Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Public opinion polls indicate that a significant portion of the American public would be willing to vote for a qualified female presidential candidate. However, directly asking this question may be subject to social desirability bias. We conducted a list experiment during the 2024 U.S. presidential election in which a female candidate had a real opportunity to be elected president. Our findings reveal that 16% of the population expresses discomfort about the prospect of a female president. Furthermore, we find that this result is consistent across demographic groups. These results underscore the continued presence of gender-based biases in American political attitudes.

Keywords

list experiment gender public opinion elections

Introduction

In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, the question of whether Americans are truly willing to elect a woman president gained renewed importance. Although women now hold a record number of seats in Congress and female representation in public office has steadily increased, the United States has yet to elect a woman to its highest office. This gap, between widespread support for gender equality in principle and persistent underrepresentation at the presidential level, warrants closer scrutiny.

Figure 1 shows Gallup’s long-term polling on Americans’ willingness to vote for a female president.¹ In 1937, only 33% of respondents said they would support a qualified woman candidate. Support has grown steadily since, surpassing 90% by 2024. Over time, Gallup revised the wording of its question, initially including qualifiers like “if she were qualified in every other respect,” and later removing them. These trends suggest increasing public openness to female leadership at the presidential level.²

Figure 1.

Willingness to Support a Female Presidential Candidate (1937-2024)

However, headline support may obscure deeper reservations. Political scientists have long noted that individuals often respond to survey questions in ways that align with socially acceptable norms, especially on issues related to race, gender, and identity (Burden et al., 2017; Coppock, 2017; Streb et al., 2008). As a result, actual voter behavior may diverge from stated attitudes, particularly in presidential elections, where leadership expectations are heightened and national scrutiny is intense (Conroy et al., 2015; Jalalzai, 2010; Sheehan & Sheehan, 2006; Smith et al., 2007).

This gap between expressed support and electoral behavior is also evident in broader patterns of representation. While the number of women in Congress more than doubled from 53 in 1997 to 122 in 2021, structural and perceptual barriers persist.³ Although access to campaign resources has improved, and women increasingly come from professional backgrounds that traditionally lead to congressional office (Dolan, 2004; Herrnson et al., 2019; Green, 1998; La Cour Dabelko & Herrnson, 1997; Panagopoulos, 2004), politics remains a male-dominated arena.

Gender stereotypes continue to shape voter expectations and candidate strategies. Men are more often associated with leadership traits such as toughness, independence, and rationality, while women are perceived as emotional, nurturing, and expressive (Blais & Sevi, 2024; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993). These perceptions extend to policy domains, where men are viewed as more competent on issues like the military, defense, and the economy, areas voters often prioritize, placing female candidates at a disadvantage (Sapiro, 1981; Chaney et al., 1998; Panagopolous, 2004). Such persistent stereotypes underscore the importance of reassessing whether public support for a woman president translates into real electoral viability when tested in an actual campaign.

This study examines attitudes toward a woman president during the 2024 election, when Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on the ballot as a major-party nominee.⁹ Unlike prior research conducted in abstract or hypothetical contexts, our study assesses gender bias in real time, during an active campaign. This setting allows us to test whether declared support for a woman president holds when voters confront an actual female candidate on the ballot. We employ a list experiment, a well-established method for detecting socially sensitive attitudes that respondents may be unwilling to reveal directly. This approach uncovers hidden biases that conventional surveys often miss.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to use a list experiment to assess gender bias during an ongoing US presidential election. The 2024 election presents a unique opportunity to reassess gender dynamics in presidential politics for several reasons. First, Harris’s candidacy offers a real-world test of voter openness to female leadership. Second, the political and cultural landscape has shifted markedly over the past decade, with increased visibility and normalization of women in positions of power. Finally, our approach directly addresses the persistent gap between public declarations and private beliefs.

Our results reveal that, despite high levels of expressed support, approximately 16% of respondents harbor negative views toward the idea of a woman president. This bias spans demographic groups, suggesting that gender-based attitudes remain a durable feature of American political opinion, even amid rising female representation.

This study makes two key contributions. Theoretically, it revisits whether public support for gender equality translates into electoral behavior in executive-level contests. Methodologically, it demonstrates the value of list experiments in capturing implicit bias during an active presidential campaign. Together, these findings shed new light on the enduring barriers to female presidential leadership and contribute to a deeper understanding of voter behavior and gender equity in American democracy.

Gender and Politics

Much of the existing research on gender and politics focuses on elections for lower levels of public office. Studies indicate that when women run for office, they win at similar rates to men (Burrell, 1996; Seltzer et al., 1997; Sevi et al., 2019, 2021). However, the key issue is that women must first decide to run. There are several reasons why women are less likely to enter the political arena including, voter bias, political ambition, and professional experience. Although women face challenges at every stage of the political pipeline, the first obstacle to achieving descriptive representation is encouraging women to enter the pipeline in the first place.

Gender stereotypes often favor male candidates, as women are frequently associated with traits perceived as less suited for political office (Bauer, 2015; Blais & Sevi, 2024; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Mo, 2015; Schneider & Bos, 2014; Sevi et al., 2024). However, despite the presence of gender stereotypes in evaluations of female candidates and in the media, overt discrimination against female candidates has significantly decreased over time. Increasing evidence suggests that women candidates perform as well as their male counterparts in elections (Burrell, 1996; Darcy et al., 1994; Dolan, 1998; Sevi et al., 2019; Seltzer et al., 1997; Schwarz & Alexander, 2022, Sevi, 2021; Sevi et al., 2024). Other research suggests that once partisan preferences are accounted for, there is no systematic evidence of bias against women candidates (Dolan, 2014; Lawless & Kathryn, 2008). Additionally, studies indicate that female candidates tend to be of higher quality than their male counterparts. Consequently, women win elections at the same rate as men; however, this parity in electoral outcomes should not be attributed to the absence of gender bias (Bauer, 2020; Holman et al., 2011; Lawless & Kathryn, 2008; Sevi, 2023).

Women are also less likely than men to be encouraged to run for office, and they are also less likely to view themselves as qualified candidates (Butler & Preece, 2016; Dittmar, 2015; Fox & Lawless, 2004; Jalalzai, 2013; Sanbonmatsu, 2012). Research suggests that, even when women share the same personal characteristics and professional credentials as men, they often exhibit lower levels of political ambition (Fox & Lawless, 2004, 2005, 2011). However, women politicians can play a significant role in inspiring other women to engage in politics by becoming role models (Campbell & Wolbrecht, 2006; Foos & Gilardi, 2020; Holman & Schneider, 2018; Ladam et al., 2018; Wolbrecht & Campbell, 2007). The visibility of women politicians is associated with increased political engagement among young women (Campbell & Wolbrecht, 2006; Dassonneville & McAllister, 2018; Wolbrecht & Campbell, 2007). At the state level, women are more likely to run for office when there are more women in the pool of eligible candidates (Oxley & Fox, 2004).

Prior research suggests that gender biases against female politicians are relatively limited in lower-level races, but their impact on presidential candidates remains underexplored. In this study, we apply a list experiment in the context of a real election, where a female candidate, Kamala Harris, had a real opportunity to be elected president. Conducting the experiment during an actual campaign is crucial, as support for a female president in the abstract may differ from support when voters are confronted with a concrete electoral choice (Dolan, 2014). Our research extends previous studies by investigating public support for a female president in the context of contemporary politics, where the representation of women in political leadership has increased. While much of the existing literature has focused on women’s candidacies for lower offices, our findings offer valuable insights into the outcomes of the 2024 presidential election and provide important implications for political parties as they plan for future presidential campaigns.

While the majority of Americans believe that a woman could be elected president (Reinhart, 2021), this belief does not always translate into actual support at the polls (Dassonneville et al., 2021; Sevi, 2021). This discrepancy has led researchers to use list experiments to better gauge voters’ willingness to support a female presidential candidate (Burden et al., 2017; Streb et al., 2008), which have revealed evidence of gender bias. However, these studies were conducted in abstract contexts, before a significant number of female candidates began competing for the presidency. One key reason to revisit these studies is that the public now has more experience with women in political leadership roles. Additionally, conducting this experiment during a presidential election in which one of the candidates is a woman eliminates the need for voters to imagine the prospect of a female president. We expect that, while support for female presidential candidates has likely increased over time, gender bias against women remains a persistent factor in public opinion.

Presidential candidates, as contenders for the highest political offices, may encounter gender bias for two primary reasons. First, perceptions of strong leadership are especially important in shaping voters’ evaluations of candidates for top political positions, and research shows that women are often perceived to be disadvantaged in terms of this leadership trait (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Brescoll, 2016). Second, presidential candidates receive significantly more media attention than local candidates, and this media coverage is frequently gendered and sexist (Conroy et al., 2015; Han & Heldman, 2007; Heldman et al., 2005). Studies have found that female leaders are frequently portrayed in stereotypical and biased ways by the media (Aaldering & Van Der Pas, 2020; Bauer, 2015; Trimble et al., 2021). Given that media portrayals influence public perceptions of political leaders, such biased representations may disadvantage female presidential candidates.

Social Desirability Effects on Surveys and List Experiments

Social desirability bias is a significant concern in survey research, particularly when respondents are asked about sensitive or controversial topics. This bias can lead to misreporting, as individuals may provide socially acceptable answers rather than their true opinions (Maccoby, 1954). For instance, studies have shown that people often claim to have voted when, in fact, they did not (Campbell, 1980; Katosh & Traugott, 1981; Silver et al., 1986; Presser, 1990). It is very likely that social desirability bias is particularly pronounced when respondents are asked about issues such as race or gender, where there is a societal expectation to avoid appearing prejudiced. In such cases, respondents may overstate their support for candidates from marginalized groups, such as female candidates, in order to conform to social norms, even if they would not vote for a woman in practice.

Evidence suggests that this dynamic holds true in the case of female presidential candidates. For example, while 93% of respondents in a recent Gallup poll stated that they would vote for a “qualified woman for president,”⁴ in a YouGov poll conducted around the same time, only 57% of respondents indicated that the country was ready to elect a woman as president.⁵ This discrepancy highlights the potential influence of social desirability on survey responses regarding female candidates.

To address this issue, researchers have turned to list experiments, which provide a method to reduce the impact of social desirability bias. The list experiment allows for the indirect measurement of the rate of which respondents endorse a controversial opinion, while preserving the privacy of individual responses. In this design, subjects are randomly assigned to either a control or treatment group. The control group is asked how many of a set of non-sensitive items evoke a negative reaction in them, while the treatment group receives the same list plus an additional sensitive item (e.g., “A woman serving as president”). The difference in the mean number of items selected by the control and treatment groups estimates the proportion of respondents bothered by the sensitive item. This approach allows respondents to keep unpopular opinions private while still providing researchers with an estimate of the bias present in the population. Scholars have employed this method to examine social desirability effects related to race (Gilens et al., 1998; Kuklinski et al., 1997a, 1997b; Sniderman & Edward, 1997) and religion (Kane et al., 2004).

Streb et al. (2008) were the first to apply a list experiment to measure bias against a female presidential candidate. In March 2006, they conducted a national telephone survey in which respondents were presented with a list of statements and asked how many made them “upset.” This study found two important results: First, the mean number of items selected was 2.16 in the control group and 2.42 in the treatment group, indicating that 26% of respondents were upset by the prospect of a female president. Second, the prevalence of opposition to a female president was consistent across demographic groups, with no significant differences between men and women, or across education and age groups.

Burden et al. (2017) revisited public support for a female president in March 2016 using a protocol similar to that of Streb et al. (2008) but conducted the study online rather than by phone. They found that the mean number of items selected was 2.17 in the control group and 2.30 in the treatment group, resulting in a 12.6% difference, half the level of bias observed a decade earlier. This suggests that societal attitudes toward a female president had shifted, with the bias against women in presidential office halving from 26% in 2006 to 12.6% in 2016. Furthermore, Burden et al. (2017) found that while bias against a female president remained consistent among men, it had disappeared among women.

Experimental Design and Expectations

Since Streb et al. (2008), there have been significant shifts in the political landscape regarding women in office. For example, two women were appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sarah Palin was selected as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Nancy Pelosi served as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, positioning her second in line to the presidency. When Streb et al. (2008) conducted their study, respondents were asked to consider a hypothetical female president. By the time Burden et al. (2017) conducted their study, Hilary Clinton had become an active candidate for president, though their survey was completed before the 2016 general election. Since then, despite winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes in 2016, Clinton lost the Electoral College, but her candidacy and the subsequent rise of other women in political leadership suggested a shift in public attitudes. Moreover, two additional women have been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, for a total of six women justices. Furthermore, the number of women entering politics has grown considerably. The 2018 midterm elections, dubbed the “Year of the Woman,” saw a record number of women running for office.⁶ In 2019, six women entered the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, the first time in U.S. history that more than two women competed in the same party’s primary (DeMora et al., 2022; Tadevich et al., 2024; Sevi, 2022).

Specific to the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris made history in 2020 as the first woman, first woman of color, first Black woman, and first South Asian woman elected Vice President of the United States. She joined Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin as the third woman selected for a major-party vice-presidential ticket, and along with Hillary Clinton, became one of four women to appear on a major-party presidential ticket. In August 2024, Harris again broke new ground by becoming the second woman, and the first Black and South Asian woman, to secure a major party’s presidential nomination, having earned the necessary delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention. These developments suggest that public attitudes, particularly within Democratic constituencies, may have shifted, especially in light of the prominent roles played by Clinton and Pelosi within the party.

These novel circumstances warrant revisiting public support for a female presidential candidate and present a unique opportunity to assess such support in the context of an active election. Thus, we conducted a pre-registered list experiment with a national sample of American voters.⁷ Most polls at the time predicted that Harris would win the election. While we expect to find gender bias, given the evolution of attitudes toward female presidential candidates over the past two decades, we anticipate that the magnitude of this bias will be smaller compared to earlier studies. Furthermore, to explore the impact of the aforementioned potential changes in public opinion, our study incorporates a range of covariates, including party affiliation and race/ethnicity. Participants were recruited via Lucid Theorem, with quotas for age, race, gender, education, household income, Census region, and political party affiliation. The survey was fielded from October 25 to November 4, 2024, prior to the presidential election on November 5, 2024.

Our experimental design closely mirrors that used in previous studies by Streb et al. (2008) and Burden et al. (2017). While Streb et al. (2008) conducted their study by phone and Burden et al. (2017) administered theirs online, we adopted the methodology of Burden et al. (2017), using an internet-based survey. In line with these earlier studies, our research employs a list experiment to capture a more accurate reflection of American voters’ true attitudes toward supporting a female president. The control group is asked how many of four given statements upset them.⁸ The treatment group receive the same four statements, plus an additional, sensitive statement, and is asked to report how many of the statements upset them (but not which specific statements). This design helps to mitigate social desirability bias, allowing respondents to answer more honestly without feeling pressured to provide socially acceptable responses.

The five statements included in the survey are as follows, the sensitive statement is the fifth:

(1) The way gasoline prices keep going up.

(2) Professional athletes earning million-dollar-plus salaries.

(3) The requirement to wear seat belts while driving.

(4) Large corporations polluting the environment.

(5) A woman serving as president.

Since participants are randomly assigned to either the control or treatment group, the mean number of “upset” responses to the first four statements should be similar across both groups. Any increase in the mean number of “upset” responses in the treatment group can be attributed to the inclusion of the sensitive statement, “A woman serving as president.” In total, we surveyed 1,913 respondents, with approximately half in the control group (958) and half in the treatment group (955). Supplemental A1 shows the distribution of responses for the treatment and control groups. Although the participants were randomly assigned, we nevertheless conducted balance tests to ensure comparability between the two groups. See Supplemental A2 for the results.

Results

Table 1 presents the variation in opposition to a female president across different demographic subgroups, comparing responses in the control (baseline) and treatment (where respondents are exposed to the statement of a woman serving as president) conditions. Table 1 also reports the difference between these two conditions, as well as estimates from Burden et al. (2017) and Streb et al. (2008) for comparison. Overall, opposition increases significantly in the treatment condition, with a 15.8-point difference across all respondents. This is notably 3.2 points greater than the difference found in Burden et al. (2017), a trend toward a stronger bias against female candidates than expected.

Table 1.

Opposition to a Female President by Subgroups

Demographic	Control condition	Treatment condition	Difference	Burden et al. (2017) estimate	Streb et al. (2008) estimate
All respondents	2.15 (.03)	2.31 (.03)	15.8*** (4.9)	12.6* (5.5)	26.0*** (4.9)
Male	2.06 (.05)	2.18 (.05)	12.1 (7.4)	25.7*** (8.3)	26.0*** (7.2)
Female	2.23 (.04)	2.42 (.05)	18.5** (6.6)	.1 (7.3)	25.6*** (6.6)
No BA degree	2.19 (.04)	2.4 (.04)	20.8*** (6.5)	18.3** (7.5)	23.2*** (6.3)
BA or above	2.08 (.05)	2.16 (.05)	7.2 (7.4)	7.5 (8.2)	26.4*** (7.8)
18–29 years old				28.4* (12.7)	24.9* (12.1)
18–34 years old	2.19 (.06)	2.29 (.07)	10.4 (10.1)
30–50 years old				20.2** (8.5)	35.9*** (8.1)
35–54 years old	2.09 (.05)	2.33 (.06)	23.9** (8.3)
51–65 years old				−5.9 (10.0)	22.2* (10.7)
55–64 years old	2.11 (.07)	2.22 (.07)	10.3 (10.4)
66 years old or above				−1.3 (18.1)	12.3 (9.5)
65 years old and above	2.24 (.07)	2.37 (.08)	12.9 (11.3)
Lower and lower-middle class				9.9 (9.7)	26.8* (12.2)
Middle class				8.4 (7.5)	28.8** (9.1)
Upper-middle and upper class				29.1* (14.7)	29.3* (14.3)
South	2.13 (.05)	2.27 (.05)	14.5* (8.0)	−1 (9.3)	31.8*** (9.3)
Non-south	2.16 (.03)	2.33 (.04)	17** (6.2)	19.4** (6.9)	23.6*** (5.8)
White	2.21 (.03)	2.35 (.04)	14.8** (5.5)	10.2 (6.6)
Black	2.04 (.10)	2.11 (.11)	7.6 (15.7)	13.0 (17.2)
Hispanic	2.02 (.16)	2.22 (.17)	19.8 (24.5)	41.1** (15.5)
Other race/ethnicity	1.89 (.11)	2.23 (.13)	33.6* (17.8)	−13.8 (20.6)
Democrat	2.09 (.04)	2.16 (.05)	7.4 (7.2)	3.2 (8.1)
Republican	2.23 (.05)	2.50 (.05)	26.6*** (7.6)	27.4** (10.8)
Independent	2.07 (.08)	2.22 (.10)	14.7 (13.4)	11.2 (10.9)

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Questions on generalized others’ opinions on sensitive issues may offer another method for meditating social desirability bias (Burden et al., 2017). Therefore, after our list experiment, all respondents were asked whether they think America is ready to elect a woman president. We find that 58% said “Yes”, 24% said “No”, and 18% said “Not Sure”. The rate of negative responses to this question exceeds the bias measured in the list experiment. Thus, this type of “face saving” question may not be a pure measure of bias on sensitive issues.

While Streb et al. (2008) indicated that the bias was consistent across genders, the results from Burden et al. (2017) found a similar bias among men, but no significant bias among women. In contrast, our study reveals that bias among men is 12.1 points, though not statistically significant, while the bias among women is 18.5 points and statistically significant. This finding is consistent with Streb et al. (2008), but not with Burden et al. (2017), and deserves further exploration in future work. In particular, it may be worth investigating the extent to which, womens’ internalized societal gender stereotypes associating leadership with traditionally masculine traits (e.g., assertiveness, decisiveness, authority) may account for such differences (Strolovitch et al., 2017). For instance, women socialized in environments emphasizing traditional gender roles may subconsciously doubt women’s competence for leadership, including the presidency. It is also possible that, compared to men, women may judge women candidates more harshly or hold them to higher standards, leading to lower support for a female president.

Further analysis reveals that bias varies across other demographic factors, such as education, age, race, and political affiliation. Consistent with Burden et al. (2017), we find less bias among college-educated respondents. Age-related bias shifts from younger respondents in previous studies to those aged 35–54 in our data. Both Southern and non-southerners show significant opposition, though bias is more pronounced among non-southerners. Racial differences also emerge, with white respondents showing a significant increase in opposition (14.8 points). In terms of political affiliation, Republicans exhibit the most pronounced opposition (26.6 points), followed by Independents (14.7 points) and Democrats (7.4 points). These findings align with Burden et al.’s (2017) conclusions, suggesting that opposition to a female president is influenced by political and social factors.

Next, we apply the maximum likelihood models developed by Imai (2011) and Blair and Imai (2012) and refer readers to these sources for the technical details. We implemented the analysis using the R package “list” (Blair & Imai, 2010). The regression results, with coefficient estimates provided in Supplemental A3, are presented graphically in Figure 2. This figure displays the estimated proportions of respondents opposing a female president, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the whisker lines. Republicans continue to exhibit more bias than Democrats and Independents. Additionally, as before, we find less bias among college-educated respondents and greater bias among non-Southerners. However, in contrast to the univariate analysis, both men and women now show similar levels of opposition to a female president. Likewise, while the univariate analysis suggests that respondents aged 35–54 are more opposed to a female president than other age groups, in the multivariate analysis this group shows similar bias to other age groups. Racial differences also shift, with the “Other” race/ethnicity category showing the highest levels of opposition. As a robustness check, we re-estimated the multivariate model including a measure of favorability toward Kamala Harris. The results, detailed in the Supplemental A4 and A5, show that attitudes toward Harris have little impact on respondents’ opposition to a female president. All other substantive findings remain unchanged.

Figure 2

Multivariate Estimates of Opposition to a Female President. Note. Dots represent estimated proportions of respondents upset by a female president, and lines are 95% confidence intervals from the regression model in Supplemental Table A3

Conclusion

On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump, a businessman with no prior experience in political office, won the Electoral College, defeating Hillary Clinton, the first woman to receive a presidential nomination from a major political party. Clinton, a former U.S. Secretary of State (2009–2013), U.S. Senator from New York (2001–2009), and First Lady during her husband Bill Clinton’s presidency (1993–2001), was a seasoned politician with decades of experience in government and public service. Despite her extensive political background, Clinton lost to Trump in a surprise Electoral College result, though she won the popular vote.

Eight years later, on November 5, 2024, Trump secured both the Electoral College and the popular vote, defeating Kamala Harris, the second woman to receive a major party’s presidential nomination. Harris, the Vice President of the United States since 2021, was previously a U.S. Senator from California (2017–2021) and the Attorney General of California (2011–2017). A prominent figure in American politics, Harris made history as the first woman, first Black woman, and first South Asian American to hold the vice presidency. Despite her political experience and historic candidacy, she was unable to defeat Trump in the 2024 election, marking another victory for him.

While much observational research indicates that voters tend to favor male-associated traits in candidates (Ditonto, 2017; Huddy, 1994; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993; Rosenwasser & Seale, 1988; Sanbonmatsu, 2002, 2003b; Schneider & Bos, 2014), experimental studies suggest that when women run for office, they win at similar rates to their male counterparts (Bauer, 2015; Brooks, 2013; Burrell, 1996; Darcy et al., 1994; Dolan, 1998; Fox & Oxley, 2003; Seltzer et al., 1997; Smith & Fox, 2001).

Many pollsters predicted a victory for Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 presidential election, yet Trump ultimately prevailed. This election provided a unique opportunity to examine how gender might still impact the electoral chances of presidential candidates. While gender politics research has shown that women can be successful in elections, it also suggests that sexism may continue to influence voters’ decisions, particularly at the presidential level, which remains a deeply masculine office (Conroy et al., 2015). Building on the work of Streb et al. (2008) and Burden et al. (2017), our study provides three critical data points, all utilizing the same method, list experiments, to track important political shifts regarding women in public life in the United States. Notably, our study differs from prior research in that it was conducted during an actual presidential election with a female candidate on the ballot. It also reflects a political moment in which more women are entering public office than ever before. While public hostility toward a female president has declined since Streb et al., ’s 2008 study, the levels of resistance observed in both Burden et al. (2017) and our 2024 study remain largely unchanged, despite a decade marked by historic gains in women’s political representation.

Our motivation for using a list experiment was to follow the design of Streb et al. (2008) and Burden et al. (2017), allowing for a direct comparison of our results with theirs. However, future research could address limitations with list experiments including insights from work addressing sample efficiency (Aronow et al., 2015) and meditating potential confounds due to satisficing (Kuhn & Nick, 2022).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Do Voters Support a Female President? Evidence from a List Experiment

Supplemental Material for Do Voters Support a Female President? Evidence from a List Experiment by Semra Sevi and Can Mekik in American Politics Research

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Semra Sevi

Can Mekik

Funding

This research was funded through a University of Toronto Connaught New Researcher Award.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Aaldering

Van Der Pas

D. J.

(2020). Political leadership in the media: Gender bias in leader stereotypes during campaign and routine times. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 911–931. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123417000795

Aronow

P. M.

Coppock

Crawford

F. W.

Green

D. P.

(2015). Combining list experiment and direct question estimates of sensitive behavior prevalence. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 3(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smu023

Bauer

N. M.

(2015). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support female candidates. Political Psychology, 36(6), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12186

Bauer

N. M.

(2020). Shifting standards: How voters evaluate the qualifications of female and male candidates. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/705817

Blair

Imai

(2010). list: Statistical methods for the item count technique and list experiment. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=list

Blair

Imai

(2012). Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis, 20(1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr048

Blais

Sevi

(2024). Are feminine traits a liability in elections? Acta Politica, 60(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-024-00338-6

Brescoll

V. L.

(2016). Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005

Brooks

D. J.

(2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton University Press.

10.

Burden

B. C.

Ono

Yamada

(2017). Reassessing public support for a female president. The Journal of Politics, 79(3), 1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1086/691799

11.

Burrell

(1996). A woman's place is in the house: Campaigning for congress in the feminist era. University of Michigan Press.

12.

Butler

D. M.

Preece

J. R.

(2016). Recruitment and perceptions of gender bias in party leader support. Political Research Quarterly, 69(4), 842–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916668412

13.

Campbell

(1980). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.

14.

Campbell

D. E.

Wolbrecht

(2006). See Jane run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00402.x

15.

Chaney

C. K.

Michael Alvarez

Nagler

(1998). Explaining the gender gap in US presidential elections, 1980-1992. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100202

16.

Conroy

Oliver

Breckenridge-Jackson

Heldman

(2015). From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in coverage of vice presidential candidates in old and new media. Politics, groups, and identities, 3(4), 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050412

17.

Coppock

(2017). Did shy Trump supporters bias the 2016 polls? Evidence from a nationally-representative list experiment. Statistics, Politics, and Policy, 8(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2016-0005

18.

Darcy

Welch

Clark

(1994). Women, elections, and representation (Vol. 1). U of Nebraska Press.

19.

Dassonneville

McAllister

(2018). Gender, political knowledge, and descriptive representation: The impact of long-term socialization. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12353

20.

Dassonneville

Quinlan

McAllister

(2021). Female leader popularity and the vote, 1996–2016: A global exploratory analysis. European Journal of Politics and Gender, 4(3), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510820x16073612895666

21.

DeMora

S. L.

Lindke

C. A.

Merolla

J. L.

Stephenson

L. B.

(2022). Ready for a woman president? Polls, public comfort, and perceptions of electability in the 2020 democratic nomination. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86(2), 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac012

22.

Ditonto

(2017). A high bar or a double standard? Gender, competence, and information in political campaigns. Political Behavior, 39(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9357-5

23.

Dittmar

(2015). Encouragement is not enough: Addressing social and structural barriers to female recruitment. Politics & Gender, 11(4), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x15000495

24.

Dolan

(1998). Voting for women in the “Year of the woman”. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 272–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991756

25.

Dolan

(2004). The impact of candidate sex on evaluations of candidates for the US House of Representatives. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501015.x

26.

Dolan

(2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. Oxford University Press.

27.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573

28.

Foos

Gilardi

(2020). Does exposure to gender role models increase women’s political ambition? A field experiment with politicians. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 7(3), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2019.21

29.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. 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

30.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2005). To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 642–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/3647737

31.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2011). Gendered perceptions and political candidacies: A central barrier to women's equality in electoral politics. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.x

32.

Fox

R. L.

Oxley

Z. M.

(2003). Gender stereotyping in state executive elections: Candidate selection and success. The Journal of Politics, 65(3), 833–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00214

33.

Gilens

Sniderman

P. M.

Kuklinski

J. H.

(1998). Affirmative action and the politics of realignment. British Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123498000143

34.

Green

J. C.

(1998). The role of gender in open-seat elections for the US House of Representatives: A district level test for a differential value for campaign resources. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 19(2), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.1998.9970845

35.

Han

L. C.

Heldman

(Eds.), (2007). Rethinking madam president: Are we ready for a woman in the White House?. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

36.

Heldman

Carroll

S. J.

Stephanie

(2005). “She brought only a skirt”: Print media coverage of Elizabeth Dole's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Political Communication, 22(3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006564

37.

Herrnson

P. S.

Panagopoulos

Bailey

K. L.

(2019). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington. Cq Press.

38.

Holman

M. R.

Merolla

J. L.

Zechmeister

E. J.

(2011). Sex, stereotypes, and security: A study of the effects of terrorist threat on assessments of female leadership. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 32(3), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2011.589283

39.

Holman

M. R.

Schneider

M. C.

(2018). Gender, race, and political ambition: How intersectionality and frames influence interest in political office. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 6(2), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105

40.

Huddy

(1994). ‘The political significance of voters’ gender stereotypes. In Michael X.D. Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Y. Shapiro (eds.), Research in micropolitics, New Directions in Political Sociology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 4, 169–193.

41.

Huddy

Terkildsen

(1993). 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

42.

Imai

(2011). Multivariate regression analysis for the item count technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2011.ap10415

43.

Jalalzai

(2010). Madam president: Gender, power, and the comparative presidency. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 31(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544771003697643

44.

Jalalzai

(2013). Shattered, cracked, or firmly intact? Women and the executive glass ceiling worldwide. Oxford University Press.

45.

Kane

J. G.

Craig

S. C.

Wald

K. D.

(2004). Religion and presidential politics in Florida: A list experiment. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08502004.x

46.

Katosh

J. P.

Traugott

M. W.

(1981). The consequences of validated and self-reported voting measures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(4), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1086/268685

47.

Kuhn

P. M.

Nick

(2022). The misreporting trade-off between list experiments and direct questions in practice: Partition validation evidence from two countries. Political Analysis, 30(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.10

48.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Cobb

M. D.

Gilens

(1997a). Racial attitudes and the “new South”. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 323–349.

49.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Sniderman

P. M.

Knight

Piazza

Tetlock

P. E.

Lawrence

G. R.

Mellers

(1997). Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 402–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111770

50.

La Cour Dabelko

Herrnson

P. S.

(1997). Women's and men’s campaigns for the US house of Representatives. Political Research Quarterly, 50(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000106

51.

Ladam

Harden

J. J.

Windett

J. H.

(2018). Prominent role models: High-profile female politicians and the emergence of women as candidates for public office. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12351

52.

Lawless

J. L.

Kathryn

(2008). The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Reevaluating the conventional wisdom. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002238160708005x

53.

Maccoby

(1954). The interview: A tool of social science. The handbook of social psychology. Addison-Wesley.

54.

C. H.

(2015). The consequences of explicit and implicit gender attitudes and candidate quality in the calculations of voters. Political Behavior, 37(2), 357–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9274-4

55.

Oxley

Z. M.

Fox

R. L.

(2004). Women in executive office: Variation across American states. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/3219838

56.

Panagopoulos

(2004). “Boy talk/girl talk: Gender differences in campaign communications strategies.” Women & Politics 26(3-4), 131-155.

57.

Presser

(1990). Can changes in context reduce vote overporting in surveys? Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(4), 586–593. https://doi.org/10.1086/269229

58.

Reinhart

R. J.

(2021, March 8). U.S.: Nine in 10 see a woman leading the U.S. in 10 years. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/330530/u.s.-nine-woman-leading-u.s.-years.aspx

59.

Rosenwasser

S. M.

Seale

(1988). Attitudes toward a hypothetical male or female presidential candidate: A research note. Political Psychology, 9(4), 591–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791529

60.

Sanbonmatsu

(2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088412

61.

Sanbonmatsu

(2003b). Political knowledge and gender stereotypes. American Politics Research, 31(6), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x03255167

62.

Sanbonmatsu

(2012). Gender stereotypes and gender preferences in American politics. In Improving public opinion surveys: Interdisciplinary innovation and the American national election studies (pp. 260–277). Princeton University Press.

63.

Sapiro

(1981). If US Senator Baker were a woman: An experimental study of candidate images. Political Psychology, 3(1/2), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791285

64.

Schneider

M. C.

Bos

A. L.

(2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040

65.

Schwarz

Alexander

(2022). What have we learned about gender from candidate choice experiments? A meta-analysis of sixty-seven factorial survey experiments. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1086/716290

66.

Seltzer

R. A.

Newman

Voorhees Leighton

(1997). Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates and voters in US elections. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

67.

Sevi

(2021). Do young voters vote for young leaders? Electoral Studies, 69(2), Article 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102200

68.

Sevi

, (2022). “Too Old to Be President?” American Politics Research 50(6): 752-756.

69.

Sevi

(2023). Is incumbency advantage gendered? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12376

70.

Sevi

André

Vincent

, (2021). “Do Women Get Fewer Votes in Ontario Provincial Elections?” Women, Power, and Political Representation: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives, 26-31.

71.

Sevi

Arel-Bundock

Blais

(2019). Do women get fewer votes? No. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 52(1), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423918000495

72.

Sevi

Charles

André

, (2024). “Do voters punish women politicians more?” American Politics Research, 52(6): 701-708.

73.

Sheehan

J. J.

Sheehan

O. T. O.

(2006). The American presidency: Categorizing and assessing leadership qualities. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/235227982006030001002

74.

Silver

B. D.

Anderson

B. A.

Abramson

P. R.

(1986). Who overreports voting? American Political Science Review, 80(2), 613–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958277

75.

Smith

E. R. A. N.

Fox

R. L.

(2001). The electoral fortunes of women candidates for Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/449215

76.

Smith

J. L.

Paul

Rachel

(2007). No place for a woman: Evidence for gender bias in evaluations of presidential candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503069

77.

Sniderman

P. M.

Edward

G. C.

(1997) “Reaching beyond race.” PS: Political Science & Politics 30(3) 1997: 466-471.

78.

Streb

M. J.

Burrell

Frederick

Genovese

M. A.

(2008). Social desirability effects and support for a female American president. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm035

79.

Strolovitch

D. Z.

Wong

J. S.

Proctor

(2017). A possessive investment in white heteropatriarchy? The 2016 election and the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1310659

80.

Tadevich

Hutson

A. C. F.

Shufeldt

(2024). When push comes to shove: An experimental analysis of voter support of a woman president and the 2024 nomination. American Politics Research, 52(4), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X241253256

81.

Trimble

Curtin

Wagner

Auer

Woodman

V. K. G.

Owens

(2021). Gender novelty and personalized news coverage in Australia and Canada. International Political Science Review, 42(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119876083

82.

Wolbrecht

Campbell

D. E.

(2007). Leading by example: Female members of parliament as political role models. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 921–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00289.x

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.

0.00 MB

0.49 MB