viable than challengers.

Other differences in participants' evaluations are not directly attributable to news coverage differences. For instance, participants give incumbents higher leadership ratings than challengers. Yet because the leadership ability of the incumbents is not mentioned in their coverage, the incumbency advantage in leadership assessments may be a pure status effect. Incumbents may be considered stronger leaders simply because they are U. S. senators.

These results show that incumbents have a clear advantage over challengers in terms of participants' evaluations. This advantage seems to be primar- ily a function of different coverage patterns for incumbents and challengers. Yet the status of the candidate may also influence evaluations. Incumbency may act as a cue for voters, supplying them with additional information about the candidates. The incumbency advantage found here-both in terms of status and coverage-will likely translate into a disadvantage for female candidates, since female candidates run almost exclusively as challengers.

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental results suggest that gender differences in news coverage often place women candidates at a disadvantage. Candidates who receive male candidate coverage are always viewed as more viable than candidates who receive female candidate coverage. Sex stereotypes, on the other hand, consistently favor female candidates. Even when participants are given identical information about men and women candidates, they view women candidates as more honest and better able to deal with women's issues.


TABLE 5

THE IMPACT OF CANDIDATE STATUS ON EVALUATIONS OF THE SENATE

CANDIDATES

Question' Incumbent (Mean)2 Challenger (Mean) T-Value3 DF

Health** 3.04 3.68 -2.77 72 Honesty and Integrity* 2.98 3.40 -1.98 85 Leadership* 2.62 3.00 -2.25 76 Viability** 1.83 2.70 -5.72 99 Vote** 2.64 3.16 -2.92 91

'See the appendix for exact question wordings. 2The smaller the number, the more positive the evaluation. 'Two-tailed p-values are presented for all traits and issues. *p < .05, **p < .01

Given the contrary consequences of coverage and gender, we need to consider whether these two effects are equally important in predicting actual vote choice. Although we cannot unequivocally answer this question, our results are suggestive. In particular, we know that sex stereotyping occurs only for issues and traits not addressed in the candidate coverage. Yet because people's priorities tend to reflect the media's priorities, these "nonem- phasized" dimensions may not strongly influence voters' overall evaluations of candidates (Iyengar and Kinder 1987; Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder 1982). Thus, the advantage female candidates hold in terms of sex stereotypes may not have real consequences for overall candidate evaluations and eventual vote choice. Instead, the differences in candidate coverage, precisely because these differences are displayed in the media, may be more salient to voters and therefore more influential.

Similarly, of the various coverage differences found in the experiment, it is unlikely that each will be equally consequential. Brady and Johnston's (1987) study of presidential primary voting suggests that viability assessments are more important than trait assessments for understanding voters' overall evaluations of candidates. Again, this is a potential problem for women candidates since female candidate coverage consistently produces negative viability assessments.

Political Implications

Given the results of this study, women candidates may want to rethink their campaign strategies. A female incumbent, for example, who can ma- nipulate the media's agenda because of her status as an incumbent, may want to emphasize female issues and traits in her campaign appeals. Since voters' sex stereotypes produce positive assessments of women candidates con- cerning "female" traits and issues, if voters believe these issues are most


tant, then they will use these salient dimensions when evaluating the female incumbent and her opponent. The reliance on these primed dimensions, coupled with female stereotyping, will produce favorable evaluations of the female incumbent.

Although this strategy has short-term benefits, it may have long-term drawbacks because such a strategy will perpetuate the female stereotype. For instance, voters will not be encouraged to revise their image of the compassionate female candidate who can deal better with education and health issues than with defense and economic issues. Consequently, female challengers, unable to control the media's issue agenda, will be evaluated by voters (1) who have stereotypical views of women candidates, and (2) who are concerned with the traditionally salient "male" issues, since these issues dominate campaign coverage. This combination will lead to negative evaluations of the female challenger. Thus, the female incumbent strategy of em- phasizing traditional female strengths will sustain female stereotyping and therefore be a disadvantage to the female challenger who must compete in a male-dominated arena.

Instead, it may be more prudent for female incumbents to emphasize their leadership ability and to demonstrate their competence in dealing with the traditional "male" issues. Since incumbents receive such prominent coverage, a female incumbent acting in a nonstereotypical fashion may be able to encourage the modification of voter sex stereotypes. Recent research on the revision of stereotypes suggests that such a strategy may be successful (Weber and Crocker 1983). Using the candidacies of female incumbents to alter sex stereotypes may ease the way for other female candidates. If voter stereotypes can be eradicated, then voters will use the same criteria for judg- ing male and female candidates. Female candidates may then have an easier time winning elective office.

Manuscript submitted 18 December 1990 Final manuscript received 1O July 1991

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS REGARDING SENATE CANDIDATE

1. What is the likelihood that (John Parker) will win the election for U.S. Senate? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Likely 2. Somewhat Likely 3. Not Very Likely 4. Not At All Likely 8. Don't Know

2. Suppose the election were held today. What is the likelihood that you


would vote for (John Parker) for U.S. Senate? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Likely 2. Somewhat Likely 3. Not Very Likely 4. Not At All Likely 8. Don't Know

3. You may have developed some mental image or picture of (Senator John Parker) as you read the article about him. There may be no particular reason for this image that you can think of, it may have just occurred to you as you read the article. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence in dealing with military issues? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Competent 2. Competent 3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know

4. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence in maintain- ing honesty and integrity in government? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Competent 2. Competent 3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know

5. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence for making decisions on farm issues? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Competent 2. Competent 3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know

6. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence in improving - the educational system? Please circle the appropriate response.

1. Very Competent 2. Competent


3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know

7. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence in dealing with health problems? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Competent 2. Competent 3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know

8. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence in improving the economy? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Competent 2. Competent 3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know

9. What is your best guess about (John Parker's) competence in dealing with the issue of women's rights? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Very Competent 2. Competent 3. Somewhat Competent 4. Somewhat Incompetent 5. Incompetent 6. Very Incompetent 8. Don't Know Below is a list of words or phrases people may use to describe political figures. For each, please indicate whether the phrase describes the person listed.

10. Think about (John Parker). The first phrase is "compassionate." In your opinion does the phrase "compassionate" describe (John Parker) extremely well, quite well, not too well, or not well at all? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Extremely Well

-2. Quite Well 3. Not Too Well


4. Not Well At All 8. Don't Know

11. In your opinion does the phrase "provide strong leadership" describe (John Parker) extremely well, quite well, not too well, or not well at all? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Extremely Well 2. Quite Well 3. Not Too Well 4. Not Well At All 8. Don't Know

12. In your opinion does the phrase "honest" describe (John Parker) extremely well, quite well, not too well, or not well at all? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Extremely Well 2. Quite Well 3. Not Too Well 4. Not Well At All 8. Don't Know

13. In your opinion does the phrase "knowledgeable" describe (John Parker) extremely well, quite well, not too well, or not well at all? Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Extremely Well 2. Quite Well 3. Not Too Well 4. Not Well At All 8. Don't Know

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1980. "A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative." American Political Science Review 74:633-40.

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1987. "Explaining Senate Election Outcomes." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.

Bartels, Larry M. 1987. "Candidate Choice and the Dynamics of the Presidential Nominating Process." American Journal of Political Science 31:1-30.

Bem, S. 1981. "Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing." Psychological Review 88:354-64.

Bernstein, Robert. 1986. "Why are There So Few Women in the House?" Western Political Quarterly 39:155-64.

Boles, Janet, and Helen Durio. 1980. "Social Stereotyping of Males and Females in Elected Office: The Implications of an Attitudinal Study." Presented at the annual meeting of the

- Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Brady, Henry E., and Richard Johnston. 1987. "What's the Primary Message: Horserace or Issue


Journalism." In Media and Momentum, ed. Gary R. Orren and Nelson W Polsby. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Bruner, J. S., and R. Taguiri. 1954. "The Perception of People." In Handbook of Social Psychol- ogy, vol. 2, ed. G. Lindzey. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cantor, N., and W Mischel. 1979. "Prototypes in Person Perception." Advances in Experimen- tal Social Psychology 12:3-52.

Clarke, Peter, and Susan H. Evans. 1983. Covering Campaigns: Journalism in Congressional Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janel Clark. 1987. Women, Elections, and Representation. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Erbring, Lutz, Edie N. Goldenberg, and Arthur H. Miller. 1980. "Front-Page News and Real World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media." American Journal of Political Science 24:16-49.

Ferejohn, John A. 1977. "On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections." American Political Science Review 71:166-76.

Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. "The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It." Amer- ican Political Science Review 71:177-81.

Gallup Report. 1984. Vol. 228:2-14. Gertzog, I. 1979. "Changing Patterns of Female Recruitment to the U. S. House of Representa-

tives." Legislative Studies Quarterly 4:429-45. Goldenberg, Edie N., and Michael W Traugott. 1984. Campaigningfor Congress. Washington,

DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Goldenberg, Edie N., and Michael W Traugott. 1987. "Mass Media Effects in Recognizing and

Rating Candidates in U.S. Senate Elections." In Campaigns in the News: Mass Media and Congressional Elections, ed. Jan Vermeer. New York: Greenwood Press.

Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. 1982. "Experimental Demonstrations of the 'Not So Minimal' Consequences of Television News Programs." American Political Sci- ence Review 76:848-58.

Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little, Brown. Kahn, Kim F. 1991. "Senate Elections in the News: An Examination of the Characteristics and

Determinants of Campaign Coverage." Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:349-374. Kahn, Kim F., and Edie N. Goldenberg. 1991. "Women Candidates in the News: An Examina-

tion of Gender Differences in U.S. Senate Campaign Coverage." Public Opinion Quarterly 55:180-99.

Kinder, Donald R. 1983. "Presidential Prototypes." Pilot study prepared for the NES Board of Overseers.

Kinder, Donald R., Mark D. Peters, Robert P. Abelson, and Susan T. Fiske. 1980. "Presidential Prototypes." Political Behavior 2:315-35.

MacKuen, Michael. 1981. "Social Communication and the Mass Policy Agenda." In More Than News, ed. Michael MacKuen and Steven Coombs. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Mann, Thomas E., and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections." American Political Science Review 74:617-32.

Markus, Gregory B. 1982. "Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study." American Political Science Review 73:1055-70.

National Women's Political Caucus Survey. 1987. Washington, DC. Patterson, Thomas E. 1980. The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger. Sapiro, Virginia. 1982. "If U.S. Senator Baker Were a Woman: An Experimental Study of Can-

didate Images." Political Psychology 61-83. Sigelman, Lee, and Carole K. Sigelman. 1984. "Sexism, Racism, and Ageism in Voting Behavior:

An Experimental Analysis." Social Psychology Quarterly 45:263-69.


Squire, Peverill. 1989. "Challengers in U.S. Senate Elections." Legislative Studies Quarterly 14:531-47.

Weber, D. H., and J. Crocker. 1983. "Cognitive Processes in the Revision of Stereotypic Be- liefs." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:778-93.

Westlye, Mark C. 1983. "Competitiveness of Senate Seats and Voting Behavior in Senate Elec- tions." American Journal of Political Science 27:253-83.

Wright, Gerald C., Jr., and Mark B. Berkman. 1986. Candidates and Policy in U.S. Senate Elections. American Political Science Review 80:567-90.

Kim Fridkin Kahn is assistant professor of political science, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2001.

Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on...

Documents

Transcript of Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on...