Gender and Candidate Communication: An Analysis of Televised Ads in the 2020 US Senate Races

Recent studies of the content of television ads of female versus male political candidates have shown that women and men are increasingly similar in their communication styles and strategies, with some notable exceptions. However, few studies examining gender and political ad content have focused exclusively on US Senate races, considered the influence of the candidates’ political party, or compared the messages of women running against female versus male opponents. This study examines 236 political ads—160 from mixed-gender and 76 from female–female—U.S. Senate races in 2020 for their verbal and visual content. Results show gendered and partisan differences in the issues emphasized and the tone used. Candidates were similar in the images emphasized. Female candidates were more balanced between formal and casual attire compared to previous election cycles. And candidates in mixed-gender races used different strategies than those in female–female contests as to the issues and political actors mentioned.

Practical Wisdom Reasoning through Deliberative Pedagogy

Deliberative pedagogy holds promise for improving democratic society by cultivating practical wisdom in students as a means to tackle the problems of democracy, such as polarization. This study embraced an opportunity to consider civic education in the 21st century through deliberative pedagogy by considering practical wisdom in a synchronous, virtual deliberation among university stakeholders and local political candidates concerning our role in 21st-century politics. This civic site enabled an analysis of practical wisdom across three student roles: facilitators enrolled in a deliberation course; students from the wider university; and student alumni of the university’s deliberation center, who had been exposed to deliberation in curricular and cocurricular practice. Using a constructive rhetorical analysis to understand practical wisdom within deliberative pedagogy discourse, we contend that students in these three different roles demonstrated three key aspects of practical wisdom through their discursive responses to rhetorical exigences that arose during deliberative engagement. This analysis offers insights beyond outcomes and informs deeper thinking about curricula and better pedagogical practices. Additionally, such studies, focused on the discourse itself, contribute to understandings concerning the connection between rhetoric and deliberative pedagogy.

The Intersection of Candidate Gender and Ethnicity: How Voters Respond to Campaign Messages from Latinas

Despite the recent surge of women of color in elected political office in the U.S., the representation of Latinas is strikingly low. Past research offers unclear conclusions as to whether Latina political candidates face biases due to the intersection of their identities as women and as ethnic minorities, and how Latinas can navigate such biases. In this study, we identify how Latinas draw on their intersectional identities as both women and ethnic minorities to develop strategic campaign messages and how voters respond to such messages. Through an analysis of campaign advertising data and an original survey experiment, we show that Latina candidates do not face an automatic disadvantage based in gender and ethnic biases, but they can benefit from the intersection of these two identities, especially among female minority voters. These results are consequential because they offer insights into how to improve the descriptive and substantive representation of marginalized groups in the U.S.

When Do Voters Respond to Campaign Finance Disclosure? Evidence from Multiple Election Types

In recent American elections political candidates have actively emphasized features of their fundraising profiles when campaigning. Yet, surprisingly, we know comparatively little about how financial information affects vote choice specifically, whether effects differ across types of election, and how robust any effects are to other relevant political signals. Using a series of conjoint experiment designs, I compare the effects of campaigns’ financial profiles on vote choice across direct democratic and representative elections, randomizing subjects’ exposure to additional political cues. I find that while the financial profile of candidates can affect vote choice, these effects are drowned out by non-financial signals. In ballot initiative races, the explicit policy focus of the election appears to swamp any effect of financial information. This paper is the first to explore the comparative effects of financial disclosure across election type, contributing to our understanding of how different heuristics interact across electoral contexts.

Gender preference gaps and voting for redistribution

There is substantial evidence that women tend to support different policies and political candidates than men. Many studies also document gender differences in a variety of important preference dimensions, such as risk-taking, competition and pro-sociality. However, the degree to which differential voting by men and women is related to these gaps in more basic preferences requires an improved understanding. We conduct an experiment in which individuals in small laboratory “societies” repeatedly vote for redistribution policies and engage in production. We find that women vote for more egalitarian redistribution and that this difference persists with experience and in environments with varying degrees of risk. This gender voting gap is accounted for partly by both gender gaps in preferences and by expectations regarding economic circumstances. However, including both these controls in a regression analysis indicates that the latter is the primary driving force. We also observe policy differences between male- and female-controlled groups, though these are substantially smaller than the mean individual differences—a natural consequence of the aggregation of individual preferences into collective outcomes.

“Sincere White people, work in conjunction with us”: Racial minorities’ perceptions of White ally sincerity and perceptions of ally efforts

Social justice movements often consist of both targets of bias (e.g., Black people) and nontarget allies (e.g., White people). However, little is known about what factors shape minorities’ perceptions of allies and their ally behaviors. Across four studies, we investigated Black participants’ perceptions of Whites’ motives to engage in ally behaviors. In Study 1, we found that Black participants perceived nontarget allies as both highly internally and externally motivated, suggesting ally motives may be ambiguous to Black perceivers. Studies 2–4 examined the effect of Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives on perceptions of White allies’ sincerity and support for their ally efforts. As predicted, suspicious Black participants perceived White ally protestors, confronters, and political candidates as less sincere than similar Black targets and, in turn, were less supportive of White allies’ efforts. Discussion focuses on how perceived motives of White allies impact perceptions of allies and their ally efforts.

The Demand Side of Democratic Backsliding: How Divergent Understandings of Democracy Shape Political Choice

Why do citizens in democracies fail to punish political candidates who openly violate democratic standards at the ballot box? The bulk of existing research assumes that a common understanding of democracy underpins citizens’ evaluations of different candidates, resulting in a trade-off between undemocratic practices and partisan or economic considerations. We shed doubt on this assumption by showing that divergent understandings of democracy coexist among citizens and affect vote choice. We leverage a novel approach to estimate individual-level citizen commitment to democracy by means of a candidate choice conjoint experiment in Poland, a country experiencing democratic backsliding in a context of deep polarization. We find support for our claim that respondents with less clear-cut liberal democratic attitudes not only tolerate democratic violations more readily, but do so irrespective of a given candidate’s partisan affiliation. Thus, we contend that a lack of attitudinal consolidation around liberal democratic norms explains continued voter support for authoritarian-leaning leaders.

Courting Coverage: Rhetorical Newsworthiness Cues and Candidate-Media Agenda Convergence in Presidential Primaries

What can political candidates do to make their agenda more enticing to journalists? This study argues that the answer lies in appealing to newsworthiness values—specifically conflict, human interest, and simplicity—via rhetorical newsworthiness cues. Using an original data set of announcement speeches and national news media coverage from 1984 to 2016, this study tests this argument and finds that candidates whose speeches include more anger and candidate-based appeals, which appeal to journalists’ preference for conflict and human-interest stories, have their issue agenda covered with greater proportionality. It concludes with a discussion of the implications of these incentives on the electorate.

Climate Change as a National Security Issue: Examining Framing Effects Across Party

Research suggests that framing climate change as a national security issue can shape opinion about climate change. This research is less clear about what exactly constitutes a “national security frame” and what aspects of this frame are most persuasive. We use a survey experiment to compare the relative effects of three types of national security frames we identify. Results show that a frame centered on energy dependence had the strongest effect and was the most consistent across partisanship. Surprisingly, the effects ran in the opposite direction for Democrats and Republicans on both outcomes—negative for Democrats and positive for Republicans. We also show that the energy dependence frame moderated the influence of respondents’ affect toward political candidates and parties on their climate change attitudes. The results suggest that the energy dependence frame can shape public opinion, but that it must be tailored to particular audiences to avoid backfire effects.

Effects of regular and joke dog whistles on perceptions of political candidates

Our experiment showed a scenario where a White politician used a racist dog whistle (DW) when referring to his Black opponent. We used pilot data to determine DW statements and then tested whether different DWs (joke or regular) would affect perceptions of candidates based on participants’ levels of subtle and explicit racism compared to a comment without racial undertones. Our results indicated that while neither DW affected perceptions of the Black candidate based on participants’ levels of subtle racism, when a regular DW was used, subtle racism was positively associated with more positive perceptions of the White candidate. Our findings can broadly be explained within the context of modern racism and the suppression justification model of prejudice. The presence of a DW served as a prime, allowing those who have subtle anti-Black prejudice to express it through more positive personal perceptions of the White candidate. Without opportunities to justify the expression of their subtle prejudice (i.e. have a non-prejudice reason to dislike the candidate), the participants’ did not report more negative perceptions of the Black candidate. However, there was a “backlash” and participants were less likely to consider voting for the White candidate, particularly when he used a joke DW.