Gender, Context, and Television Advertising: A Comprehensive Analysis of 2000 and 2002 House Races

• Date: 01 March 2011
• Author: Valerie Hennings,Katherine Cramer Walsh,Patricia Strach,Virginia Sapiro
• Published date: 01 March 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912909343583
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
Gender, Context, and Television
64(1) 107 –119
© 2011 University of Utah
Advertising: A Comprehensive
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909343583
Analysis of 2000 and 2002 House Races
http://prq.sagepub.com
Virginia Sapiro,1 Katherine Cramer Walsh,2
Patricia Strach,3 and Valerie Hennings2
Abstract
Are men and women portrayed differently in campaigns? Much scholarship and commentary expects that this is so, yet
previous studies provide ambiguous evidence on the extent of gender difference. The authors provide a comprehensive
analysis of gender differences in television advertisements in congressional races in 2000 and 2002 with data that
allow them to take into account the frequency of airings, the sponsorship of the advertisements, partisanship, and
competitiveness of the race. Although some gender differences emerge, the analysis reveals undeniable similarity in
the presentation of male and female candidates in television advertisements.
Keywords
campaign advertising, gender, elections, political communication, stereotypes
Do men and women run for office differently? Decades of
There are a variety of reasons to expect that male and
research expect that they do. Much of the early blossom-
female candidates present themselves and are presented
ing of literature on women and elective office focused on
by others differently in campaigns. The first reason stems
gender difference—comparing the backgrounds of male
from expectations that men and women care about differ-
and female candidates and gender-based stereotypes that
ent issues. Though public opinion surveys show that these
could affect them (Bernstein and Bernstein 1975; Bullock
differences are actually quite small (Sapiro 2003, 606-10),
and Heys 1972; Darcy and Schramm 1977; Dubeck 1976;
there is a marginal tendency for men to care more about
Feree 1974; Gertzog 1979; Hedlund et al. 1979; Karnig
economics and women to care more about social issues.
and Walter 1976; Merritt 1977; Van Hightower 1977;
Furthermore, political elites are not immune from this
Welch 1978). Today, research on gender and campaigns
political culture (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly 1995).
revolves around a new set of questions of difference:
A second reason to expect gender differences in candi-
whether men and women candidates present themselves
date presentation is that just as gender stereotypes and
differently (Dolan 2005; Herrnson, Lay, and Stokes 2003;
expectations underlie public perceptions and vote choice
Schaffner 2005), are perceived differently by the elector-
(Dolan 2008; Falk and Kenski 2006; Fox and Oxley 2003;
ate (Koch 2002; Sanbonmatsu 2002; Streb et al. 2008), and
Koch 2002; Lawless 2004; Sanbonmatsu 2002, 2003),
whether these differences affect citizen engagement and
they likely also underlie the behavior of campaign strate-
electoral outcomes (Atkeson 2003; Fox and Oxley 2003).
gists and candidates. The behavior of party leaders reflects
Despite scholarly conclusions and popular assumptions,
gender stereotypes (Sanbonmatsu 2006). The behavior of
there remains little clear evidence about whether there are
members of the press reflects them as well (Devitt 1999;
gender differences in the way candidates present them-
Heldman, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Kittilson and Fridkin
selves, why they may persist, and the implications of these
differences.
1Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Before we can answer the question of whether and
2University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
how gender differences in the way candidates present
3Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
themselves and are presented by others affect public per-
ceptions and votes, we first need to establish that there
Corresponding Author:
Katherine Cramer Walsh, Department of Political Science, University
are in fact differences. This articles focuses on that basic,
of Wisconsin–Madison, 110 North Hall, Madison, WI 53706, USA
persistent, important assumption.
E-mail: kwalsh2@wisc.edu

---

108
Political Research Quarterly 64(1)
2008), although the treatment of women and men in
how candidates want to present themselves than is true
news media is generally equitable. (For a review, see
of ads produced by parties or interest groups (Goldstein
Atkeson and Krebs 2008; Bystrom et al. 2004, chap. 2).
and Ridout 2004).1 Second, previous literature also sug-
These biases may also appear in the way candidates are
gests that we should expect differences along four
portrayed.
dimensions: casting and setting, policy issues, candidate
Third, whether or not candidates and campaign pro-
traits, and the tone and purpose of the ad (Bystrom et al.
fessionals are aware of their own gender stereotypes,
2004; Dabelko and Herrnson 1997; Dolan 2005; Fox
they are aware of the stereotypes held by the electorate.
1997; Kahn 1993, 1996). We examine characteristics
Members of the electorate perceive that male and female
within each of these areas while examining same-gender
political leaders have different areas of expertise
as well as mixed-gender races, candidate- and party/
(Alexander and Andersen 1993; Burrell 1994, chap. 2;
interest group–produced ads, and elections across multi-
Fridkin and Kenney 2008; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993;
ple years. Such a comprehensive analysis has not been
Kahn 1994; Lawless 2004; Rosenwasser et al. 1987;
conducted to date and is necessary to test the assumption
Sapiro 1981-82, 1983, chap. 7). Male and female
of gender difference that underlies much of the literature.
candidates may emphasize different issues, playing to
Though previous studies tend to focus on differences
perceptions of their competence and interests—what we
when they appear, the literature taken as a whole does
might label “gender-based issue ownership” (Iyengar and
not suggest these differences outweigh the similarities.
McGrady 2007, 144; see also Center for American Women
For example, although a study on ads in 1998 congres-
and Politics 2001; Jamieson 1995; Niven and Zilber 2001).
sional campaigns found some modest gender differences
Whether playing to perceived strengths or compensating
in campaigns that are consistent with gender stereotypes
for perceived weaknesses is perceived as more advanta-
(Panagopoulos 2004), a study of campaign advertising in
geous remains to be seen (Herrnson et al. 2003).
House, Senate, and gubernatorial races from 1964 to
A fourth reason that gender differences might appear
1998 found that apparent gender differences in “out-
is due to the medium candidates most commonly use to
sider” imagery and appeals to “feminine” issues (primarily
convey messages to the public: television. Television
social welfare, environment, and women’s rights issues)
advertising continues to display disproportionately tradi-
were attributable to party and incumbency status—not to
tional gender roles. It attributes expertise and power
gender (Shames 2003). Also, while Herrnson et al. (2003)
more to men, through the greater use of men for voiceovers,
argued that female candidates “run as women” to their
for example (Bartsch et al. 2000; Coltrane and Messineo
benefit, Dolan (2005) argued that there are few differ-
2000; M. S. Larson 2001; see also the classic Goffman
ences in how male and female candidates present policy
1979). Previous work on campaign ads shows similar
preferences in their campaigns. Finally, despite the wide-
patterns (Bystrom et al. 2004).
spread assumption of gender difference, research on the
For all of these reasons, political observers continue to
presentation of candidates via media other than television
assume that gender differences exist in the presentation of
ads finds similarity for the most part (Banwart and
U.S. candidates. In this article we examine this simple yet
McKinney 2005; Dabelko and Herrnson 1997; Dolan
fundamental assumption by analyzing the way television
2005; Hill 2005; S. G. Larson 2001). A comprehensive
ads portray candidates for the U.S. House. Despite the
answer to our two basic research questions—Do differ-
increase of campaigning through the Web, direct mail, and
ences exist, and if so, where?—becomes all the more
other media, television advertising remains the way in
important given these inconsistencies.
which most members of the public encounter candidates
In our analysis we look for whether differences exist
for national campaigns (Pew Research Center 2004).
based on the four dimensions where scholars have theo-
Whether through their own ads or through ads sponsored
retical expectations for gender difference but often
by parties and interest groups, if gender differences in
conflicting results, as follows:
candidate portrayals exist, we can expect that they will
appear in television ads. Looking at House races across
1. Casting and setting: In the most comprehen-
the United States allows us to provide a much-needed
sive study of the presentation of candidates in
comprehensive answer to the question, Do gender differ-
television ads to date, Bystrom et al. (2004)
ences exist?
examined many aspects of “VideoStyle,”
Furthermore, if differences do exist, previous research
based on the expectation of gender difference.
offers guidance about where we expect to see these differ-
They examined gubernatorial and Senate can-
ences. First, the literature suggests that gender differences
didate ads...