What if the very absence of women in political office is what motivates more women to run for office? New research provides evidence that moments of clear gender exclusion, combined with policy issues directly affecting women, significantly boost women’s motivation to enter the political arena. The findings have been published in American Political Science Review.
The “Year of the Woman” in 2018 marked a historic surge in the number of women running for and being elected to the U.S. Congress. This watershed moment was largely a reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump, a figure whose candidacy and presidency sparked significant controversy, particularly around issues of gender and women’s rights.
The motivation behind the new study sprang from this period of political mobilization, aiming to dissect and understand the factors that drove such a significant increase in women’s candidacies. The researchers were particularly interested in exploring the dynamics between women’s exclusion from political office, the perception of policy threats under a predominantly male-led government, and the subsequent increase in women’s political ambition.
“We were interested in explaining the sudden rise in women’s candidacies in the Trump era, and realized that existing academic theories couldn’t account for them,” said study author Amanda Clayton, an assistant professor of political science and UC Berkeley.
To lay the groundwork for their investigation, the researchers began with focus groups consisting of women who aspired to political office. These focus groups served a dual purpose: firstly, to develop an understanding of the motivations and barriers perceived by potential women candidates, and secondly, to refine the theoretical model that links exclusion and policy threat to political ambition.
Building on the insights gained from the focus groups, the researchers then designed a series of survey experiments to quantitatively test their theory. The experiments were structured around vignettes that varied two critical factors: the gender composition of a hypothetical city council (all-male vs. gender-balanced) and the issue domain of the council’s upcoming policy debate (women’s reproductive healthcare vs. renewable energy, the latter serving as a control issue). These vignettes allowed the researchers to isolate the impact of perceived exclusion and specific policy threats on women’s political ambition.
Participants, recruited through a survey firm for a broad representation, were randomly assigned to one of the vignette conditions and then asked a series of questions to gauge their interest in running for a position on the described city council, their change in political ambition from before to after exposure to the vignette, and a behavioral indicator of ambition (clicking a link to learn more about running for office).
This methodological design provided a controlled environment to measure the direct effects of gendered exclusion and policy threat on political ambition, while also offering insights into the psychological mechanism of political efficacy driving these effects.
The researchers collected data from two primary sources to ensure a robust analysis. Initially, in July 2020, the researchers deployed their survey to 1,250 American citizens through Dynata, a survey firm. This sample was chosen to reflect the demographic composition of the U.S. adult population across various dimensions, including age, race/ethnicity, gender, and geographic location.
Subsequently, to further validate their findings, the researchers incorporated their experimental vignettes and the main question into the Cooperative Election Study (CES), a nationally representative survey conducted by YouGov. This part of the study targeted 1,500 U.S. adult citizens in October 2020, during the pre-election period.
The survey experiments demonstrated that women reported a higher interest in running for office and an increased sense of political ambition after being exposed to vignettes featuring an all-male city council debating women’s reproductive healthcare, compared to when the council was gender-balanced or discussing a non-gendered issue like renewable energy. This suggests that the visibility of gendered exclusion in policy-making contexts, especially when women’s interests are perceived to be at stake, is a powerful motivator for women to seek political office.
Another significant finding relates to the role of political efficacy in mediating the relationship between exclusion, policy threat, and ambition. Women who read about an all-male council addressing women’s rights felt a stronger belief in their ability to make a difference in politics, a sentiment that was crucial in translating awareness of exclusion and policy threat into concrete political ambition.
“Women can be inspired to run for office when they see how political exclusion threatens their rights,” Clayton told PsyPost. “However, this outcome is a small silver lining within a normatively troubling set of circumstances. While these conditions may inspire women to run for office — as well as spur social organizing and activism — they also mean that women face scenarios where their political exclusion results in decisions detrimental to their interests.”
The study also uncovered interesting nuances in how different groups of women responded to exclusion and policy threats. Pro-choice women, in particular, showed the most pronounced increase in political ambition in response to gendered policy threats, underscoring the significance of issue alignment in motivating political action. Additionally, the effects of exclusion and policy threat were found to be most significant among women who lean Democratic or identify as political independents.
Furthermore, the findings revealed variations in response among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. While Black and white women showed increased political ambition in the face of exclusion and policy threats, the same was not true for Latinas. This indicates that the impact of exclusion and policy threats on political ambition may be modulated by intersecting identities, highlighting the complexity of factors influencing women’s decision to engage in political action.
The study, “Women Grab Back: Exclusion, Policy Threat, and Women’s Political Ambition,” was authored by Amanda Clayton, Diana O’Brien, and Jennifer Piscopo.