A recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Political Science investigates the impact of political repositioning on candidate evaluations, focusing on whether gender influences these perceptions. Conducted in Flanders, the research finds that politicians who frequently change their policy stances are viewed less favorably by the public, regardless of gender.
The motivation behind this study stems from the dual expectations placed on political parties. On one hand, parties are expected to maintain clear, stable policy positions, which fosters trust and ideological clarity. On the other hand, parties need to be responsive and adaptable to changing public opinions and circumstances.
Previous research has shown that changing policy stances, known as repositioning, can damage a politician’s reputation. However, it remained unclear if this reputational cost is gendered. Given that female politicians are often perceived as more honest and reliable, the study hypothesized that women might face harsher judgment for changing their positions, potentially violating these positive stereotypes.
“I became interested in the consequences of party repositioning for party reputations because there seems to be tension between two core elements of political representation,” said study author Maurits J. Meijers, an assistant professor of political science at Radboud University in Nijmegen.
“On the one hand, we want parties to have clearly identifiable policy profiles. We want to know what parties stand for and we want parties to be committed to their ideological beliefs. This would require parties to be steadfast in their policy positioning.”
“At the same time, we want parties to be responsive to public opinion. Wlezien and Soroka’s thermostatic model of representation posits that parties should adapt their positioning in line with public opinion. Moreover, we want parties to be flexible enough to adjust their positions when political or economic circumstances change. This would require parties to have considerable leeway in their policy positioning.”
“My project ‘Credible’ or ‘Capricious’? The Reputational Cost of Party Policy Change funded by the Dutch Research Council addresses how citizens evaluate this trade-off between stable and credible positioning vs. flexibility.”
“The present study addresses this question from the perspective of gendered candidate evaluations. We know from research on gendered evaluations of politicians that female politicians are considered to be more sincere and honest. Political psychology work on repositioning has shown that when politicians change their positions people believe these politicians to be less sincere and honest.”
The participants were recruited from a Flemish panel of users of the “Election Compass,” a voting advice application. The final sample included 6,957 respondents, although it was initially intended to be 4,000, with quotas for age, gender, and education to ensure representativeness.
The experiment had a 2×2 factorial design, manipulating two variables: the gender of the candidate (male or female) and the frequency of their policy position changes (frequent or infrequent). Participants were shown a simulated news report about a candidate’s performance, including a photo and first name to indicate gender, and information about their tendency to change positions on key issues such as childcare, climate policy, and immigration policy.
The repositioning scenario indicated that the candidate frequently changed positions on three issues: childcare, climate policy, and immigration policy. These issues were selected to cover a range of stereotypically feminine and masculine domains. Participants rated the candidates on overall evaluation, perceived trustworthiness, honesty, decisiveness, competence, and voting intention.
The study revealed that candidates who frequently changed their policy positions were evaluated less positively than those who did so infrequently. This negative perception extended to trustworthiness and voting intentions. Candidates who frequently repositioned were viewed as less honest, decisive, and competent.
“My study – a vignette survey experiment conducted in Flanders, Belgium – found that politicians who frequently change their positions are trusted less and are punished electorally,” Meijers told PsyPost. “Flip flopping politicians are also seen as less honest and competent. The largest effect was for decisiveness: flipflopping politicians are perceived to be less decisive.”
Contrary to the initial hypothesis, the data showed no significant difference in the negative impact of repositioning based on the candidate’s gender. Both male and female candidates who frequently changed positions were evaluated similarly, suggesting that gender stereotypes did not significantly influence these evaluations in the context of Flanders.
“I was surprised to see the lack of a gendered effect,” Meijers said. “Especially in light of previous evidence of the effects of stereotype violations provided by Erin Cassese and Mirya Holman.”
“It is possible, however, that the negative effects of stereotype violations for female politicians were cancelled out by stereotype violations for male politicians. Male politicians are stereotypically seen as more decisive, and repositioning politicians were punished most for decisiveness. That said, I did not see gender differences in the evaluations of any of the traits.”
Meijers conducted several robustness checks, including post-stratification weights to address sample representativeness and control for attentiveness. These checks confirmed the initial findings, reinforcing that frequent repositioning carries a reputational cost, but this cost does not vary significantly between male and female candidates.
But the study includes some caveats to consider. For instance, it was conducted in Flanders, a region with stringent gender quotas and relatively low levels of gender stereotyping in politics. These contextual factors may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions with different political dynamics and levels of gender stereotyping.
Future research could address these limitations by replicating the study in different political contexts, including regions with higher levels of gender stereotyping and different electoral systems. Further studies could also explore the impact of repositioning on specific policy issues perceived as stereotypically masculine or feminine, as well as investigate how explicit activation of gender stereotypes during campaigns influences voter evaluations.
“In the medium-term, there are still a couple of studies from the Dutch Science Council project in the pipeline,” Meijers said. “With Ruth Dassonneville (University of Montreal), I have conducted a study in which individual characteristics explain whether citizens believe repositioning to be legitimate in a representative democracy. With Mariken van der Velden (Free University Amsterdam), I have studied how voters respond to compromises made during coalition negotiations. Lastly, I have conducted a survey experiment in three countries to see how issue ownership and affective polarization affect citizens’ evaluations of position changes.”
“In the longer term, I want to continue this line of research, which studies how the political behaviour of political elites affect citizens’ trust in and commitment to democracy. For instance, I am currently working on a project to see how citizens perceive lying politicians and how this affects their views on democracy.”
The study, “The Way She Moves: Political Repositioning and Gender Stereotypes,” was published online on April 25, 2024.
