Partisan and/or Gender Homophily: The Influence of Social Identity-Based Elaboration on Political Candidate Evaluation

References

• American National Election Studies. (2020). Data center. https://electionstudies.org/data-center/
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, P. A., & Kibler, R. J. (1978). Candidate valence as a predictor of voter preference. Human Communication Research, 5(1), 4–14. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00618.x
   Google Scholar
• Anzia, S. F., & Bernhard, R. (2022). Gender stereotyping and the electoral success of women candidates: New evidence from local elections in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 1544–1563. doi:10.1017/S0007123421000570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, D., Lauderdale, B., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2023). A leader who sees the world as I do: Voters prefer candidates whose statements reveal matching social-psychological attitudes. Political Psychology, 44(4), 893–916. doi:10.1111/pops.12891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateson, R. (2020). Strategic discrimination. Perspectives on Politics, 18(4), 1068–1087. doi:10.1017/S153759272000242X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, N. M. (2020). The qualifications gap: Why women must be better than men to win political office. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonneau, C. W., & Cann, D. M. (2013). Party identification and vote choice in partisan and nonpartisan elections. Political Behavior, 37(1), 43–66. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9260-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonneau, C. W., & Kanthak, K. (2020). Women’s political ambition and the 2016 election. In L. S. Shames, R. I. Bernhard, M. R. Holman, & D. L. Teele (Eds.), Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy (pp. 167–174). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, J. (2017, June 12). Why women don’t run for office. Politico. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/women-rule-politics-graphic/
   Google Scholar
• Brown, N. E. (2014). Political participation of women of color: An intersectional analysis. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 35(4), 315–348. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2014.955406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42(11), 1081–1089. doi:10.1023/A:1007044802798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, R., & Heath, O. (2017). Do women vote for women candidates? Attitudes toward descriptive representation and voting behavior in the 2010 British election. Politics & Gender, 1(32), 209–231. doi:10.1017/S1743923X16000672
   Google Scholar
• Carlin, D. B., & Winfrey, K. L. (2009). Have you come a long way, baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies, 60(4), 326–343. doi:10.1080/10510970903109904
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, S. J. (2009). Reflections on gender and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign: The good, the bad, and the misogynic. Politics & Gender, 5(1), 1–20. doi:10.1017/S1743923X09000014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassese, E. C. (2021). Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Political Behavior, 43(1), 29–50. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09545-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassese, E. C., & Barnes, T. D. (2019). Reconciling sexism and women’s support for republican candidates: A look at gender, class, and whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 presidential races. Political Behavior, 41(3), 677–700. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9468-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassese, E., Conroy, M., Mehta, D., & Nestor, F. (2022). Media coverage of female candidates’ traits in the 2020 democratic presidential primary. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 43(1), 42–63. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2022.2004846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassese, E. C., & Holman, M. R. (2019). Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 US presidential race. Political Psychology, 40(1), 55–74. doi:10.1111/pops.12492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for American Politics and Women. (2024). Women in elective office 2024. Rutgers Eagleton Institutes of Politics. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/current-numbers/women-elective-office-2024
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, F. (2002). The simplest shortcut of all: Sociodemographic characteristics and electoral choice. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 466–490. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, E. P. (2020). The influence of identity salience on framing effectiveness: An experiment. Political Psychology, 41(6), 1133–1150. doi:10.1111/pops.12669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditonto, T., & Mattes, K. (2018). Differences in appearance-based trait inferences for male and female political candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 39(4), 430–450. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2018.1506206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dittmar, K. (2020, August 10). What you need to know about the record numbers of women candidates in 2020. Center for American Women and Politics. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/election-analysis/record-numbers-women-candidates-2020
   Google Scholar
• Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32(1), 69–88. doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9090-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, K. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates: What really matters? Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 96–107. doi:10.1177/1065912913487949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, K., & Lynch, T. (2015). Making the connection? Attitudes about women in politics and voting for women candidates. Politics, Groups & Identities, 3(1), 111–132. doi:10.1080/21565503.2014.992796
   Google Scholar
• Dolan, K., & Lynch, T. (2016). The impact of gender stereotypes on voting for women candidates by level and type of office. Politics & Gender, 12(3), 573–595. doi:10.1017/S1743923X16000246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216. doi:10.1080/08913811.2012.711022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• English, A., Branton, R., & Friesenhahn, A. (2024). Outside of the old boys club? gender differences in outside groups’ advertising support for U.S. Senate candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 77(1), 328–343. doi:10.1177/10659129231208710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2010). If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 310–326. doi:10.1017/S0022381609990752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fulton, S. A., & Dhima, K. (2020). The gendered politics of congressional elections. Political Behavior, 43(4), 1–27. doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09604-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funk, M. E., & Coker, C. R. (2016). She’s hot, for a politician: The impact of objectifying commentary on perceived credibility of female candidates. Communication Studies, 67(4), 455–473. doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1196380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershon, S. A., Montoya, C., Bejarano, C., & Brown, N. E. (2019). Intersectional linked fate and political representation. Politics, Groups & Identities, 7(3), 642–653. doi:10.1080/21565503.2019.1639520
   Google Scholar
• Golder, S. N., Stephenson, L. B., Van der Straeten, K., Blais, A., Bol, D., Harfst, P., & Laslier, J.-F. (2017). Votes for women: Electoral systems and support for female candidates. Politics & Gender, 13(1), 107–131. doi:10.1017/S1743923X16000684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–152. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501010.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147–170). New York: Academic Press Inc. doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3071-9.50012-x
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, M. M., Coker, C. R., Funk, M. E., & Warner, B. R. (2019). Which ingroup, when? Effects of gender, partisanship, veteran status, and evaluator identities on candidate evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 199–220. doi:10.1080/01463373.2019.1573201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender, 7(2), 133–165. doi:10.1017/S1743923X11000055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennings, V. M., & Urbatsch, R. (2016). Gender, partisanship, and candidate-selection mechanisms. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(3), 290–312. doi:10.1177/1532440015604921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington, M., & Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or pickup? How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89–131. doi:10.1080/10463280701592070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
   Google Scholar
• Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. doi:10.1086/687533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, (3), 690–707. doi:10.1111/ajps.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. doi:10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C., McKinney, M. S., & Hardy, M. M. (2020). Tweeting along partisan lines: Identity-motivated elaboration and presidential debates. Social Media+Society, 6(4), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2056305120965518
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C., Turner, K., & Figueroa, B. (2023). How partisan social identity shapes evaluations of candidate brand elements on campaign websites. Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 79–98. doi:10.1080/01463373.2023.2291195
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C., & Warner, B. R. (2019). Comedic cognition: The impact of elaboration on political comedy effects. Western Journal of Communication, 83(3), 365–382. doi:10.1080/10570314.2018.1541476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., Coker, C. R., McKinney, M. S., & Warner, B. R. (2017). Tweeting presidential primary debates: Debate processing through motivated twitter instruction. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(4), 455–474. doi:10.1177/0002764217704867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killeya, L. A., & Johnson, B. T. (1998). Experimental induction of biased systematic processing: The directed thought technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 17–33. doi:10.1177/0146167298241002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingzette, J., Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2021). How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(2), 663–677. doi:10.1093/poq/nfab029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J., & Petty, R. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. Petty & J. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaMarre, H. L., & Walther, W. (2013). Ability matters: Testing the differential effects of political news and late-night political comedy on cognitive responses and the role of ability in micro-level opinion formation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 303–322. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawless, J. L., & Pearson, K. (2008). The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Reevaluating the conventional wisdom. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67–82. doi:10.1017/S002238160708005X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E., Karimi, F., Wagner, C., Jo, H., Strohmaier, M., & Galesic, M. (2019). Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1078–1087. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0677-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis-Beck, M. S., Jacoby, W. G., Norpoth, H., & Weisberg, H. F. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.92266
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meeks, L. (2012). Is she “man enough?” Women candidates, executive political offices, and news coverage. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 175–193. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01621.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. C. (2016, October 25). The problem for women is not winning. It’s deciding to run. The new york times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/upshot/the-problem-for-women-is-not-winning-its-deciding-to-run.html
   Google Scholar
• Niebler, S., & Mathews-Schultz, A. L. (2021). What do Pennsylvania voters think about gender and women’s representation? Commonwealth, 21(1), 7–29. doi:10.15367/com.v21i1.286
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed. pp. 137–149). New York: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsøy, T. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854. doi:10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
   Google Scholar
• Price‐Blackshear, M. A., Sheldon, K. M., Corcoran, M. J., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2019). Individuating information influences partisan judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(7), 426–447. doi:10.1111/jasp.12595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In M. S. Wetherell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Sage identities handbook (pp. 45–62). New York: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Research Center, P. (2018, August 9). An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1164–1178. doi:10.1177/0146167201279009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, K., & Dolan, K. (2009). Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 485–494. doi:10.1177/1065912908322416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2016). The interplay of candidate party and gender in evaluations of political candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 37(3), 274–294. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2016.1188598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 703–711. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R., & Fox, R. L. (2001). The electoral fortunes of women candidates for congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 205–221. doi:10.1177/106591290105400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stehlé, J., Charbonnier, F., Picard, T., Cattuto, C., & Barrat, A. (2013). Gender homophily from spatial behavior in a primary school: A sociometric study. Social Networks, 35(4), 604–613. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swan, S., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1997). Gender stereotypes and social identity: How being in the minority affects judgments of self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1265–1276. doi:10.1177/01461672972312004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Salt Lake City: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Thomsen, D. M. (2019). Which women win? Partisan changes in victory patterns in US House Elections. Elections, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(2), 412–428. doi:10.1080/21565503.2019.1584749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson-DeVeaux, A. (2019, July 15). Americans say they would vote for a woman, but. FiveThirtyeight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-say-they-would-vote-for-a-woman-but/
   Google Scholar
• Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Resistance to persuasion and attitude certainty: The moderating role of elaboration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1446–1457. doi:10.1177/0146167204264251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61(5), 886–905. doi:10.1177/0011392113479314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & Banwart, M. C. (2016). A multifactor approach to candidate image. Communication Studies, 67(3), 259–279. doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1156005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., McKinney, M. S., Bramlett, J. C., Jennings, F. J., & Funk, M. E. (2020). Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of campaign debates. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 137–157. doi:10.1080/03637751.2019.1641731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winfrey, K. L. (2019). Understanding how women vote: Gender identity and political choices. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Winfrey, K. L., & Carlin, D. B. (2023). Have you come a long way, baby, since 2008?: One major step forward with missteps along the way. Communication Studies, 74(2), 131–146. doi:10.1080/10510974.2023.2177691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winfrey, K. L., Warner, B. R., & Banwart, M. C. (2014). Gender identification and young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(6), 794–809. doi:10.1177/0002764214521769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar