Running Backwards and in High Heels

• Author: Sarah A. Fulton
• Date: 01 June 2012
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912911401419
• Published date: 01 June 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

401419PRQ65210.1177/10659129114
01419FultonPolitical Research Quarterly
Political Research Quarterly
65(2) 303 –314
Running Backwards and in High
© 2012 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap
DOI: 10.1177/1065912911401419
http://prq.sagepub.com
and Incumbent Electoral Success
Sarah A. Fulton1
Abstract
The question of whether voter bias exists toward female politicians remains unsettled. Although anecdotal accounts of
gender inequality abound, systematic research demonstrates that women “do as well as men” when they run. Previous
work suggests that these conflicting observations result from an omitted variables problem. Specifically, if women
are higher quality than men, and if quality is omitted from models of vote-share, then voter bias may be concealed.
Using a unique measure of incumbents’ political quality, the author’s research documents a sex-based quality gap and
importantly, is the first to link the quality gap to the gender parity in electoral success.
Keywords
women, gender, sex, vote-share, election, Congress, bias, discrimination, sexism, quality
“Sure . . . [Fred Astaire] was great, but don’t forget that
from men’s, the literature also portrays some striking simi-
Ginger Rogers did everything he did . . . backwards and
larities—most notably, in the success rates of male and
in high heels.”
female politicians. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the
Frank and Ernest, cartoon, 1982
quantitative research consistently downplays discrepancies
in men’s and women’s ability to attract votes and win elec-
The most recent presidential election sparked renewed
tions, even in the face of controls for party, seniority, and
hope for women’s advancement in electoral politics. But
officeholder status (Black and Erickson 2003; Burrell 1994;
at the same time, it also exposed the persistence of barriers
Darcy and Schramm 1977; Darcy, Welch, and Clark 1994;
for aspiring female politicians in America. In contrast to
Dolan 2004; Duerst-Lahti 1998; Ekstrand and Eckert 1981;
her male competitors, Hillary Clinton often received dis-
Hedlund et al. 1979; Seltzer, Newman, and Leighton 1997).
paraging comments about her appearance and manner
Because men and women perform equally well in models of
of dress. Even her agency over her career accomplish-
vote-share, much of the literature concludes that voters are
ments was cast into doubt—often being attributed to her
unprejudiced against women (but see as exceptions,
husband—as Maureen Dowd (2008) of the New York
Ambrosius and Welch 1984; Fox and Smith 1998).
Times opined, “It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at
Nevertheless, individual-level research on sex stereo-
becoming president is so openly dependent on her hus-
types paints a different portrait. This scholarship convinc-
band to drag her over the finish line.” In reflecting on the
ingly demonstrates that voters hold stereotypical views
primary process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked,
that often disadvantage female candidates for national
“Of course there is sexism, we all know that . . . it is a
office (Kahn 1994, 1996; Sapiro 1981), as well as shows
given” (Sweet 2008). And CBS News anchor Katie
that stereotypes shape citizens’ propensity to vote for
Couric observed, “One of the great lessons of the cam-
them (Sanbonmatsu 2002a). Moreover, recent research
paign is the continued—and accepted—role of sexism in
American life” (Seelye and Bosman 2008).
1Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Over the past several decades, the scholarship on women
in politics has made many enduring contributions to our
Corresponding Author:
stock of knowledge regarding the unique experiences female
Sarah A. Fulton, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,
Texas A&M University, 4348 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4348,
politicians confront on their path to political office. But, for
USA
the myriad ways in which women’s experiences diverge
Email: safulton@politics.tamu.edu

---

304
Political Research Quarterly 65(2)
suggests that voters prefer government to be male domi-
gender-neutral because women “do as well as men” when
nated (Dolan and Sanbonmatsu 2009). How can individual-
they run are fundamentally problematic, arousing signifi-
level voters hold stereotypes and preferences that work
cant questions about democratic fair play. Moreover, if
against women candidates yet these biases fail to emerge
bias exists, then expanding the “supply” of female candi-
in aggregate-level election returns?
dates may not entirely address women’s underrepresenta-
Inferences that the electoral environment is gender-
tion problem. Rather, this implies that much of the impetus
neutral because women “do as well as men” when they run
for change will depend on the “demand” for women as
rest on the assumption that men and women are qualita-
politicians.
tively similar in terms of all of the characteristics that influ-
ence electoral outcomes except for one—gender. But, if
Sex and Electoral Success:
men and women are distinct regarding characteristics that
influence their electability—for instance, if women hold
Empirical and Theoretical
higher political quality than men but only perform at par-
Discrepancies
ity with men in the electoral arena—then this would be
evidence of gender discrimination to the extent that
Anecdotal evidence suggesting gender inequality pervades
women have to work harder than men to achieve similar
American politics. In the 112th Congress, women occupy
electoral results. At the individual level, voters may stereo-
just 17 percent of U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats. At
type female candidates and prefer males; however, these
the state and local levels, only six states are headed by a
effects will be masked in the aggregate if women can-
female governor, and female mayors lead only seven out
didates hold superior quality and if quality is omitted
of the hundred largest U.S. cities (Center for American
in the vote-share model.
Women in Politics 2010c). Given such glaring inequalities,
Other scholars have recognized that a major deficiency
it may be tempting to conclude that sex discrimination
of earlier research is the absence of a control for political
remains plentiful in contemporary American politics.
quality (Black and Erickson 2003; Ekstrand and Eckert
However, much of the scholarship on women in poli-
1981; Milyo and Schosberg 2000). However, building
tics dispels these suspicions. In one of the first studies to
satisfying measures for the underlying construct for qual-
cast doubt on the claim of sexism in elections, Darcy and
ity are difficult. As a result, the empirical implications of
Schramm (1977, 10) report that “the electorate is indiffer-
a sex gap in quality have not been brought to bear on elec-
ent to the sex of congressional candidates . . . voters are
tion outcomes. My analysis is unique from previous work
not keeping women from serving in the House.” And
because I engage in a direct test of the hypothesis that
although they do not rule out the possibility that sex dis-
a sex gap in quality masks bias against female politicians.
crimination existed in a bygone era, Darcy, Welch, and
Using an innovative informant-based measure of incum-
Clark (1994, 73) similarly conclude that “the political sys-
bent political quality, coupled with election results from
tem and cultural milieu no longer present . . . barriers to
the real world, my article bridges the divide between
women. . . . If more women run, more women would be
inference and evidence.
elected.” Reinforcing their argument, the authors show
My results provide reason for concern about women’s
that their results persist despite controls for incumbency,
political equality. I show that when the incumbent’s polit-
seniority, and partisanship.
ical quality is omitted, men and women enjoy equivalent
More recently, the results of the 2010 election seem to
support at the ballot box. However, once the heterogene-
validate the interpretation that women are treated equitably
ity in political quality is taken into account, the sex of the
in American elections. Women candidates declared victory
incumbent emerges as a significant negative predictor of
in 51.4 percent of the House races and 50.0 percent of the
vote-share—even after controlling for a number of alter-
Senate races in which they competed (Center for American
native explanations. Representing a straightforward case
Women in Politics 2010a).
of omitted variables bias, the effect of sex on election out-
Nevertheless, there is a growing consensus that voters
comes is attenuated in the absence of a political quality
hold preferences for male officeholders and rely on gender
measure. Once the sex-based quality discrepancy is con-
stereotypes to infer candidate traits, issue competencies,
trolled, a net vote disadvantage of approximately 3 percent
and ideologies. As Sanbonmatsu and Dolan (2009, 486)
emerges for women incumbents.
put it, “women’s vote-getting ability does not necessarily
This gendered quality gap challenges more sanguine
mean that voters react to men and women candidates in the
interpretations about the health of our democratic system
same way.” In their analysis of the 2006 American National
because it provides an alternative basis for the gender
Election Studies (ANES), Dolan and Sanbonmatsu (2009)
parity...