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)

What’s in a name? An experimental test of marital name change on perceptions of female political candidates

Political Difference in Marriage: Wife’s Gender Linked Fate and Relational Conflict

“Master” of none: Institutional language change linked to reduced gender bias.

Do Voters Judge the Performance of Female and Male Politicians Differently? Experimental Evidence from the United States and Australia

The changing importance of white women's economic prospects for assortative mating

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

Implicit Gender Bias in Linguistic Descriptions for Expected Events: The Cases of the 2016 United States and 2017 United Kingdom Elections

Gender differences and similarities in news media effects on political candidate evaluations: a meta-analysis

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

What's in a Name? Auditing Large Language Models for Race and Gender Bias

Marital Status and Perceived Discrimination among Transgender People

Feeling a Little Fat: Stereotype Threat and Weight-Based Stigma as a Predictor of Marriage

Attitudes about gender bias in language: A reevaluation

Ladies First or Ladies Last: Do Masculine Generics Evoke a Reduced and Later Retrieval of Female Exemplars?

Signals, Information, and the Value of College Names

Effects of biological and psychological gender, age cohort, and interviewer gender on attitudes toward gender-inclusive/exclusive language

Gender and Dynastic Political Selection

The errant spouse: a study in person perception

Fossilized Gender Bias

Organizational commitments to equality change how people view women's and men's professional success

The Effect of a Supreme Court Decision Regarding Gay Marriage on Social Norms and Personal Attitudes