Candidate Aggression and Gendered Voter Evaluations

Abstract

Politicians frequently use uncivil and even aggressive tactics in political appeals. Aggressive behavior and personality code as masculine, and voters generally value masculine traits in leaders. However, extreme displays may be off‐putting to all but the most aggressive voters. In this article, we theorize how aggressive political displays interact with gendered personality traits to shape candidate evaluations. Which voters punish candidates for aggressive behavior, and which voters give which candidates a pass? We leverage two survey experiments to investigate how voters judge intensely uncivil candidates in a political debate—verbal aggression and a physical dominance display. We find voters penalize (or even reward) candidates differently for aggressive behavior depending on their own aggressive personality traits. Our findings advance research on the distinct effects of gender over sex in politics and studies of aggression dynamics in mass politics. Our results also speak to work on the strategies available to male and female candidates with broader implications for representation and norms in democratic politics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.