Abstract:Are women less likely to win elections than men? Past analyses of U.S. elections have found little evidence of gender bias, leading some scholars to declare: "When women run, women win." However, across many professional domains, women face disparate outcomes in achieving leadership positions. The current research resolves this puzzle through a novel theoretical perspective and methodological advances. Theoretically, we propose that power frees women from restrictive gender norms, reducing gender bias. Thus, gender bias likely exists in politics but is more pronounced for lower-power candidates and less pronounced for higher-power candidates. Because incumbent candidates have more power and challenger candidates less power, we predicted incumbent women would be shielded from gender bias and achieve electoral parity with incumbent men. Conversely, we predicted challenger women would face particularly strong gender bias and disparate outcomes. Methodologically, we resolve prior scope-of-analysis limitations by analyzing every governor and U.S. senator election since women's suffrage (1920). Further, we developed a novel bootstrapping method that resolves regression assumption violations inherent in statistical analyses of candidate-level measures. Analyses revealed 2 important findings. First, our comprehensive dataset revealed that, contrary to past research, women were less likely to win elections than men overall. Second, we found evidence for a power shield effect: Male challengers were three times more likely to win than female challengers, men were 25% more likely than women to win open-seat races, but female incumbents fared just as well as male incumbents. These results suggest that some gender differences may be power differences in disguise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Beyond Supply and Demand: A Feminist-institutionalist Theory of Candidate Selection

Beyond Quotas: Strategies to Promote Gender Equality in Elected Office

Applying a Feminist Institutionalist Lens

Gender and Dynastic Political Selection

Do Women Choose Different Jobs from Men? Mechanisms of Application Segregation in the Market for Managerial Workers

Objectification and the Candidate: Examining the Effects of Objectification Paired with Candidate Coverage on Candidate Evaluations and Gender Bias

The determinants of political selection: a citizen-candidate model with valence signaling and incumbency advantage

Gender bias in political candidate evaluation among voters: The role of party support and political gender attitudes

Who Covers the Qualifications of Female Candidates? Examining Gender Bias in News Coverage Across National and Local Newspapers

Institutional Shareholders, Board Gender Diversity, and Firm Performance

Why the Mansfield Rule can't work: a supply demand analysis

Fairness in Selection Problems with Strategic Candidates

The power shield: Powerful roles eliminate gender disparities in political elections.

Advancing Post-Structural Institutionalism: Discourses, Subjects, Power Asymmetries, and Institutional Change

Gender, risk assessment, and political ambition

College choice & the consumer: the impact of gender on higher education enrollment

Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia

Beyond the party push: Gender differences in voters' persuasion

Attracting Female Directors in the United States: The Roles of Boards, Executives, and Other Stakeholders

Beyond Being Beneficiaries: Two Mechanisms Explain Why Women Have More Favourable Attitudes Towards Gender Quotas Than Men