Women are unequally represented in the highest positions in society. Beyond discrimination and bias, women are missing from the top because they are less likely to pursue high-ranking opportunities. We propose that experience is a critical moderator of gender differences in pursuing leadership opportunities, with low-experience women being particularly unlikely to seek higher level positions. We used field analyses of 96 years of U.S. senator and governor elections to examine male and female politicians’ propensity to run for higher political offices. As predicted, among those with little political experience, women were less likely than men to run for higher office, but experience closed this gender gap. A preregistered experiment among U.S.-based adults replicated the field findings and revealed that it was the increased self-confidence of experienced women that reduced the gender gap. The findings suggest experience, and the self-confidence that comes with it, is one lever for closing the gender gap in seeking to climb professional hierarchies.
AbrahamM. (2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: An examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 151–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219832813
2.
AbrahamM.BotelhoT.Dobbin-LamontG. (2024). The (re)production of inequality in evaluations: A unifying framework outlining the drivers of gender and racial differences in evaluative outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior. Forthcoming.
3.
AbrahamM.BurbanoV. (2022). Congruence between leadership gender and organizational claims affects the gender composition of the applicant pool: Field experimental evidence. Organization Science, 33(1), 393–413.
AllisonP. D. (1982). Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociological Methodology, 13, 61–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/270718
6.
AmanatullahE. T.TinsleyC. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much. . .or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006
7.
AndersonC.GalinskyA. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536.
8.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2002). The incumbency advantage in US elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal, 1(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1089/153312902760137578
9.
BanP.LlaudetE.SnyderJ. M. (2016). Challenger quality and the incumbency advantage. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12109
10.
BarberB. M.OdeanT. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556400
11.
BarbulescuR.BidwellM. (2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24(3), 737–756.
12.
BauerN. M. (2016). The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 38(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351
13.
BeckN.KatzJ. N.TuckerR. (1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1260–1288. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991857
14.
BemS. L.LenneyE. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078640
15.
BeyerS. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.960
BeyerS.BowdenE. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232005
18.
BohrenJ. A.ImasA.RosenbergM. (2019). The dynamics of discrimination: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 109(10), 3395–3436.
19.
BostynD. H.SevenhantS.RoetsA. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640
20.
BotelhoT.AbrahamM. (2017). Pursuing quality: How search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 698–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217694358
21.
BotelhoT. L.GertsbergM. (2022). The disciplining effect of status: Evaluator status awards and observed gender bias in evaluations. Management Science, 68(7), 5311–5329. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4161
22.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
23.
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.LaiL. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001
24.
BraceP. (1984). Progressive ambition in the House: A probabilistic approach. Journal of Politics, 46(2), 556–571.
25.
BrandsR. A.Fernandez-MateoI. (2017). Leaning out: How negative recruitment experiences shape women’s decisions to compete for executive roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 405–442.
26.
BriñolP.PettyR. E.ValleC.RuckerD. D.BecerraA. (2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1040–1053.
Burt-WayB. J.KellyR. M. (1992). Gender and sustaining political ambition: A study of Arizona elected officials. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/448760
29.
CarrollS. J. (1985). Political elites and sex differences in political ambition: A reconsideration. Journal of Politics, 47(4), 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130817
30.
CarrollS. J.SanbonmatsuK. (2009, April2–5). Gender and the decision to run for the state legislature [Paper presentation]. Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, United States.
ChapmanD. S.UggerslevK. L.CarrollS. A.PiasentinK. A.JonesD. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944.
33.
CinamonR. G.RichY. (2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work-family conflict. Sex Roles, 47(11–12), 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022021804846
34.
CoffmanK. B. (2014). Evidence on self-stereotyping and the contribution of ideas. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1625–1660. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju023
35.
CoffmanK. B.ArayaP. U.ZafarB. (2021). A (dynamic) investigation of stereotypes, belief-updating, and behavior (Working Paper No. 29382). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29382
36.
CoffmanK. B.CollisM. R.KulkarniL. (2024). Stereotypes and belief updating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 22(3), 1011–1054. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvad063
37.
CorrellS. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299
CostantiniE. (1990). Political women and political ambition: Closing the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 76(2), 398–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111397
40.
Crowder-MeyerM. (2013). Gendered recruitment without trying: How local party recruiters affect women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 390–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X13000391
41.
DarcyR.SchrammS. S. (1977). When women run against men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/268347
EaglyA. H.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.van EngenM. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
ElderL. (2004). Why women don’t run: Explaining women’s underrepresentation in America’s political institutions. Women & Politics, 26(2), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v26n02_02
Fernandez-MateoI.FernandezR. M. (2016). Bending the pipeline? Executive search and gender inequality in hiring for top management jobs. Management Science, 62(12), 3636–3655.
48.
FoschiM. (1989). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(3), 237–254.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2004). Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00069.x
51.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2005). To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00147.x
52.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2010). If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990752
53.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2014a). Reconciling family roles with political ambition: The new normal for women in twenty-first century U.S. politics. Journal of Politics, 76(2), 398–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001473
54.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. (2014b). Uncovering the origins of the gender gap in political ambition. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000227
55.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L.FeeleyC. (2001). Gender and the decision to run for office. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(3), 411–435.
FultonS. A. (2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911401419
58.
FultonS. A.MaestasC. D.MaiselL. S.StoneW. J. (2006). The sense of a woman: Gender, ambition, and the decision to run for congress. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900206
59.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.
60.
GalinskyA. D.HallE. V.CuddyA. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457783
61.
HeJ. C.KangS. K.TseK.TohS. M. (2019). Stereotypes at work: Occupational stereotypes predict race and gender segregation in the workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, Article 103318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103318
62.
HeilmanM. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
63.
HeilmanM. E.MartellR. F.SimonM. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 98–110.
64.
HenrichJ.Gil-WhiteF. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
65.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/448945
66.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526
67.
JenkinsS. (2007). A woman’s work is never done? Fund-raising perception and effort among female state legislative candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907301682
68.
JohnsonG.OppenheimerB. I.SelinJ. L. (2012). The House as a stepping stone to the Senate: Why do so few African American House members run?American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 387–399.
69.
KahnC.HubermanG. (1988). Two-sided uncertainty and “up-or-out” contracts. Journal of Labor Economics, 6(4), 423–444.
70.
KanthakK.WoonJ. (2015). Women don’t run? Election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12158
71.
KellyE. L. (2003). The strange history of employer-sponsored child care: Interested actors, uncertainty, and the transformation of law in organizational fields. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 606–649. https://doi.org/10.1086/379631
72.
KochA. J.D’MelloS. D.SackettP. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734
LiffS.WardK. (2001). Distorted views through the glass ceiling: The construction of women’s understandings of promotion and senior management positions. Gender, Work and Organization, 8(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00120
78.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.
79.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 200–212.
80.
McGinnK. L.MilkmanK. L. (2013). Looking up and looking out: Career mobility effects of demographic similarity among professionals. Organization Science, 24(4), 1041–1060.
81.
NiederleM.VesterlundL. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067
82.
PearsonK.McGheeE. (2013). What it takes to win: Questioning gender neutral outcomes in U.S. House elections. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X13000433
83.
PetersonD. A. M.GrossbackL. J.StimsonJ. A.GanglA. (2003). Congressional response to mandate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00030
84.
PhillipsD. J.ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429. https://doi.org/10.1086/324072
85.
PikeB. E.GalinskyA. D. (2021). The power shield: Powerful roles eliminate gender disparities in political elections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000493
86.
PodolnyJ. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.
87.
QuintaneE.KleinbaumA. M. (2011). Matter over mind? E-mail data and the measurement of social networks. Connections, 31(1), 22–46.
88.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
89.
RidgewayC. L.BoyleE. H.KuipersK. J.RobinsonD. T. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 331–350.
90.
RidgewayC. L.EricksonK. G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 579–615.
91.
RohdeD. W. (1979). Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 1–26.
92.
RosenB.JerdeeT. H. (1974). Effects of applicant’s sex and difficulty of job on evaluations of candidates for managerial positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(4), 511–512.
93.
RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C. (2018). The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 71–125.
94.
SanbonmatsuK. (2006). Do parties know that “women win”? Party leader beliefs about women’s electoral chances. Politics & Gender, 2, 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062101
95.
SapiroV. (1982). Private costs of public commitments or public costs of private commitments? Family roles versus political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 265–279.
96.
SchneiderM. C.HolmanM. R.DiekmanA. B.McAndrewT. (2016). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology, 37(4), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12268
97.
SollJ. B.KlaymanJ. (2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.299
98.
SpencerS. J.LogelC.DaviesP. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437.
99.
TenbrunselA. E.DiekmannK. A.Wade-benzoniK. A.BazermanM. H. (2010). Why we aren’t as ethical as we think we are: A temporal explanation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.004
100.
ThomsenD. M.KingA. S. (2020). Women’s representation and the gendered pipeline to power. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 989–1000.
101.
UhlanerC.SchlozmanK. (1986). Candidate gender and congressional campaign receipts. Journal of Politics, 48(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130923
102.
U.S. House of Representatives. (n.d.). People search. Office of the Historian and the Clerk of the House’s Office of Art and Archives. https://history.house.gov/People/Search
103.
WassermanM. (2021). Up the political ladder: Gender parity in the effects of electoral defeats. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 111, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20211018
104.
WassermanM. (2023). Gender differences in politician persistence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 105(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01099
105.
WernerT.MayerK. R. (2007). Public election funding, competition, and candidate gender. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507071053
106.
WynnA. T.CorrellS. J. (2017). Gendered perceptions of cultural and skill alignment in technology companies. Social Sciences, 6(2), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6020045
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
