Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RestoringFaithinAmericanDemocracy:TheEffectofWomenCandidatesonAdolescents'EvaluationsofPoliticsin2018
DavidE.Campbell
Abstract
Inthewakeofthe2016presidentialelection,Democratic-leaningadolescents(bothgirlsandboys)becamemoreskepticalofdemocracy.In2018,however,Democraticgirls’confidenceindemocracyrebounded,whilethatofDemocraticboyscontinuedtodecline.Whydidtheydiverge?Inthispaper,weemployauniquethree-wavepanelstudyofadolescentsandtheirparents,totestwhetherDemocraticgirlsbecamemorepositivetowarddemocracyiftheylivedinplaceswhereDemocraticwomenranforhigh-profilepoliticaloffice.Theydid.ThesameisalsotrueofDemocraticboysandRepublicangirlsbuttoamuchlesserextent;Republicanboys,ontheotherhand,actuallybecameslightlylesslikelytoseeAmericandemocracyasresponsive.Theseresultssuggestthatdescriptiverepresentationcanfosteramorepositiveperceptionofdemocracy,especiallyamongunderrepresentedgroups.Butthosewhoarepoliticallyadvantagedappearunaffected.
PaperpreparedfortheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation,August29,2019.
1
RestoringFaithinAmericanPolitics:TheEffectofWomenCandidatesonAdolescents'EvaluationsofPoliticsin2018
Theunprecedented2016Americanpresidentialelectiongeneratedwidespread
hand-wringingoverthebreakdownofdemocraticnorms,risingintolerance,andthreatsto
civillibertiesandrights.Amongotherthings,thedefeatofthefirstwomanpresidential
nomineebyamanwhoderideswomenandisaccusedofsexualassaultwasviewedby
manyasanindictmentofpersistentinequalityintheAmericanpoliticalsystem.These
developmentsappeartohaveunderminedconfidenceinAmericandemocracyamongthose
mostlikelytoviewthemasathreat.Inourrecentwork(CampbellandWolbrecht2019),
wefoundthatDemocratic-leaningadolescentgirls(butnotDemocraticboysor
Republicansofeithersex)expressedlessconfidencethattheAmericanpoliticalsystem
representsthepeopleinthewakeofthe2016election.
DisillusionmentwithAmericanpoliticswasnottheonlyresponsetothe2016
election,however.Frustrationwiththepost-2016stateofAmericanpoliticsgenerated
historiclevelsofpoliticalinterest,engagement,andactivism,particularlyamongwomen.
Notonlydidwomentaketothestreets,theytossedtheirhatsintothering:Theelectionof
DonaldTrumpiswidelycreditedwithinspiringanunprecedentednumberofwomento
runforfederal,state,andlocalofficeinthe2018midtermelections.Almostentirely
Democrats,thesewomencandidatesalsowerehistoricallydiverse,includingpioneering
womenofcolor,nativewomen,andLGBTQwomencandidates.Manyranunconventional
campaigns,emphasizingtheirauthenticity,experiences,andgender;campaignads
includedimagesofwomenservinginthemilitary,recountingpersonalcrises,and
breastfeedingtheirchildren(Cauteruccietal.2018).
2
Thepresenceandsuccessofthesecandidatesoftenwasframedasembodyingthe
possibilityofapoliticalsystemmorerepresentativeofthediversityoftheAmericanpublic
(Wolbrecht2018).DidyoungwomenbecomemoreoptimisticaboutAmericanpoliticsasa
result?Specificallyweask:GiventhatDemocraticgirlsbecamelessconfidentinAmerican
democracypost-2016,didthehistoricnumberofwomencandidateshelpassuageand
improvegirls’concernsaboutpoliticalrepresentationintheUnitedStatesin2018?
Onthefaceofit,theanswerappearstobeyes.Democraticgirlsclearlyreboundedin
termsofsatisfactionwiththeAmericanpoliticalsystemin2018.Figure1showsthe
percentageofadolescents,bygenderandparty,whoagreethat“thepoliticalsysteminthis
countryhelpsthepublicwiththeirgenuineneeds,”atthreetimeperiods:duringthe2016
presidentialcampaign,duringthefirstyearoftheTrumpadministration(2017),and
duringthe2018midtermcampaign.(ThesedataarefromtheFamilyMatterspanelstudy,
describedinmoredetailbelow).
Notethatin2016,aboutaquarterofRepublicangirlsandboysagreedthatthe
politicalsystemisresponsive,comparedtoalmost40%ofDemocraticgirlsandboys.
Withintheparties,therewerenogenderdifferencesin2016.Democrats,bothgirlsand
boys,becameincreasinglydisillusionedafterthe2016presidentialelection—girlsmoreso
thanboys.Republicans’viewsoftheAmericanpoliticalsystem,however,werevirtually
unchangedin2017.Thesesamegirlsandboyswereaskedthesamequestionagaininthe
lateSummerandFallof2018,theheightofthemidtermcampaign.Republicansremained
unmovedintheirevaluationsoftheAmericanpoliticalsystem.Democrats,ontheother
hand,diverge:Democraticgirlsexperiencedasubstantialreboundintheiroptimismabout
3
theAmericanpoliticalsystem,butDemocratboyswereevenmorelikelytoexpress
dissatisfactionduringthe2018midtermelectioncampaign.
Figure1.PerceptionsofAmericanDemocracy,2016-2018
Source:FamilyMattersStudy
05
101520253035404550
2016 2017 2018
% "Political system helps people with
genuine needs"
Democratic Girls
05
101520253035404550
2016 2017 2018
% "Political system helps people with
genuine needs"
Democratic Boys
05
101520253035404550
2016 2017 2018
% "Political system helps people with
genuine needs"
Republican Girls
05
101520253035404550
2016 2017 2018
% "Political system helps people with
genuine needs"
Republican Boys
4
DoesthewaveofDemocraticfemalecandidateshelpexplaintheseshifts?Usinga
uniquethree-wavepanelstudyofadolescentsandtheirparents,wefindthatDemocratic
girlsweremorelikelytoexpressconfidenceinpoliticalresponsivenessin2018ifthey
livedinplaceswhereDemocraticwomenranviablecampaignsfortheHouse,Senate,or
governor’soffice.Importantly,thiseffectisfoundmoststronglyandconsistentlyamong
girlswhodescribethemselvesasDemocrats,thegroupwhoexperiencedthesharpest
declineinpoliticalconfidenceafter2016andwhoweexpectwouldhaveidentifiedmost
closelywiththeoverwhelmingly-Democraticwomencandidatesin2018.Moreover,the
beliefsaboutthepoliticalsystemofDemocraticboysandRepublicangirlsalsoare
responsivetothepresenceoffemaleDemocraticcandidatesin2018,buttoconsiderably
lessofanextentthanforDemocraticgirls.TheopinionsthatRepublicanboysexpress
abouttheAmericanpoliticalsystem,however,areimpervioustoexposuretowomenas
politicalcandidates.
Expectations
Atrulyunprecedentednumberofwomenranforofficein2018,andnearlyallof
themwereDemocrats.Figures2AandBshowthenumbersofDemocraticandRepublican
womenrunningfortheU.S.HouseandSenatesince1970.TheoriginalYearoftheWoman
alsowasamostlyDemocraticphenomenon,asthesharpincreasesinbothDemocratic
series(HouseandSenate)in1992indicate.Theupsurgeinwomenrunningin2018far
exceedsallpreviousyearsbyaconsiderablemargin.Thenumberofwomenrunningfor
governoralsohithistorichighsin2018,with12Democraticand4Republicanwomen
runningingubernatorialelections;thepreviousrecordwas10total(CAWP2018).
5
Figure2A.
Figure2B.
Source:CenterforAmericanWomenandPolitics,RutgersUniversity
020406080100120140160180200
Number of Women Candidates, U.S. House of Representatives
Democratic Republican
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16Number of Women Candidates, U.S. Senate
Democratic Republican
6
Weexpectthatthesewomencandidateshelpexplaintherenewedconfidenceinthe
AmericanpoliticalsystemexpressedbyDemocraticgirlsin2018.Womencandidateswere
thesubjectsofwidespreadpresscoveragein2018,includingaTimemagazinecoverstory
entitled“TheAvengers:FirstTheyMarched,NowThey’reRunning”(Alter2018).Asthis
headlinelinkingwomencandidatestotheWomen’sMarchsuggests,thewaveofwomen
runningin2018wasconsistentlyframedasaresponsetoandpartofabroader
“resistance”toDonaldTrump’spresidency(e.g.,North2017;SimonandLah2017;Tackett
2017).Ifthemisogynyandstunningdefeatofthe2016electionledDemocraticgirlsto
becomelessoptimisticabouttheAmericanpoliticalsystem(CampbellandWolbrecht
2019),wehypothesizethatthewidely-trumpetedwaveofpath-breakingwomen
candidatescontributedtoDemocraticgirls’increasingconfidenceinAmericanpoliticsin
2018.
Scholarshavelongtheorizedthatthepresence(andabsence)ofwomenpoliticians
canhaveimportanteffectsoncitizens’viewsofthepoliticalsystemandofpolitical
representationingeneral,particularlyforfellowgroupmembers.Inherclassicworkon
descriptiverepresentation,JaneMansbridge(1999,626)arguesthatinadditionto
representingdifferentperspectives,womenandminorityrepresentativesarecapableof
“increasingthepolity’sdefactolegitimacyincontextsofpastdiscrimination.”Apolitical
systeminwhichmembersofpreviously-excludedgroups(women,peopleofcolor)areable
tocontestelectionsandserveinofficemaybeviewed,especiallybymembersofthose
samegroups,asmorerepresentative,fair,equitable,andopen(Phillips1995).The
presenceoffellowgroupmembers,Mansbridge(1999,650)notes,canmake“membersof
historicallyunderrepresentedgroups…feelasiftheythemselveswerepresentinthe
7
deliberation.”Inotherwords,diverserepresentativescanleadfellowgroupmembersto
perceivethepoliticalsystemasmoreresponsivetothepeopleasawhole.
FollowingMansbridgeandothers(e.g.,Phillips1995;Sapiro1981),weexpectthe
presenceofwomencandidatestoencouragemoreconfidenceintheresponsivenessofthe
politicalsystem.Mostpreviousempiricalworkconsiderstheimpactofthepresenceof
womenpoliticiansonsuchfactorsaspoliticalknowledgeandinterest,orbehaviorssuchas
discussionorcampaigninvolvement.Evidencesuggeststhatthepresenceofwomencan
spurgreaterpoliticalengagementamongwomeningeneral(Atkeson2003,Dolan2006;
FridkinandKenney2014;CampbellandWolbrecht2006;Hansen1997;High-Pippertand
Comer1998;Koch1997;WolbrechtandCampbell2017;seealsoBroockman2014;Gilardi
2015;Marianietal.2015),althoughothersfailtouncoveraneffect(Dolan2006;Lawless
2004;Wolak2015,2019).
Focusingontheimpactofwomenpoliticiansonbeliefsaboutthepoliticalsystem
morebroadly,theabsenceofwomenfrompoliticshaslongbeenheldatleastpartially
responsibleforwomen’sperceptionsofthepoliticalsystemasbiasedandinaccessible.For
example,thelongstandingfindingthatwomenarelesslikelytoreportthattheyfeel
personallycapableofaffectingorunderstandingpolitics(personalefficacy)isoften
attributedtothepersistentimage(andreality)ofpoliticsas“aman’sgame”(Atkesonand
Rapoport2003;BennettandBennett1989;Burns,Schlozman,andVerba1995;Campbell
etal.1960;Conway1985).Experiencesthatreinforcegroupexclusionfrompoliticscan
haveimportanteffects.Perceptionsofgenderbiasinthepoliticalarenadiscouragewomen
fromrunningforpoliticaloffice,forexample(LawlessandFox2010).DavisandWeber
(2018)findthatrespondentswhobelieveAfricanAmericansexperienceinstitutional
8
discriminationaremorelikelytoexpressdissatisfactionwithdemocracy(importantly,they
findthathighlevelsofracialresentmentarealsoassociatedwithdemocratic
dissatisfaction).Ifexposuretoorrecognitionofbiasunderminescitizens’sensethatthe
politicalsystemiswell-functioning,representative,orresponsivetoindividualaction,
evidencethatbiasisbeingsuccessfullychallengedandovercome—suchasbyahistoric
numberoftraditionallyunderrepresentedcandidates—mightmovethoseattitudesinthe
otherdirection.
Workontheimpactofwomenpoliticiansonbeliefsaboutthepoliticalsystemare
lesscommonthanthoseabouttheimpactonengagementandbehavior,butprevious
researchisgenerallyencouraging.Womenexpressgreaterexternalefficacywhentheir
governorisfemaleandasthepercentofwomeninthestatelegislaturegrows(Atkesonand
Carrillo2007).Similarly,womenreportincreasedefficacyandfeelingsofpolitical
confidencewhenrepresentedbywomen(High-PippertandComer1998).Cross-national
researchissuggestive;bothwomenandmenexpressgreatersatisfactionwithdemocracy
intheircountryandconfidencethatelectionsreflectvoters’viewsasthepercentageof
womenrepresentativesincreases(KarpandBanducci2008;butseeBurnet2011).
Theconditionsofthe2018midtermsappearparticularlyconduciveforwomen
politicianstohaveapositiveimpactonwomen’sviewsoftheAmericanpoliticalsystem.
Theframingofwomenpoliticiansaseitheremphasizingwomen’sbreakthroughsand
achievementsortheircontinuedexclusionappeartoshapesucheffects:Inaseriesof
experiments,Bauer,Krupnikov,andYeganeh(2019)findthatthegendergapinoffice-
seekingambitionnarrowswhenrespondentsareexposedtoframesemphasizingthe
advanceswomenhavemadeinpolitics,butexpandswhentheframeshighlightwomen’s
9
persistentunder-representation.Alongthesesamelines,experiencesviewedasconfirming
men’sadvantagesinandwomen’sexclusionfromthepoliticalarenahavebeenfoundto
discourageinterestinpoliticalparticipationamonggirls(BennettandBennett1989;
CrosonandGneezy2009;Greenstein1969;Lips1995,Lizotte2017).Thisworkleadsusto
expectthatwomencandidatesaremostlikelytohaveapositiveimpactwhentheir
presenceisframedintermsofempowermentandachievement,ratherthanevidenceofon-
goingdiscrimination.Whilethe2018waveofwomencandidatescertainlyhighlighted
women’scontinuedunderrepresentation,womencandidates(andcoverageofthem)
largelytookonanempoweringtone,withpopularslogans—TheFutureisFemale,
Nevertheless,ShePersisted,andothers—emphasizingtherevolutionarypowerofwomen’s
candidacies.
Theconditionswereamenableinotherwaysaswell.Previousresearchon
engagementindicatesthatwomenpoliticiansaremorelikelytoaffectpoliticalengagement
underspecificconditions:whentheyarenovel(runningforanofficeheldbyaman),when
theyareviable,andwhentheyarehighlyvisible—particularlywhenthatvisibility
highlightstheirgender.Weareparticularlyinterestedinevidencethatwomenpoliticians
aremorelikelytoencourageengagementwhenattentionisdrawntotheuniquenessof
womenaspoliticalcandidatesandleaders.Forexample,ourpreviouswork(Campbelland
Wolbrecht2006)findsthatadolescentgirls’engagementwithpoliticsrosenoticeablyin
1984,whenGeraldineFerrarobecamethefirstwomanmajorpartyvicepresidential
nominee,andin1992,thefirstYearoftheWoman,whenconsiderablemediaattentionwas
drawntothethen-recordnumberofwomencandidates.Similarly,bothKoch(1997)and
10
Hansen(1997)findthatthepresenceofwomenpoliticiansinspiredgreaterengagement
during1992,butnotin1990or1994,whenwomenreceivedfarlessattention.
Inthispaper,wearespecificallyinterestedintheeffectsofwomencandidateson
adolescentgirlsandboys.Thepopular“TheFutureisFemale”sloganemphasizedthegoal
ofgreatergenderinclusionandempowermentforfuturegenerationsofwomenin
particular.Activistsarecorrecttoviewyoungerpeopleasatargetforpoliticalchange.
Childhoodsocializationisakeydeterminantofmanyfundamentalpoliticalbehaviorsand
attitudes(BeckandJennings1982;Campbell2008;Jennings,Stoker,andBowers2009).
Whileweexpectthattheattitudesandbehaviorsofolderpeoplearelikelymore
“crystalized”andthusresistanttoalteration,youngerpeoplearestilllearningaboutthe
politicalworld,developingtheirpoliticalhabits,andmoreopentochange(e.g.,Alwinetal.
1991;BeckandJennings1991;KrosnickandAlwin1989;Sears1983;StokerandJennings
2008).Inherargumentforgreaterdescriptiverepresentation,Mansbridge(1999,551)
arguesthat“Youngpeopleinparticularneedthesekindsofrolemodels.”Previousresearch
findsthatthepresenceofwomenpoliticiansisassociatedwithgreaterpolitical
engagementamongyoungerwomenandgirlsinparticularinboththeU.S.andcross-
nationally(Beamanetal.2012;CampbellandWolbrecht2006;Marianietal.2015;
WolbrechtandCampbell2007,2017).
Inatimeofintensepartisanpolarization,partyidentificationislikelyakey
moderatorforanyimpactofthepresenceofwomencandidates.Partisanshipisacentral
wayinwhichcitizensorganizeandunderstandthepoliticalworld.Inpreviousresearch,
womenweremorelikelytobeinspiredtogreaterengagementbyco-partisans—female
politiciansofthesameparty—particularlyinmorerecentyears(ReingoldandHarrell
11
2010;alsoAndersenandThorson2010;Dolan2006;Lawless2004;LühisteandKarp
2011;Stokes-BrownandNeal2008b;Wolak2015).Post-2016,itwasDemocratic
adolescents(andespeciallygirls)whobecamedisillusionedwiththeAmericanpolitical
system;Republicans,whosepartyandcandidatewontheelection,didnotchangetheir
beliefsabouttheabilityofthepoliticalsystemtorepresentpeople’sinterests(Campbell
andWolbrecht2019).In2018,thephenomenonofDemocraticwomenrunningforoffice
wasthefocusofpublicattention,makingitlikelythatanypositiveeffectsonadolescents
wouldbefoundamongemergentDemocrats.
Finally,thusfarwehavefocusedlargelyontheeffectofwomenpoliticiansonother
women.Thepurportedsalutaryeffectofthepresenceofdisadvantagedgroupmembersin
politicalpositionsontheirfellowdisadvantagedgroupmembersinthepublichasbeenthe
majorthrustoftheoreticalspeculation,activistexpectation,andempiricalinvestigation.
The2018midtermswerenoexception:Candidates,parties,andthepressalltrumpetedthe
ideathatthewaveoffemalecandidateswouldinspireandencouragepoliticalengagement
andactivismamongwomen(e.g.,Cauteruuci2018).
Yet,Mansbridge(1999,651)arguesthatforthosewhoseaimisimproved
democraticlegitimacyandintegrity,themostimportanteffectofdiverserepresentativesis
notontheunderrepresentedgroups,butonthosewhohavetraditionallyboastedprestige
andpower:
YetIconsiderofevengreaterimportancetheeffectsofsocialmeaningontheperceptionsandactionsofmembersofthemoreadvantagedgroups.Therearesometimesmoreofthem,andtheyaremorepowerful.Myaim,inshort,ischangingthepsychologyofthe"haves"farmorethanthepsychologyofthe"have-nots."
12
Mansbridge’sconcernismostcentrallyaboutbeliefsregardingthepolitical
capacities,value,andinterestsoftheunderrepresentedgroups.Bythesamelogic,we
mightexpect,orhope,however,thatmorediversityinpoliticalleadershipalsowould
encouragegreaterconfidenceinhowwellthepoliticalsystemperformsits
representationalfunctionamongthosealready-advantagedaswell.Empiricalevidence
hereismoremixed.Studiesofrolemodeleffectssometimereportthatthepresenceof
womenpoliticiansincreasesengagementamongmen/boysaswell,butalmostalwaystoa
morelimitedorlesssignificantextent(e.g.,CampbellandWolbrecht2006).Atkesonand
Carrillo(2007)findthatbothwomenandmenexpressgreaterexternalefficacywhentheir
governorisfemale,butthepercentageofwomeninthestatelegislatureonlyaffects
women.High-PippertandComer(1998)reportthatwomenrepresentativesareassociated
withincreasedefficacyandfeelingsofpoliticalconfidenceamongwomen,butnotmen.In
cross-nationalresearch,bothwomenandmenexpressgreatersatisfactionwithdemocracy
andconfidenceinelectionsthepercentageofwomenrepresentativesincreases(Karpand
Banducci2008,butseeBurnet2011).1
Hypotheses
Weinvestigatethefollowinghypothesesinthispaper:ThepresenceofDemocratic
womencandidatesinrespondents’ownstatesanddistrictsin2018hadapositiveimpact
onadolescents’viewsoftheAmericanpoliticalsystem.Weexpectthiseffecttobepositive,
1Indistinct,butrelatedwork,shiftsinbeliefsaboutwomen’scapacitytogovernarefoundmoreconsistentlyamongwomenratherthanmen(Alexander2012).TherecentnaturalexperimentinIndia—whereopportunitiesforwomentofillleadershippositionswererandomlyassignedtovillages—hasofferedfruitfulopportunitiestogaugetheimpactofwomen’sleadership.Inonestudy,Indianmen,butnotwomen,livinginvillagesrandomlyassignedfemalerepresentativesbecamemoreconfidentoftheeffectivenessoffemaleleadersingeneral(Beamanetal.2009).
13
notnegative,becauseoftheempoweringwaysinwhichwomencandidatesframed
themselvesandwereframedin2018.Attentiontowomencandidatesin2018was
widespreadandhighlysalient,sowemightexpecttofindsucheffectsregardlessof
whetherwomenraninarespondents’owngeographiclocale.Yet,howeverprominent
womencandidatesasanamorphousgroupmayhavebeennationally,westillexpectthat
candidatesinone’sowndistrictandstatearemorevisible,salient,andrelevantto
respondents,andthusmorelikelytoshapetheirbeliefs.Atthesametime,wefocus
specificallyontheimpactofDemocraticwomencandidates(andnotthefarlessnumerous
Republicanwomencandidates)asthesewerethecandidatesmoststronglypresentedas
challengingthestatusquo.
WeexpecttheeffectofthepresenceofDemocraticwomentobeparticularlystrong
foryoungwomen(ratherthanyoungmen)duetotheexperienceofseeingtheirown
underrepresentedgroupmembersachievingpoliticalattentionandpower.Moreover,as
thewaveofwomencandidatesin2018waslargelyaDemocraticphenomenonandframed
asareactiontotheTrumppresidency,wehypothesizethatthesepositiveeffectswere
concentratedamongDemocratsratherthanRepublicans.
Ourhypothesescanbesummarizedas:
a. WheremoreDemocraticwomenranforoffice,adolescentshadamorepositiveview
ofAmericandemocracy;
b. TheeffectofDemocraticwomencandidateswasgreaterforadolescentgirls;
c. TheeffectofDemocraticwomencandidateswasgreaterforadolescentswho
identifyasDemocrats.
14
ResearchDesignandResults
Thefundamentallogicofouranalysisistotesttheimpactofwomencandidateson
adolescents’evaluationsofthepoliticalsystem.Todoso,weemploytheFamilyMatters
Study(FMS),athree-wavepanelsurveyofAmericanadolescentsandtheirparents.The
studybeganinthefallof2016,when997adolescentsingrades9-12,alongwithone
parent,weresurveyedonline.Subsequentwaveswereconductedwithboththeteensand
parentsinthefallof2017and2018.2
TheFMShasthreekeyfeaturesfortestingourhypotheses.First,thedataare
longitudinal,andthusreflectchange(orstasis)overtime.Whenmodelingattitudesin
2018,wecontrolforthesesameattitudesin2017and2016.Inotherwords,ourresultsdo
notonlyreflectattitudesin2018,butthedifferencebetweenattitudesinprioryearsand
thosein2018.Whilewedonotmodelchangeperse,byaccountingforpreviousattitudes
wecontrolfortherespondents’baselineattitudes,thusstrengtheningtheinferencethat
anyeffectsweobserveareduetoconditionsin2018.
Second,wehavedatafrombothadolescentsandtheirparents;everyquestionasked
oftheteensinthestudywasalsoaskedoftheirparents.Thisenablesustoaccountfor
influencesinthehome.Therefore,anyeffectsareoverandabovetheattitudesoftheteen’s
parent.
2There-interviewrateforcompleteteen-parentdyadsinfrom2016to2017was60percent;from2016to2018itwas43percent.Toaccountforpanelattrition,eachwaveofdatahasbeenweightedtomatchtheparametersoftheU.S.populationforteensandparents,respectively.Theanalysisreportedhereemploystheteenweights,whichwerecreatedbyYouGovbymatchingtothe2013AmericanCommunitySurvey,usingthesamplingframeofyouthage15-18andcurrentlyingrades9-12.Thematchedcasesandtheframewerecombinedandalogisticregressionwasestimatedforinclusionintheframe.Thepropensityscorefunctionincludedage,gender,race/ethnicity,andcensusregion.Thepropensityscoresweregroupedintodecilesoftheestimatedpropensityscoreintheframeandpost-stratifiedaccordingtothesedeciles.
15
Third,thedataaregeocoded,enablingtheinclusionofdataonpoliticalcampaigns
withineachrespondent’scongressionaldistrictandstate.Wehavemergeddataonthe
2016and2018racesforU.S.House,Senate,andgovernor,includingthenumberoffemale
candidatesandtheirpartyaffiliation.3Weincluderacesforthesethreeofficesbecause
previousresearchhasshownthatrolemodeleffectsrequirefemalecandidatestobe
visible.Theseareallhigh-profileofficesthatgenerateconsiderablemediaattentionand
involveextensivecampaigning.Pastresearchalsohasshownthatcandidateshaveaneffect
whentheyareviable.Accordingly,weonlyincludethosefemalecandidateswhoeitherwon
orcamewithin10percentagepointsofdoingso(which,in2018,wasnearlyallofthem).4
Thedependentvariableisthemeasureofperceiveddemocraticresponsiveness
displayedinFigure1:whethertheadolescentrespondentagreesthat“thepoliticalsystem
helpspeoplewiththeirgenuineneeds.”Responseswereona5-pointscale,rangingfrom
StronglyDisagreetoStronglyAgree.Thevariableiscodedsothatahighervaluemeansa
morepositiveviewofthepoliticalsystem.Becausethedependentvariableisanordinal
scale,weemployorderedlogisticregression.
Column1ofTable1displaysamodeltestingtherelationshipbetweenwomen
candidatesandattitudestowarddemocracy.Controlvariablesincludetherespondent’s
responseinthetwopreviouswavesofthesurvey,aswellastheparent’sperceptionof
democracy(measured,recall,withanidentically-wordedquestion).Therealsoisasetof
standarddemographicvariables,eachwithaplausiblerelationshipwithdemocratic
3WearegratefultothestaffoftheCenterforAmericanWomenandPoliticsatRutgersUniversity,whogenerouslyprovidedthesedata.4Becausemostwomencandidatesin2018werecompetitive,resultsareessentiallyunchangedwhenweinsteaduseacountofallcandidates.
16
attitudes.Theseincludeage,race(Black),ethnicity(Hispanic),theparent’seducationlevel,
andtheeducationleveltheparentexpectstheteentoachieve.Inaddition,themodel
includesFemaleandDemocrat,twovariableswhichfigureprominentlyintheanalysis.The
modelalsoincludesthekeyindependentvariable,thenumberofwomencandidatesinthe
generalelection,whichrangesfrom0to5.ThisvariableincludesDemocrats,Republicans,
andanythird-partycandidates.
Asshownincolumn1,thecoefficientforWomenCandidatesissmall(-0.051)andfar
fromstatisticalsignificance.Inotherwords,thetotalnumberofwomencandidateshasno
effect—atleastwhenwelookatallcandidatesandallyouthasawhole.Recall,however,
thatwehypothesizethatitisDemocraticwomencandidateswhoaremostlikelytohave
affectedteens’perceptionofpoliticalresponsiveness.Column2thussubstitutesacountof
DemocraticwomenwhoranfortheHouse,Senate,andgovernor,whichrangesfrom0to3.
Inaddition,themodelincludesaseriesofinteractionterms,eachofwhichtestswhether
anyeffectsarespecifictoaparticularsubsetofthepopulation:
FemaleXDemocraticWomenCandidates:apositivecoefficientmeansthatgirlsare
moreresponsivetowomenDemocraticcandidatesthanareboys.
DemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidates:apositivecoefficientindicatesthat
DemocratsaremoreresponsivetowomenDemocraticcandidatesthanare
Republicans.Becausethemodelalsoaccountsfortheinteractionbetween
Femaleandthenumberofcandidates,itisinterpretedastheeffectfor
Democraticboys.
FemaleXDemocrat:apositivecoefficientshowsthatDemocraticgirlshavethemost
positiveperceptionofdemocracy.
17
Owingtothiscombinationofinteractionterms,inthesemodelsthemaineffectfor
DemocraticWomenCandidatesreflectstheeffectonboyswhodonotidentifyas
Democrats.5
Themodelincolumn3thenaddsanotherinteractionterm:
FemaleXDemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidates:thisvariableexamines
whethertheeffectofDemocraticwomenrunningforvisiblepoliticalofficesis
specifictoDemocraticgirls.ApositivecoefficientreflectsthatDemocraticgirls
arethemostlikelytorespondtowomenrunningundertheDemocraticbanner.
Takentogether,theresultsincolumns2and3indicatethat,consistentwithour
hypotheses:
(a)itisDemocraticwomencandidates,andnotRepublicanwomencandidates,who
haveaneffectonadolescents’evaluationsofAmericanpolitics;and
(b)allgirls,regardlessofparty,hadamoresanguineattitudeaboutthepolitical
systeminplaceswheremoreDemocraticwomenran;and
(c)allDemocratic-identifyingteens,whethergirlsorboys,alsobecamemore
positivetowardAmericandemocracyasthenumberofwomencandidates
increased(i.e.DemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidatesispositiveand
statisticallysignificant).
5Withthismodelspecification,thevariabletechnicallyshowstheeffectforboyswhoareeitherRepublicansorIndependents(thelatterbeingasmallshareofthepopulation).However,asexplainedbelow,furtheranalysisshowsthatthenegativeeffectisspecificallyforRepublicanboys.
18
ThisleavesonegroupwhobecamelesslikelytoviewAmericandemocracypositivelyas
moreDemocraticwomencompetedforoffice:Republicanboys.6
Table1.PerceptionsofDemocracyResultsfromorderedlogisticregression
1 2 3
Politicalsystemhelps,Wave1 0.324 0.178 0.180 (0.111)*** (0.113) (0.113)Politicalsystemhelps,Wave2 0.621 0.752 0.769 (0.109)*** (0.114)*** (0.116)***Politicalsystemhelps(Parent),Wave1 0.003 0.055 0.051 (0.102) (0.107) (0.107)Age -0.077 -0.118 -0.128 (0.123) (0.125) (0.126)Black -0.717 -0.862 -0.825 (0.287)** (0.312)*** (0.307)***Hispanic 0.021 -0.052 -0.066 (0.260) (0.265) (0.265)Teen'sExpectedEducationLevel(Parent) -0.181 -0.193 -0.191 (0.098)* (0.099)* (0.099)*Parent'sEducationLevel -0.111 -0.146 -0.152 (0.055)** (0.057)*** (0.057)***Female 0.541 -0.679 -0.454 (0.203)*** (0.393)* (0.469)Democrat 0.074 -1.392 -1.188 (0.207) (0.367)*** (0.433)***WomenCandidates,2018 -0.051 (0.091) DemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 -0.530 -0.420 (0.221)** (0.254)*FemaleXDemocrat 1.228 0.785 (0.432)*** (0.663)FemaleXDemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 0.600 0.377 (0.267)** (0.369)DemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 0.991 0.756 (0.264)*** (0.375)**FemaleXDemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidates,2018
0.465
(0.529)N 342 342 342Pseudo-R2 0.08 0.12 0.12
*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.Standarderrorsinparentheses.
6WhilethemodelsinTable1groupRepublicansandIndependentstogether,theresultsforRepublicansinFigure3arefromamodel(notshown)inwhichRepublicanisinteractedwithDemocraticWomenCandidates.
19
Becauseinteractiontermsaredifficulttointuit,Figures3Aand3Bdisplaypredicted
probabilitiesgeneratedfromthemodelincolumn3.7First,Figure3Ashowsthat,where
therewerenoDemocraticwomencandidatesin2018,Democraticboysandgirlshavethe
same—negative—viewofAmericandemocracy.Asthenumberofcandidatesincreases,
bothgroups’attitudestowarddemocracyimprove.However,Democraticgirlsexperience
farmoreofaneffectthanDemocraticboys.WheretherewerethreeDemocraticwomen
candidates(themaximum),80percentofDemocraticgirlsagreethatthepoliticalsystem
helpspeoplewiththeirneeds,comparedtoroughly20percentofDemocraticboys.In
Figure3BweseethatRepublicangirlsalsoreactedpositivelytothepresenceof
Democraticwomencandidates.Infact,theincreaseintheirpositivitytowarddemocracyis
evengreaterthanforDemocraticboys,risingfromroughly18percentwhereno
Democraticwomenranto45percentinplaceswiththreecandidates.
ThefactthattheeffectforDemocraticgirlsmovesinthesamedirectionasfor
DemocraticboysandRepublicangirlsexplainswhythecoefficientforFemaleXDemocratX
DemocraticCandidates,whilepositive,isnotstatisticallysignificantincolumn3.
Democraticgirls’attitudeswererising,butnotatasignificantlygreaterratethaneachof
theseothergroups(recallthatthesamplesizeisrelativelysmall,makingsignificancean
especiallyhighbarinthismodel).
Figure3BalsoprovidesvisualconfirmationthatRepublicanboys’attitudestoward
democracybecamemorenegativeinthepresenceofDemocraticwomencandidates.While
everyotherlinegoesup,theirsgoesdown.
7Togeneratetheseprobabilities,allcontrolvariablesareheldattheirobservedvalues(HanmerandKalkan2013).
20
Figure3A.
Figure3B.
Predictedprobabilitiesgeneratedfrommodelincolumn3,Table1.Allcontrolvariablessettotheiractualvalues.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
% "Political system helps people with
genuine needs"
Number of Women Democratic Candidates
How Democratic Girls and Boys Responded to Women Democratic Candidates
Democratic Girls Democratic Boys
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
% "Political system helps people with
genuine needs"
Number of Women Democratic Candidates
How Republican Girls and Boys Responded to Women Democratic Candidates
Republican Girls Republican Boys
21
Pastresearchalsohasfoundthatpoliticalinterestamongyoungwomencanbe
triggeredwhenwomencandidatesarenovel—runningtoreplaceamaleincumbent
(WolbrechtandCampbell2017).Itisunclearwhetherasimilareffectwouldbefoundfor
perceptionsofdemocraticresponsivenessin2018,giventhewidespreadattentiongivento
bothincumbentandnon-incumbentwomencandidates.Consider,forexample,thatfuture
presidentialcandidatesKirstenGillibrand,AmyKlobuchar,andElizabethWarrenallranfor
re-electionin2018.Inmodelsthatuseacountofnon-incumbentDemocraticwomen
candidates,wefindresultsthatareverysimilartothoseforallcandidates,incumbentsor
not.(Resultsavailableuponrequest).
ThesefindingsforDemocraticwomencandidatesleadnaturallytothequestionof
whetherthesameeffectisfoundforRepublicanwomen.Whilesmallerinnumberandless
likelytoemphasizetheirgender,itmightstillbethecasethatRepublican-identifyingteens,
girlsespecially,wouldfindinspirationinthecandidaciesofRepublicanwomenrunningfor
office.Toseeifthisisthecase,Table2presentstwomodelsthatparallelthoseinTable1.
ThedifferenceisthatthesemodelsaccountforviableRepublicanwomencandidates—
againfortheHouse,Senate,andGovernor—insteadofDemocratsrunningforoffice.Again
thereisaseriesofinteractionterms,butwithRepublicansinsteadofDemocrats.The
resultsareclear:RepublicangirlsdidnotrespondtothepresenceofRepublicanwomen
candidates.NordidgirlswhodonotidentifyasRepublicans.NordidRepublicanboys.In
contrasttotheeffectsforDemocraticwomen,Republicanwomenelicitednoresponsefrom
Americanteens,eventhoseoftheirownparty.
22
Table2.PerceptionsofDemocracy(WithRepublicanWomenCandidates)Resultsfromorderedlogisticregression
1 2
Politicalsystemhelps,Wave1 0.337 0.346 (0.110)*** (0.111)***Politicalsystemhelps,Wave2 0.610 0.609 (0.112)*** (0.112)***Politicalsystemhelps(Parent),Wave1 0.007 0.013 (0.103) (0.103)Age -0.063 -0.058 (0.124) (0.124)Black -0.696 -0.672 (0.292)** (0.291)**Hispanic -0.034 -0.011 (0.268) (0.270)Teen'sExpectedEducationLevel(Parent) -0.159 -0.150 (0.098) (0.099)Parent'sEducationLevel -0.107 -0.109 (0.056)* (0.056)*Female 0.596 0.677 (0.255)** (0.264)**Republican -0.064 0.107 (0.368) (0.394)RepublicanWomenCandidates,2018 -0.505 -0.345 (0.303)* (0.329)FemaleXRepublican -0.202 -0.566 (0.481) (0.569)FemaleXRepublicanWomenCandidates,2018 -0.026 -0.324 (0.375) (0.448)RepublicanXRepublicanWomenCandidates,2018 0.399 0.029 (0.404) (0.506)FemaleXRepublicanXRepublicanWomenCandidates,2018 0.969 (0.800)N 342 342Pseudo-R2 .09 .09
*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.Standarderrorsinparentheses.
Aretheseeffectsspecificto2018?IfwearerightthatDemocraticwomenin2018
werepartofanationalmovementemphasizingfemaleempowerment,wewouldnotexpect
toseeasimilareffectforDemocraticwomencandidatesin2016.Inthepresidentialrace,
HillaryClintonemphasizedherpath-breakingcandidacy,butanyeffectofhercandidacy
wouldnotbeconcentratedinparticulargeographicareas;mediacoverageofapresidential
23
raceisubiquitous.Thiswasparticularlytruein2016,ayearinwhichtheracefeaturedtwo
polarizingcandidateswhogeneratedenormousattention.Inresultsnotshown(but
availableuponrequest),wehavetestedwhetherDemocraticwomencandidatesin2016
hadthesameeffectsondemocraticattitudesasin2018.Theydidnot.(Norforthatmatter
didRepublicanwomencandidates).
Insum,theresultsthusfarshow:
1.Thepresenceofwomencandidatesingeneraldidnothaveaneffecton
adolescents’viewsofpoliticalresponsivenessingeneralin2018
2.ThepresenceofDemocraticwomencandidatesdidleadtoamorepositive
perceptionofAmericandemocracyamongDemocraticboys,Republicangirls,
and—especially—Democraticgirlsin2018.
3.ThepresenceofDemocraticwomencandidatesledtoamorenegativeperception
ofAmericandemocracyamongRepublicanboysin2018.
4.ThepresenceofRepublicanwomencandidateshadnoeffectonanyteens’
attitudesin2018.
5.TherewerenocomparableeffectsforDemocraticwomencandidatesin2016.
RobustnessCheck:AnotherMeasureofDemocraticAttitudes
Thusfar,wehavereliedonasinglemeasureofhowadolescentsevaluatethe
Americanpoliticalsystem.IfitisthecasethatDemocraticwomencandidatesfostereda
morepositiveviewoftheAmericanpoliticalsystem,weshouldseethesameeffectfor
otherevaluationsofAmericandemocracy.Toconfirmourresults,weturntoasecond
questionontheFamilyMattersStudy,borrowedfromtheWorldValuesSurvey:“Itis
24
importanttometoliveinademocracy.”8Thisitemwasaddedtoboththeadolescentand
parentsurveysinthethirdwaveoftheFMS,asotherscholarshavenotedadrop-offin
positiveresponsesamongyoungpeopleinliberaldemocracies,includingtheUnitedStates,
inrecentyears(MounkandFoa2018;Mounk2018).
Keepinmindthelimitationsofthisquestion.Forone,itwasonlyincludedonthe
thirdwaveofthesurvey,andthusitisnotpossibletocontrolforbaselineattitudesin2016
and2017.Also,amongFMSrespondents,thereisnotmuchvariation.Only4percentof
adolescentrespondentsdisagree(includingstronglydisagree)thatitisimportanttolivein
ademocracy.Mostofthevariation,therefore,isbetweenthemidpoint(21percent)and
agree/stronglyagree(34and41percent,respectively).9
Table3mirrorsTable1,butwiththeitemaboutlivinginademocracyasthe
dependentvariable.Alloftheindependentvariables,includingtheinteractionterms,are
identical.TheresultsalsomirrorthoseinTable1.First,aswithperceptionsofdemocratic
responsiveness,thenumberofWomenCandidates(column1)hasnoeffect.Alsoechoing
theearliermeasureofdemocraticattitudes,thereisaneffectforDemocratXDemocratic
WomenCandidates(column2).However,inthiscasetherealsoisastatisticallysignificant
effectforDemocraticgirlsspecifically(column3)—meaningthatasthenumberof
8Ithasthesamefiveresponsecategoriesasabove,rangingfromStronglyDisagreetoStronglyAgree.9Parents’attitudesaresimilar:Stronglydisagree 1.8%Disagree 1.6%Neitheragreeordisagree 16.6%Agree 25.7%Stronglyagree 54.4%
25
Democraticwomencandidatesrises,sodoesthevalueassignedtolivinginademocracyby
Democraticgirls.
Table3.ImportanceofLivinginaDemocracyResultsfromorderedlogisticregression
1 2 3ImportanttoLiveinDemocracy(Parent) 1.066 1.105 1.118 (0.143)*** (0.145)*** (0.145)***Age 0.076 0.057 0.032 (0.123) (0.124) (0.125)Black -0.548 -0.522 -0.462 (0.256)** (0.259)** (0.253)*Hispanic 0.437 0.452 0.424 (0.279) (0.287) (0.288)Teen'sExpectedEducationLevel(Parent) 0.141 0.138 0.152 (0.101) (0.101) (0.101)Parent'sEducationLevel 0.139 0.135 0.122 (0.058)** (0.059)** (0.059)**Female -0.483 -0.244 0.203 (0.207)** (0.387) (0.461)Democrat 0.629 0.334 0.746 (0.222)*** (0.393) (0.459)WomenCandidates,2018 -0.041 (0.096) DemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 -0.339 -0.141 (0.216) (0.242)FemaleXDemocrat -0.384 -1.320 (0.422) (0.673)**FemaleXDemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 -0.066 -0.516 (0.273) (0.372)DemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 0.494 0.006 (0.274)* (0.385)FemaleXDemocratXDemocraticWomenCandidates,2018 0.987 (0.552)*N 388 388 388Pseudo-R2 0.16 0.17 0.17
*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.Standarderrorsinparentheses.
Figures4Aand4Bdisplaythepredictedprobabilitiesgeneratedfromthemodelin
column3ofTable3,forDemocratsandRepublicansrespectively.10Asexpected,theoverall
levelofagreementthatlivinginademocracyisimportantishigh.Foralmostall
10AswithFigure3,allcontrolvariablesaresettotheiractualvalues.
26
adolescents—Democraticboys,Republicangirls,Republicanboys—thelineisinanegative
direction,butthetrendisfarfromstatisticalsignificance.11Formostadolescents,then,the
presenceofDemocraticwomencandidateswasunrelatedtotheircommitmentto
democracy.Importantly,however,theincreaseinthatsentimentamongDemocraticgirlsis
bothstatisticallysignificantandsubstantivelymeaningful,movingfrom78to89percent.
Evenwithadependentvariablethathaslittlevariation,thereisstillconsiderable
movementamongDemocraticgirlsasthepercentageofDemocraticwomencandidates
rises.
Onbalance,ourrobustnesscheckconfirmstheprimaryfindingfromtheanalysisof
perceiveddemocraticresponsiveness.Inbothcases,asthenumberofDemocraticwomen
candidatesincreases,Democraticgirlshaveamorepositiveopinionofdemocracy.
11WhilethelineforRepublicangirls’declineisnoticeable,inamodel(notshown)thatspecificallyteststheinteractionofFemaleXRepublicanXDemocraticWomenCandidates,thepvalueis.83.Thatis,thatdeclineisnowherenearstatisticalsignificance.
27
Figure4A.
Figure4B.
Predictedprobabilitiesgeneratedfrommodelincolumn3,Table3.Allcontrolvariablessettotheiractualvalues.
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
0 1 2 3
% "Important to Live in a
Democracy"
Number of Women Democratic Candidates
How Democratic Girls and Boys Responded to Women Democratic Candidates
Democratic Girls Democratic Boys
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
% "Important to Live in a
Democracy"
Number of Women Democratic Candidates
How Republican Girls and Boys Responded to Women Democratic Candidates
Republican Girls Republican Boys
28
Conclusion
Bythetimethedustsettled,ahistoricnumberofwomenwereelected(orreelected)
tostateandfederalofficeinNovember2018:25womentotheU.S.Senate(17Democrats,
8Republicans),102womentotheU.S.House(89Democrats,13Republicans),and9to
governor’soffices(6Democrats,3Republicans)(CAWP2019).Ourresearchsuggeststhat
notonlywouldthesewomentransformthefaceofpoliticalleadershipintheUnitedStates,
butthey—andthewomencandidateswhoranviablecampaignsbutdidnotwin—also
helpedtorestoreconfidenceintheAmericanpoliticalsystem,particularlyamongthe
Democraticadolescentgirlstowhomtheyprovidedescriptiverepresentation.Democratic
girls,manyofwhomhadbecomeconsiderablylesssanguineabouttheabilityofthe
Americanpoliticalsystemtohelppeoplewiththeirgenuineneedsafter2016,became
moreoptimisticduring2018,especiallywhenDemocraticwomencandidateswererunning
intheirownstateordistrict.Andtheywerenotalone:BothDemocraticboysand
Republicangirlsindistrictsandstateswithwomencandidatesalsobecamemoreconfident
inthepoliticalsystem,albeittoafarlesserdegreethanDemocraticgirls.
Yet,ourfindingsmightnotbeentirelyencouragingforthosepinningtheirhopesfor
greatertrustandlegitimacyonincreaseddescriptiverepresentationofwomen.Themost
advantagedgroup,Republicanboys—thepartyinpoweratthetimeandthesexlongover-
representedinpoliticalpower—areunmovedbythepresenceofwomencandidates.
Indeed,theyactuallybecomeslightlylesslikelytoreportthatthepoliticalsystemhelps
peoplewiththeirgenuineneedswhenDemocraticwomenranintheirownstateand
district.Mansbridge’shopeandexpectationthatgreaterdescriptiverepresentationwould
changetheattitudesandbeliefsofthosecurrentlyadvantagedwasnotfulfilledin2018.On
29
theotherhand,Mansbridgeisconcernedwithhowthepresenceofunderrepresented
groupsmightshapeperceptionsoftheircapacityforpoliticalleadership.Futureresearch
shouldexplorewhetherandhowwomenandminoritycandidatesshapesuchattitudes,not
onlyamongfellowgroupmembers,butamongthosemostadvantagedbythecurrent
systemaswell.
Anotherimportantnextstepistoinvestigatewhateffecttheseshiftsinbeliefsabout
thepoliticalsystemhaveonpoliticalbehavior.Wemightexpectthatasadolescentsbecome
moreoptimisticabouttheresponsivenessofthepoliticalsystem,theywillbemore
interestedinengagingwithit,suchasthroughvoting,workingforacandidate,andsoon.
Ontheotherhand,ourpreviousworkfoundthatDemocraticgirlsinparticularbecame
moreinterestedinprotest—usuallyconceivedofasasystem-challengingformofpolitical
engagement—astheybecamemoredisillusionedwithpolitics.Ifthe2018waveof
DemocraticwomencandidatesmadeDemocraticgirlsmoreoptimistic,shouldtheir
interestinprotestdeclineasaresult?Or,totheextentthatthosewomencandidateswere
viewedasanextensionoftheResistancewithwhichtheWomen’sMarchandotherprotest
actionsareassociated,doesthepresenceofwomencandidatesonlyaffirmtheimportance
ofprotestasapoliticalrepertoire?
FromBrexittoBrazil,observerslamentthevariedchallengestoliberaldemocracy
worldwide,includingwhatappearstobeadecliningcommitmenttoit.Thedistance
betweencitizen’sexpectationsforademocraticsystem—representative,fair,open—and
citizens’perceptionsofhowwellthepoliticalsystemactuallymeetsthosestandardsisa
centralgaugeofdemocraticlegitimacy(Norris2011).Ourfindingssupporttheclaimthat
increaseddescriptiverepresentationofwomencanencouragemorepositiveevaluationsof
30
thepoliticalsystem,underconditions(apparently)ofanempoweringframe,shared
partisanship,and/orshareddisadvantagedgroupstatus.Allthesame,thelackofreaction
(orevennegativereaction)todiversificationofthepoliticalsystemfromthosemost
advantagedbyitpointstopersistentchallengesforAmericandemocracy.
31
ReferencesAlexander,AmyC.“ChangeinWomen’sDescriptiveRepresentationandtheBeliefin
Women’sAbilitytoGovern:AVirtuousCycle.”Politics&Gender8(December2012):437–464.
Alter,Charlotte.“AYearAgoTheyMarched.NowaRecordNumberofWomenAreRunning
forOffice.”Timemagazine,January18,2018.https://time.com/5107499/record-number-of-women-are-running-for-office/
Atkeson,LonnaRae.“NotAllCuesAreCreatedEqual:TheConditionalImpactofFemale
CandidatesonPoliticalEngagement.”TheJournalofPolitics65(2003):1040–61.Atkeson,LonnaRae,andNancyCarrillo.“MoreIsBetter:TheInfluenceofCollectiveFemale
DescriptiveRepresentationonExternalEfficacy.”Politics&Gender1(March2007):79–101.
Atkeson,LonnaRae,andRapoport,RonaldB.“TheMoreThingsChangetheMoreTheyStay
theSame:ExaminingGenderDifferencesinPoliticalAttitudeExpression,1952-2000.”PublicOpinionQuarterly67(2003):495-521.
Bandura,A.“Social-LearningTheoryofIdentifactoryProcesses”InHandbookof
SocializationTheoryandResearch,ed.D.A.Goslin.(Chicago:RandMcNallyandCompany,1969)
Bauer,Nichole,YannaKrupnikov,andSaraYeganeh.“CanGoodIntentionsFail?How
FocusingonPoliticalExclusionAffectsWomen’sandMen’sWillingnesstoRunforOffice,”Workingpaper,2019.
Beaman,Lori,EstherDuflo,RohiniPande,andPetiaTopalova.“FemaleLeadershipRaises
AspirationsandEducationalAttainmentforGirls:APolicyExperimentinIndia.”Science335(February3,2012):582–86.
Beaman,Lori,RaghabendraChattopadhyay,EstherDuflo,RohiniPande,andPetia
Topalova.“PowerfulWomen:DoesExposureReduceBias?”TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics124(November1,2009):1497–1540.
Beck,Paul,andM.KentJennings.“PathwaystoParticipation.”AmericanPoliticalScience
Review76(1982):94–108.Bennett,L.L.M.&Bennett,S.E.“EnduringGenderDifferencesinPoliticalInterest:The
ImpactofSocialization&PoliticalDispositions.”AmericanPoliticsQuarterly17(January1989):105-22.
32
Broockman,DavidE.“DoFemalePoliticiansEmpowerWomentoVoteorRunforOffice?ARegressionDiscontinuityApproach.”ElectoralStudies34(June2014):190–204.
Burnet,JennieE.“WomenHaveFoundRespect:GenderQuotas,SymbolicRepresentation,
andFemaleEmpowermentinRwanda.”Politics&Gender7(September2011):303–334.Burns,Nancy,KayLehmanSchlozman,andSidneyVerba.ThePrivateRootsofPublicAction:
Gender,Equality,andPoliticalParticipation.(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1995).
Campbell,Angus,PhillipE.Converse,WarrenE.Miller,andDonaldE.Stokes.TheAmerican
Voter.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1960).Campbell,DavidE.WhyWeVote:HowSchoolsandCommunitiesShapeourCivicLife.
(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2008).Campbell,DavidE.,andChristinaWolbrecht.“TheResistanceasRoleModel:
DisillusionmentandProtestAmongAmericanAdolescentsAfter2016.”PoliticalBehavior2019.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09537-w.
Campbell,DavidE.,andChristinaWolbrecht.“SeeJaneRun:WomenPoliticiansasRole
ModelsforAdolescents.”TheJournalofPolitics68(2006):233–47.Cauterucci,Christina.“DemocraticWomenAreWinningHousePrimariesinRecord
Numbers.RepublicanWomen—NotSoMuch.”Slate.com,August9,2018.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/democrats-are-nominating-more-women-for-congress-than-ever-republicans-not-so-much.html
Cauterucci,Christina,CelesteKatz,LatifaLyles,andHannaRosin.“FemaleCandidates
FinallyFeelOKAboutBeingFemaleCandidates.”Slate.com,October25,2019.https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/10/2018-midterms-women-candidates-campaign-trail.html
CenterforAmericanWomenandPolitics(CAWP).“Currentnumbers,”AccessedJune25,
2019.https://cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbersCenterforAmericanWomenandPolitics(CAWP).“SummaryofWomenCandidatesfor
SelectedOffices,1970-2018,”December3,2018.http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/can_histsum.pdf
Conway,MargaretM.PoliticalParticipationintheUnitedStates.(Washington,D.C.:
CongressionalQuarterlyPress,1985).Croson,R.&Gneezy,U.“GenderDifferencesinPreferences.”JournalofEconomicLiterature
47(2009):448–74.
33
Davis,NicholasT.andChristopherR.Weber,“Perceptionsofracialdiscriminationanddemocraticsatisfaction,”Paperpresentedatthe2018AnnualMeetingoftheInternationalSocietyofPoliticalPsychology.
Dolan,Kathleen.“SymbolicMobilization?TheImpactofCandidateSexinAmerican
Elections.”AmericanPoliticsResearch34(2006):687–704.Fridkin,KimL.,andPatrickJ.Kenney.“HowtheGenderofU.S.SenatorsInfluencesPeople’s
UnderstandingandEngagementinPolitics.”TheJournalofPolitics76(October2014):1017–1031.
Gilardi,Fabrizio.“TheTemporaryImportanceofRoleModelsforWomen’sPolitical
Representation.”AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience59(October2015):957–70.Hanmer,MichaelJ.,andKeremOzanKalkan.2013.“BehindtheCurve:ClarifyingtheBest
ApproachtoCalculatingPredictedProbabilitiesandMarginalEffectfromLimitedDependentVariableModels.”AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience57(1):263–77.
Hansen,SusanB.“TalkingAboutPolitics:GenderandContextualEffectsonPolitical
Proselytizing.”TheJournalofPolitics59(1997):73–103.High-Pippert,Angela,andJohnComer.“FemaleEmpowerment.”Women&Politics19
(September2,1998):53–66.Hunt,ChristopherJohn,KarenGonsalkorale,andLisaZadro.“ThePolarisingEffectof
FemaleLeaders:InterestinPoliticsandPerceivedLeadershipCapabilityafteraReminderofAustralia’sFirstFemalePrimeMinister.”EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology44(December2014):723–29.
Jennings,M.Kent,LauraStoker,andJakeBowers.“PoliticsAcrossGenerations:Family
TransmissionReexamined.”JournalofPolitics71(2009):782–99.Karp,JeffreyA.,andSusanA.Banducci.“WhenPoliticsIsNotJustaMan’sGame:Women’s
RepresentationandPoliticalEngagement.”ElectoralStudies27(March2008):105–15.Koch,Jeffrey.“CandidateGenderandWomen’sPsychologicalEngagementinPolitics.”
AmericanPoliticsQuarterly25(1997):118–33.Krosnick,JonA.,andDuaneF.Alwin,“AgingandSusceptibilitytoChange,”Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology57(1989)416-25.Lawless,JenniferL.“PoliticsofPresence?CongresswomenandSymbolicRepresentation.”
PoliticalResearchQuarterly57(2004):81–99.
34
Lawless,JenniferL.andRichardL.Fox.ItStillTakesaCandidate:WhyWomenDon’tRunforOffice.(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010).
Lips,H.M.“Gender-RoleSocialization:LessonsinFemininity,”InWomen:AFeminist
Perspective,ed.JoFreeman.(MountainView,CA:MayfieldPublishingCompany,1995).Lizotte,Mary-Kate.“TheGenderGapinPublicOpinion:ExploringSocialRoleTheoryasan
Explanation,”InThePoliticalPsychologyofWomeninU.S.Politics,eds.AngelaL.BosandMonicaC.Schneider.(NewYork:Routledge,2017).
Mansbridge,Jane.“ShouldBlacksRepresentBlacksandWomenRepresentWomen?A
Contingent‘Yes.’”TheJournalofPolitics61(1999):628–57.Mariani,Mack,BryanW.Marshall,andA.LanetheaMathews-Schultz.“SeeHillaryClinton,
NancyPelosi,andSarahPalinRun?Party,Ideology,andtheInfluenceofFemaleRoleModelsonYoungWomen.”PoliticalResearchQuarterly68(2015):716–31.
Mounk,YashaandRobertoStefanFoa,“TheEndoftheDemocraticCentury:Autocracy’s
GlobalAscendance,”ForeignAffairs209(May-June2018):29-36.
Mounk,Yascha.2018.ThePeoplevs.Democracy:WhyOurFreedomIsinDangerandHowto SaveIt.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.Mariani,Mack,BryanW.Marshall,andA.LanetheaMathews-Schultz.“SeeHillaryClinton,
NancyPelosi,andSarahPalinRun?Party,Ideology,andtheInfluenceofFemaleRoleModelsonYoungWomen.”PoliticalResearchQuarterly68(2015):716–31.
Norris,Pippa.DemocraticDeficits:CriticalCitizensRevisited.(Cambridge,UK:Cambridge
UniversityPress,2011).North,Anna,“‘We’veneverseenanythinglikethis’:howTrumpinspiredwomentorunfor
office.”Vox.com,November8,2017.https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/6/16571570/female-candidates-trump-clinton-2016-election
Phillips,Anne.ThePoliticsofPresence(NewYork:ClarendonPress,1995).Sapiro,Virginia,“WhenAreInterestsInteresting?TheProblemofthePolitical
RepresentationofWomen.”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview75(September1981):701-16.
Simon,MalloryandKyungLah,“Trumpopenedthefloodgates.NowDemocraticwomenare
runningforofficeinrecord-breakingnumbers.”CNN.com,November4,2017.https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/women-candidates-ballot/index.html
35
Tackett,Michael.“WomenLineUptoRunforOffice,HarnessingTheirOutrageatTrump.”NewYorkTimes,December4,2017.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/women-candidates-office.html
Wolak,Jennifer.“CandidateGenderandthePoliticalEngagementofWomenandMen.”
AmericanPoliticsResearch43(September2015):872–96.Wolak,Jennifer.“DescriptiveRepresentationandthePoliticalEngagementofWomen.”
Politics&Gender2019.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X18000910Wolbrecht,Christina“AWoman’sPlaceisintheResistance:Women,Gender,andAmerican
Democracy,”MemopreparedfortheConference:ARepublic,IfWeCanKeepIt,CornellUniversityandNewAmericaFoundation,April12-13,2018.http://a-republic-if-we-can-keep-it.inequality.cornell.edu/memos/
Wolbrecht,ChristinaandDavidE.Campbell,“Rolemodelsrevisited:youth,novelty,andthe
impactoffemalecandidates.”Politics,Groups,andIdentities5(2017):418-34.
