Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
After the presidential election of 2008, you're well aware of the "Bradley Effect," whereby pre-election polls tend to over-state support for the African American candidate in a race. However, a new study by Reuben Kline of University of California, Irvine and Christopher Stout of Wellesley College introduces the "Richards Effect"--named after former Texas Gov. Ann Richards--which describes the study's finding that pre-election polls significantly underestimate a female candidate's ultimate electoral support in a race against a male candidate.
The study tested two hypotheses:
Hypothesis A Pre-Election Polls will consistently overestimate support for female candidates because respondents want to appear more progressive on gender issues. And, if true, this tendency should be greatest in more gender-progressive states.
Hypothesis B Pre-Election Polls will consistently underestimate support for female candidates because respondents want to appear more conservative on gender issues. And, if true, this tendency should be more prevalent in gender conservative states.
In order to test these hypotheses, Kline and Stout looked at data on more than 100 major party female gubernatorial and US Senate candidates from 1989 through 2008, and for comparison, matched them up against a control group of electoral races between two male candidates. Analysis of the data led them to conclude the verity of Hypothesis B. Moreover, they found that
female candidates are most likely to experience larger polling discrepancies in states where fewer women are in the labor force and in states where the Congressional delegation has a poor record on supporting progressive gender issues. The results from both sets of analyses suggest that voters tend to prove more supportive of female candidates in states in the voting booth than in responding to a pre-election poll, and this tendency intensifies in gender-conservative states.
The study's findings, which suggest that there exists a stigma associated with voicing support for a female candidate, seem counter-intuitive and surprising to me. Nevertheless, the Richards Effect is something to watch for going forward, especially dare I say, considering the results of this latest shock poll pitting Palin up against Obama.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
One question: What the hell's a "gender-conservative state"? One can go in so many directions with that.
Edited on Sep 21, 2011 at 3:30pmRe: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Casey Taylor: One question: What the hell's a "gender-conservative state"? One can go in so many directions with that. · Sep 21 at 3:28pm
Edited on Sep 21 at 03:30 pm
I believe they mean states where "fewer women are in the labor force and...where the Congressional delegation has a poor record on supporting progressive gender issues."
Essentially the Bible Belt, I'm guessing.
Dec '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Nope. Because I would vote for the best candidate, regardless of sex. Even if I were offered guilt-free illicit sex, I would vote for the best candidate, while blissfully lying. Then, of course rot in Hell, but....
I don't get guys (or gals) that don't make these decisions for themselves. Some of my favorite bosses/clients/coworkers have been distaff. What's the big deal?
Jun '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
In polls, there's a tendency to want to pick the winner, and look smart. That could lead to people overestimating the advantage of being male (or being from Texas.) "I know that I've evolved, but my trapped-in-the-past fellow citizens would never vote for her, so who's next best?"
Mar '11
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Casey Taylor: One question: What the hell's a "gender-conservative state"? One can go in so many directions with that. · Sep 21 at 3:28pm
Edited on Sep 21 at 03:30 pm
I believe they mean states where "fewer women are in the labor force and...where the Congressional delegation has a poor record on supporting progressive gender issues."
Essentially the Bible Belt, I'm guessing. · Sep 21 at 3:36pm
Next question. What the hell are progressive gender issues?
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Basil Fawlty
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Casey Taylor: One question: What the hell's a "gender-conservative state"? One can go in so many directions with that. · Sep 21 at 3:28pm
Edited on Sep 21 at 03:30 pm
I believe they mean states where "fewer women are in the labor force and...where the Congressional delegation has a poor record on supporting progressive gender issues."
Essentially the Bible Belt, I'm guessing. · Sep 21 at 3:36pm
Next question. What the hell are progressive gender issues? · Sep 21 at 3:53pm
The paper lists as examples pay equity, the woman's movement, and non-traditional gender roles.
Dec '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Diane, when you dare to say "Palin," that's like daring to say "it" to the Knights Who Say "Ni!"
Apr '11
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Casey Taylor: ...What the hell's a "gender-conservative state"? ...
...states where "fewer women are in the labor force and...where the Congressional delegation has a poor record on supporting progressive gender issues."
Gender-conservative, adj phrase (Sociologese):
Aug '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Similarly, back in the 1930s hotel clerks were more likely to claim that they excluded Chinese guests than to actually exclude them.
LaPiere, Richard. T. 1934. "Attitudes vs. Actions." Social Forces 13:230--237.
Before we pop the champagne though, the main body of current findings shows that people tend to understate how much they discriminate and in this sense the female candidate thing is an outlier. For example:
Pager, Devah and Lincoln Quillian. 2005. "Walking the Talk: What Employers Say Versus What They Do." American Sociological Review 70(3):355-380.
Aug '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
I don't think the study is granular enough, and the hypotheses are too broad. One could easily eliminate the second sentence from both hypotheses to arrive at valid questions. The addition of the second sentence in each hypothesis adds a gray area that would be better served through a more rigorous sub-study.
It would be better to first ask "do surveys overestimate/underestimate support for female candidates" first. This could then be followed by a series of hypotheses for underlying correlations in order to arrive at an explanatory model. By grouping the first question with an explanation, the study limits its true generalizability.
How many other variables to describe the under reporting were examined? Null hypotheses are valid results to learn from, and I would love to find out what some of those were.
I'll read the whole study in order to see their data, analysis, and the strength of correlation in the linear modeling, but I still think the current questions allow too much for confirmation bias and not enough room for really examining the questions.
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Nathaniel Wright:
How many other variables to describe the under reporting were examined? Null hypotheses are valid results to learn from, and I would love to find out what some of those were.
A few they list in the literature review section of the paper: large numbers of undecided voters; larger than expected turnout rates; non-competitive races; and races with incumbents.
I do hope you have a chance to read the whole thing (it's not long) and report back on what you think.
Apr '11
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Interestingly, Palin reached this position with very minimal expenditures of time and money. Her organization, almost eerily leak-proof, would be a good model for the CIA. Occasionally a portion reveals itself. For instance, who are American Grizzlies United? Anybody know? One keeps running across that name in Palinland.
http://americangrizzliesunited.com/
Edited on Sep 21, 2011 at 6:32pmApr '11
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Even though polls are for strippers and cross country skiers in the Marist/McClatchy poll Palin leads Obama among independents by a 47-43 margin. Mitt Romney leads Obama by a 44-40 margin among independents while Obama ties Rick Perry among independents at 43-43. Apparently she appeals to independents more than conventional wisdom would allow.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US110913/2012/Complete%20September%2021,%202011%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf?wpisrc=nl_pmfix
Aug '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
The fact borne out by their study is "Pre-Election Polls will consistently underestimate support for female candidates." The causality does not appear to be explained by the the other data you cited because there is no discussion of the platforms the female candidates espoused. If they are in fact more conservative than their opponents, then the underlying causality is not the 'appearance' of increased conservative tendencies, but appeasement of liberal tendencies.
Did they control for the already known problem of oversampling Democrats in national polls?
Edited on Sep 21, 2011 at 7:11pmJul '10
Re: Are You More Likely to Vote for a Woman Than to Say You'll Vote for a Woman?
I'd be more likely to tell the pollsters where to go.