Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Recent studies have shown that social ?compassion? issues, and not those directly linked to women?s interests, seem to drive the gender gap in presidential vote choice. Other evidence suggests that many of these compassion issues are associated with the plight of racial minorities in the media and in the minds of average citizens. Drawing on theories of the socialization of gender roles, we predict that traditional partisan appeals to address racial inequities may help to explain the gender gap. Specifically, we hypothesize that the gap emerges because women disproportionately utilize cues about candidates? compassion towards vulnerable social groups in making political decisions. In one experiment, we manipulate news information regarding George W. Bush?s commitment to blacks versus women. We find, as expected, that the gender gap is maximized when Bush takes the traditional Republican stance on race. The gap is significantly reduced when Bush espouses a more moderate position on race. Furthermore, the gender gap is unaffected when Bush takes conservative positions on women?s issues. In a second experiment, we find that the gender gap is produced only when traditional partisan appeals are implicitly racialized. Finally we show that exposure to the 2000 Republican National Convention, which emphasized racial tolerance, increased positive evaluations of Bush among women but not men.