MPs more likely to respond to women's requests, driven by female legislators bias against men

[Metaphor]

Abstract only at the moment (this is behind a paywall)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-gender-bias/27DF3D585BEDB8FFDAF1912C46BDDE09

Emphasis mine:

Are elected officials more responsive to men than women inquiring about access to government services? Women face discrimination in many realms of politics, but evidence is limited on whether such discrimination extends to interactions between women and elected officials. In recent years, several field experiments have examined public officials’ responsiveness. The majority focused on racial bias in the USA, while the few experiments outside the USA were usually single-country studies. We explore gender bias with the first large-scale audit experiment in five countries in Europe (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Netherlands) and six in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay). A citizen alias whose gender is randomized contacts members of parliament about unemployment benefits or healthcare services. The results are surprising. Legislators respond significantly more to women (+3% points), especially in Europe (+4.3% points). In Europe, female legislators in particular reply substantially more to women (+8.4% points).

Note that the authors write that they find the results 'surprising'. I don't know why they find it surprising. It is my long experience that women are more likely to be helped in a wide variety of social situations, compared to men, and women are known to more highly favour their own ingroup than men are. (The abstract is silent on whether male legislators helped women more, less, or the same as they helped men).

A graphic from the first author's twitter:


Ireland's legislators can be congratulated for a very high response rate to citizen queries compared to elsewhere in Europe.

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

Overall, in our sample of almost 2,000 voters, a Black woman was preferred over a white man by 3.7 percentage points and an Asian woman by 2.4 percentage points. Almost every demographic group we polled showed a preference for Black and Asian women, all else being equal. Women across parties preferred Black and Asian women over a white man (+5.7 and +3.2 percentage points, respectively), but so did men, even if by a smaller margin (+1.7 and +1.5 percentage points, respectively). African Americans prefer women candidates of their own race by a substantial margin (+18.5 percentage points over white men) and Asian Americans embrace Asian American women running for office (+3.9 percentage points over white men).

I suspect had the authors found the opposite in either case, the establishment media would have been all over it.

 

[laughing dog]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

 

[Metaphor]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

No, that doesn't explain it, and I worry about your lack of comprehension. What it does explain is that when women run for office, they are as likely or more likely to win than men. Women simply don't run for office as often as men.

This shows that women (or Democrat women, who are the majority of women in US Congress) are more likely to be their party's nominee when they file, and they are more likely to win when they are their party's nominee.

 

[laughing dog]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

No, that doesn't explain it, and I worry about your lack of comprehension.

Thank you, but you need to take care of yourself.

What it does explain is that when women run for office, they are as likely or more likely to win than men.

Prove it. Moreover, it is just possible that women win on their merits. Or is that simply not possible in your view?

Women simply don't run for office as often as men.

I wonder why.

This shows that women (or Democrat women, who are the majority of women in US Congress) are more likely to be their party's nominee when they file, and they are more likely to win when they are their party's nominee.

Congress is comprised of 528 people, all of whom are not Democrats. So it appears your data is cherry picked.

 

[SimpleDon]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

No, that doesn't explain it, and I worry about your lack of comprehension. What it does explain is that when women run for office, they are as likely or more likely to win than men. Women simply don't run for office as often as men.

This shows that women (or Democrat women, who are the majority of women in US Congress) are more likely to be their party's nominee when they file, and they are more likely to win when they are their party's nominee.

As general rule women and minorities are better qualified for the positions that they hold because of the discrimination against promoting them. It wouldn't surprise me then that a similar dynamic is in play for running for an elected office.

 

[Metaphor]

Prove it.

I already did, in post #3.

Moreover, it is just possible that women win on their merits.

That could possibly explain women winning more often when they run, but it would not explain the voter bias in the experiment. The experiment in the OP did not examine actual candidates but hypothetical ones, and it (as much as practicable) disguised the intentions of the experimenters.

Or is that simply not possible in your view?

That some groups can outperform others and it not be due to widespread societal bias is in fact a belief I hold.

I wonder why.

I imagine they don't find it as appealing, on the whole, as men.

Congress is comprised of 528 people, all of whom are not Democrats. So it appears your data is cherry picked.

No, the data are not cherry picked. There is an overall effect of women being more likely to win congressional seats when they run for them. That overall effect is driven by Democrats and minor parties, because Republican women have a slightly smaller chance of succeeding than Republican men.

 

[Metaphor]

No, that doesn't explain it, and I worry about your lack of comprehension. What it does explain is that when women run for office, they are as likely or more likely to win than men. Women simply don't run for office as often as men.

This shows that women (or Democrat women, who are the majority of women in US Congress) are more likely to be their party's nominee when they file, and they are more likely to win when they are their party's nominee.

As general rule women and minorities are better qualified for the positions that they hold because of the discrimination against promoting them. It wouldn't surprise me then that a similar dynamic is in play for running for an elected office.

The experiment controlled for these factors and found that voters were more likely to vote for a black or Asian woman than a white man, even when they were the "same" candidate.

EDIT: When you say "as a general rule", do you have evidence of this?

 

[Emily Lake]

What it does explain is that when women run for office, they are as likely or more likely to win than men. Women simply don't run for office as often as men.

I'm not entirely sure about that extrapolation. It would seem a very reasonable conclusion... but it hinges on "all else being equal". There's an inherent assumption that people will view a male and a female running for office as being equal, or will at minimum weight their strengths and weaknesses using the same measures.

 

[Metaphor]

What it does explain is that when women run for office, they are as likely or more likely to win than men. Women simply don't run for office as often as men.

I'm not entirely sure about that extrapolation. It would seem a very reasonable conclusion... but it hinges on "all else being equal". There's an inherent assumption that people will view a male and a female running for office as being equal, or will at minimum weight their strengths and weaknesses using the same measures.

That the public would respond differently to what is ostensibly the same behaviour, depending on the sex of the politician, I would not find surprising. Jacinda Ardern (the prime minister of New Zealand) has received praise for her leadership style, but can you imagine any male politician, let alone a country's leader, receiving praise for hugging upset female constituents, which Ardern does often?

This study shows that female politicians do not receive any penalty for being 'ambitious' (again, abstract only unfortunately as it's behind a paywall):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-020-09636-z

Are ambitious women punished in politics? Building on literature from negotiation, we argue that women candidates who are perceived to be ambitious are more likely to face social backlash. We first explore what the term ‘ambitious’ means to voters, developing and testing a new multidimensional concept of perceived ambition, from desire to run for higher office to scope of agenda. We then test the link between these ‘ambitious’ traits and voter support for candidates using five conjoint experiments in two countries, the U.S. and the U.K. Our results show that while ambitious women are not penalized overall, the aggregate results hide differences in taste for ambitious women across parties. We find that in the U.S. left-wing voters are more likely to support women with progressive ambition than right-wing voters (difference of 7% points), while in the U.K. parties are not as divided. Our results suggest that ambitious women candidates in the U.S. face bias particularly in the context of non-partisan races (like primaries and local elections), when voters cannot rely on party labels to make decisions.

 

[ruby sparks]

This study shows that female politicians do not receive any penalty for being 'ambitious'...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-020-09636-z

.....ambitious women candidates in the U.S. face bias......

 

[Metaphor]

This study shows that female politicians do not receive any penalty for being 'ambitious' (again, abstract only unfortunately as it's behind a paywall):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-020-09636-z

Are ambitious women punished in politics? Building on literature from negotiation, we argue that women candidates who are perceived to be ambitious are more likely to face social backlash. We first explore what the term ‘ambitious’ means to voters, developing and testing a new multidimensional concept of perceived ambition, from desire to run for higher office to scope of agenda. We then test the link between these ‘ambitious’ traits and voter support for candidates using five conjoint experiments in two countries, the U.S. and the U.K. Our results show that while ambitious women are not penalized overall, the aggregate results hide differences in taste for ambitious women across parties. We find that in the U.S. left-wing voters are more likely to support women with progressive ambition than right-wing voters (difference of 7% points), while in the U.K. parties are not as divided. Our results suggest that ambitious women candidates in the U.S. face bias particularly in the context of non-partisan races (like primaries and local elections), when voters cannot rely on party labels to make decisions.

I can't read the study as it's behind a paywall, but that last line conflicts with the earlier statement that ambitious women are not penalized overall. If women face no overall 'ambution' bias, but they face bias in one particular context, then they must be getting preferential treatment for ambition in other contexts.

 

[ruby sparks]

This shows that women (or Democrat women, who are the majority of women in US Congress) are more likely to be their party's nominee when they file, and they are more likely to win when they are their party's nominee.

"The win rates among Democratic men and women were nearly equal in 2016 state legislative elections".

"Though Democratic women were better represented among their party’s candidates, they had the lowest general election win rates among all statewide executive candidates in 2016."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tit... for... tat.

Three finance professors said in a new research paper that although the average male financial advisor engages in three times more misconduct than female advisors, females are punished more severely and are less likely to find employment if they lose their jobs.

Life is complicated and can not be extrapolated for a single study.

Or to put in another way... stop fucking whining about how women blah blah blah.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can't read the study as it's behind a paywall, but that last line conflicts with the earlier statement that ambitious women are not penalized overall. If women face no overall 'ambution' bias, but they face bias in one particular context, then they must be getting preferential treatment for ambition in other contexts.

It looks like the preference from the left is balanced by the non-preference from the right.

 

[Metaphor]

This shows that women (or Democrat women, who are the majority of women in US Congress) are more likely to be their party's nominee when they file, and they are more likely to win when they are their party's nominee.

"The win rates among Democratic men and women were nearly equal in 2016 state legislative elections".

"Though Democratic women were better represented among their party’s candidates, they had the lowest general election win rates among all statewide executive candidates in 2016."

You're very fond of your puzzled emoji, even as you selectively and dishonestly quote mine.

In both the US House and Senate, page 1 and 2 of the report, women get better results than men in getting elected. That's what the 'US Congress' part was about.

Your first quoted statement, about state legislative elections, does not somehow invalidate that women are more likely to win overall.

Your second quoted statement lacks a second sentence in the same paragraph:

In contrast, nearly two

-thirds of Republican women nominees won their races for statewide elected executive office, more than their Democratic or male counterparts.

 

[ruby sparks]

....women are known to more highly favour their own ingroup than men are. (The abstract is silent on whether male legislators helped women more, less, or the same as they helped men).

"Although we find that female legislators are significantly more responsive to women in Europe, we do not find the same trend in Latin America".

From the study you cited.

 

[Metaphor]

Tit... for... tat.

Three finance professors said in a new research paper that although the average male financial advisor engages in three times more misconduct than female advisors, females are punished more severely and are less likely to find employment if they lose their jobs.

Life is complicated and can not be extrapolated for a single study.

Or to put in another way... stop fucking whining about how women blah blah blah.

As thoughtful and well articulated as this post is, I'm afraid I don't take instruction on what interests me and what I will post about.

But thank you for your input.

 

[ruby sparks]

In both the US House and Senate, page 1 and 2 of the report, women get better results than men in getting elected. That's what the 'US Congress' part was about.

Your first quoted statement, about state legislative elections, does not somehow invalidate that women are more likely to win overall.

It seems to show that in the cases you selected, Democrat women do better, and in the ones I selected, they don't.

 

[ruby sparks]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

It seems that Republicans, Conservatives and the religious prefer the white man over the black or asian woman, but those of other political allegiances prefer the reverse.

 

[Metaphor]

....women are known to more highly favour their own ingroup than men are. (The abstract is silent on whether male legislators helped women more, less, or the same as they helped men).

"Although we find that female legislators are significantly more responsive to women in Europe, we do not find the same trend in Latin America".

From the study you cited.

Yes, cultural norms are different in Western societies than they are in Latin America.

That does not answer the question about whether male legislators helped women more, less, or the same as they helped men.

However, I did find the relevant graphic in the first author's Twitter feed:


European MPs, male and female, both responded more to women's enquiries, but women MPs showed greater discrimination against men than men did.

The Latin American MPs showed bias but in a very counterintuitive way! Male MPs responded more to female enquiries than male enquiries, but female MPs responded more to male enquiries. I don't know enough about the cultural forces in Latin America that might make this happen, though of course the results need to be replicated to be more sure that they are not a one-off.