Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T22:15:08.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gender, risk assessment, and political ambition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

Jennie Sweet-Cushman*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Political Science, and International Studies, Chatham University
*
Correspondence: Jennie Sweet-Cushman, Department of History, Political Science, and International Studies, Chatham University, 0 Woodland Road, Pittsburgh, PA  15232. Email: jsweetcushman@chatham.edu

Abstract

In the United States, women have long held the right to vote and can participate fully in the political process, and yet they are underrepresented at all levels of elected office. Worldwide, men’s dominance in the realm of politics has also been the norm. To date, scholars have focused on supply-side and demand-side explanations of women’s underrepresentation but differences in how men and women assess electoral risk (the risk involved in seeking political office) are not fully explained. To fill this gap, I explore how evolutionary theory offers insights into gendered differences in political ambition and the evaluation of electoral risk. Using the framework of life-history theory, I hypothesize that both cognitive and environmental factors in human evolution, particularly as they relate to sexual selection and social roles, have shaped the psychology of ambition in gendered ways affecting contemporary politics. Cognitive risk-assessment mechanisms evolving in the hominid line came to be expressed differently in females and males, in women and men. These gendered expressions plausibly reflect differentiable environmental pressures in the past and may help explain behaviors in and barriers to women’s electoral political activity in the present. If so, then the success of efforts to increase such activity — or, regressively, to suppress it — may be better understood.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2016 

Male officeholders are the norm in political representation both worldwide and in the United States in particular. Across the globe, gender parity in political representation is unusual, and instances of women’s overrepresentation are extremely rare. 1 In the United States, women make up slightly more than half of the population and earned the right to vote and participate fully in the political process many decades ago. Nevertheless, in recent U.S. history, less than a quarter of state legislators have been women; women have held few state executive offices; and women have comprised less than 20 percent of the membership of the U.S. Congress. 2

Proponents of greater gender equality in U.S. political representation continue to wonder why more women do not run for or hold political office when so many of the societal and structural barriers to their participation have diminished. The leading explanations tend to focus on candidate emergence and cultural and psychological factors that contribute to men and women having different levels of political ambition. Reference Fox and Lawless3,Reference Lawless and Fox4 However, these theories do not address what I consider to be critical questions: What role does electoral risk play in political ambition, and can evolutionary theory provide insight into gendered differences in risk assessment and political ambition? I argue that the differences between women and men in electoral risk assessment likely have an evolutionary basis that is both cognitive, as the genders have experienced differential phenotypic adaptations specific to risk, and environmental, as the culture that frames the evaluation of risk in political office-seeking has responded to evolutionary pressures as well. Because it is dual faceted, reflecting both behavioral and genetic components, my argument invites feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists to reconcile their views.

Supply-side and demand-side explanations of candidate emergence

Research on the gender gap in political representation frequently focuses on whether there is a lack of women candidates (supply side) or if electoral systems function in ways that do support the selection of potential women candidates (demand side). Reference Norris and Lovenduski6 Ashe and Stewart note that scholars, even those studying the same system, have different impressions about which side matters more in representation. Reference Ashe and Stewart7 In the United States, it is important to recognize the significance of both sides. Undeniably, a variety of factors on the supply side limit the number of women candidates and depress women’s representation. On the other hand, women’s political ambitions are significantly affected by the environment in which they make calculations about whether to risk a candidacy.

Supply side factors

As the supply-side arguments recognize, individuals who consider seeking political office must personally calculate the risk associated with their choices. To learn how women and men make such calculations, scholarship has turned to examining candidate emergence. Reference Fox and Lawless3 Researchers have pointed to a number of factors that tend to support the political ambition of men and/or depress that of women. An oft-mentioned consideration is that women’s roles as wives and mothers take precedence over or create obstacles to their political ambitions. Reference Stalsburg8,Reference Carroll9,Reference Carroll and Sanbonmatsu10,Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Thomas12,Reference Dodson13,Reference Kirkpatrick14,Reference Lee15,Reference Sapiro16,Reference Stoper, Githens and Prestage17 Others have argued that the perpetual scarcity of women at elite levels suppresses ambition because potential women candidates lack role models. Reference Burrell, Lovenduski and Norris18,Reference Campbell and Wolbrecht19,Reference Mansbridge20,Reference Phillips21

For those women who run and hold office, familial obligations do seem to weigh heavily in their calculations about their potential political careers. Gaddie finds that elected officials of both genders frequently cite the stresses of reconciling a political career and ambition with family, but women are more burdened than men by this conflict. Reference Gaddie22 Despite the obligations of their elected positions, female state legislators remain primarily responsible for housework and child care, Reference Thomas12 a concern that discourages them from seeking higher office. Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Burt-Way and Kelly23 Silbermann found that women who lived farther away from their state capitols were less likely to run for state office. Reference Silbermann24 Lawless and Fox suggest the women in the candidate pipeline are typically successful in their careers and have already overcome caretaking obstacles to professional success. Reference Lawless and Fox4 Therefore, these women tend to have fewer conscious concerns about the effect of running for political office on their potential for reproductive success and/or continued parental investment. In a study of national party convention delegates, women were more likely than men to feel that their political involvement was limited by having children. Reference Sapiro16 As a result, women were more likely to delay a run for office until their children were grown. A later study of potential candidates in four typical “pipeline” careers—lawyers, business professionals, educators, and activists—found that women whose children were older tended to be more likely to consider a run for office. In this study, women were not more likely than men to be deterred from running for office by familial obligations, but—at the same time—the women who considered political careers were in less traditional family arrangements than their male counterparts. The women in politics were “roughly twice as likely as men to be single or divorced, and they [were] 10 percentage points less likely than professionally similar men to have children.” 25

Demand-side factors

On the demand side of the equation, sexual discrimination likely contributes to the paucity of woman elected officials. Reference Sapiro26,Reference McGlen27 Although there is little evidence of certain overt forms of gender discrimination such as voter bias in contemporary electoral contexts, Reference Burrell, Lovenduski and Norris18,Reference Black and Erickson28,Reference Carroll29,Reference Cook, Thomas and Wilcox30,Reference Darcy and Choike31,Reference Darcy and Schramm32,Reference Dolan33,Reference Fox and Lawless34,Reference Lawless and Pearson35,Reference Thompson and Steckenrider36,Reference Woods37 women continue to face stereotyping by voters, Reference Fox and Smith38,Reference Huddy and Terkildsen39,Reference Koch40,Reference Lawless41,Reference McDermott42,Reference McDermott43,Reference Sanbonmatsu44,Reference Bauer45,Reference Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian and Trounstine46 in the media’s treatment of them, Reference Huddy and Terkildsen39,Reference Devitt47,Reference Falk48,Reference Heldman, Carroll and Olson49,Reference Kahn50,Reference Kahn51,Reference Kahn52,Reference Kahn and Goldenberg53 and in political recruitment. Reference Lawless and Fox4,Reference Burrell, Lovenduski and Norris18,Reference Sanbonmatsu44,Reference Norris54,Reference Norris and Lovenduski55,Reference Crowder-Meyer56,Reference Niven57,Reference Niven58

Institutional and structural factors in the political system also matter. For example, the advantages of incumbency in U.S. politics serve as a deterrent to all emergent candidates—regardless of gender Reference Duerst-Lahti, Thomas and Wilcox59 —and therefore help perpetuate the overrepresentation of men in elected offices. Furthermore, because U.S. women are underrepresented in local and state political offices as well as key professions such as business and law that tend to be the launching point for political careers, there are fewer women than men in the pipeline for higher political offices.

In the United States, the systems used to choose and elect candidates also limit the demand for women candidates. For example, candidate emergence is entrepreneurial, meaning candidates put themselves forward to compete, typically in a primary. In contrast, in many parts of the world where women are more likely to be candidates, such as Europe, there is a party loyalist model—candidates are picked by party elites. Reference Siavelis and Morgenstern60 This selection process has been shown to increase the number of women candidates. Reference Lovenduski, Krook and Childs61 Many of these same systems also have a proportional representation (PR) system, where candidates are placed on party lists and multiple candidates from these lists are chosen based on the proportion of the vote each party receives. As a result, PR system elections are primarily party-focused, taking the spotlight (and the potential burden of risk) off the individual candidates.

Across the world, many political systems also employ gender quotas of some kind. While the type and success of these quotas varies, scholars generally agree that they have increased the number of women holding elected office. Reference Franceschet, Krook and Piscopo62 Because the U.S. system does not employ quotas, an electoral gatekeeper (such as a party leader) has greater leverage to oppose the selection of a woman candidate. Reference Sanbonmatsu44,Reference Niven58

The U.S. political system also has cultural dimensions that affect the likelihood that women will seek political office, although perhaps in ways that are difficult to measure. The two-party system in the United States tends to provoke polarization and negativity, whereas parliamentary systems (such as those found in much of Europe) feature multi-party systems that not only encourage coalition and consensus but also require cooperation to function. Given that men are more likely to have a higher social dominance orientation Reference Sidanius, Pratto and Bobo63 and women are more likely to be exhibit political ambition when primed with communal frames, Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64 potential female candidates are likely to find the combative political culture less welcoming than potential male candidates do.

Research by Schneider and her colleagues demonstrates that men and women are both more likely to perceive political careers to be more aligned with male life-strategy goals—power seeking for self-promotion and competition. Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64 When careers are framed in a more egalitarian or communal way, women become more ambitious. Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64 This finding is consistent with the Darwinian feminist perspective that women would theoretically be more likely to pursue and hold political leadership in an egalitarian society. Reference Hannagan65

The gap in understanding the ambition gap

Clearly, myriad demand-side influences help explain women’s underrepresentation in politics, and Lawless and Fox Reference Fox and Lawless3,Reference Lawless and Fox4 and others have carefully outlined the critical factors that depress the supply side of female candidates. Interestingly, Lawless and Fox identify gender differences in the self-efficacy of potential candidates/elected officials as important factors in determining whether a potential candidate ultimately seeks office. Women’s lack of self-efficacy has thus been touted as a main reason for their lack of political ambition. However, this explanation falls short—it seems unlikely that tremendously successful women in pipeline professions have sufficient confidence to pursue these challenging careers but do not believe they could also succeed in the political arena. I therefore argue that the gender gap in political ambition is, in part, attributable to gendered differences in risk perception and risk aversion. If men, on average, are less likely than women to perceive or be deterred by the risk in a particular electoral environment (electoral risk), they are more likely to emerge as candidates. While research has uncovered numerous factors contributing the gender gap in political ambition, scholars have only just started to consider risk perception and risk aversion. Reference Kanthak and Woon66,Reference Preece and Stoddard67,Reference Sweet-Cushman68

The psychology of risk assessment

Given how inherently risky it can be to run for political office, it is notable that neither political science nor psychology has investigated electoral risk. A few seminal studies in political science suggest the importance of a rational cost-benefit calculus in progressive ambition, Reference Black69,Reference Rohde70 and a few scholars have tangentially alluded to elements of risk when revealing gender differences in the decision to run. Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Bledsoe and Herring71 However, individual risk calculations, particularly in terms of nascent ambition, have not been incorporated into the literature on the ambition gender gap. Kanthak and Woon have used an economic model to introduce the concept of election aversion, Reference Kanthak and Woon66 but no psychological study has looked directly at electoral risk. Nevertheless, the field of psychology offers considerable evidence of gender differences in risk assessment. This research has identified many areas where men and women exhibit significant differences in how they respond to risk scenarios, and this literature provides a solid basis for expecting gender differences in electoral risk assessment specifically.

Considering the emphasis that psychologists put on the context of a particular risk, Reference Brehmer, Singleton and Hovden72,Reference Rohrmann and Renn73 a discussion of electoral risk as a discrete form of risk is well justified. Researchers classify many risk contexts into a number of domains and find that gender-based differences in risk taking vary across these domains. Reference Byrnes, Miller and Schafer74,Reference Weber, Blais and Betz75 Although electoral risk does not seem to fit clearly into any of the domains identified, the theoretical perspective would suggest that there is the potential for differences in the electoral context as well.

More general evidence of psychological differences between men and women is well documented. In an exhaustive meta-analysis of thousands of diverse research studies on gender differences, Macoby and Jacklin conclude that there are gender-based differences across the life cycle and in a number of areas of human psychology. Reference Maccoby and Jacklin76 Subsequent studies have since contested, diluted, or confirmed these findings.

Specific to risk, studies have revealed men’s propensity to be bigger risk takers than women, Reference Waldron, Mccloskey and Earle77,Reference Oliver and Hyde78,Reference Sundén and Surette79 as well as women’s likelihood to perceive greater risk across threat types. Reference Bord and O’Connor80,Reference Garbarino and Strahilevitz81,Reference Rhodes and Pivik82 Across different risk types (or domains of risk), meta-analysis reveals that gender differences exist in virtually every area of risk study. Reference Byrnes, Miller and Schafer74 The body of psychological literature on gender and risk thus supports two hypotheses: First, there are good reasons to look at the risk inherent in the unexamined context of elections, and, second, it is likely that gender-based differences in this realm exist. Intersectional research in political science and biology is starting to nip at the edges of these questions.

Genes, hormones, and political behavior

While political scientists have yet to use evolutionary theory to discuss the nature of political ambition, the influence of biology upon human political attitudes and behavior has been the focus in recent years of a growing body of research. Reference Sigelman83,Reference Alford, Funk and Hibbing84,Reference Fowler, Baker and Dawes85,Reference Sturgis, Read, Hatemi, Zhu, Trull, Wright and Martin86 The only research within political science arguing for a direct link between biological factors and power seeking is a series of studies Madsen conducted in the 1980s. Although the definition of power seeking could include running for political office, Madsen defines it more simply as “the pursuit of social dominance.” Reference Madsen87 In an experimental setting, he identified the neurotransmitter whole blood serotonin (WBS) as being connected to power seeking in men. Among the study participants (all of whom were male undergraduates), those with power-seeking dispositions, on average, had higher levels of WBS. Reference Madsen87 This finding mirrored those from studies of other primates with propensities for socially dominating behaviors. Reference Raleigh, Brammer, Yuwiler, Flannery, McGuire and Geller88,Reference Raleigh, McGuire, Schwarcz, Young and Brown89,Reference Raleigh, McGuire, Brammer and Yuwiler90,Reference Raleigh, McGuire, Brammer, Pollack and Yuwiler91,Reference Steklis, Raleigh, Kling and Tachiki92 In a subsequent experiment, Madsen found that men with higher levels of WBS tend to have different physiological responses than those with normal or low levels of WBS when faced with competitive situations. Reference Madsen93 Although Madsen’s experiments are not related directly to political power seeking per se, his findings suggest that men who are biologically inclined to seek power also tend to be better-equipped hormonally to function in stressful and/or competitive environments.

These findings may be critical to evaluating the biological connection to behavior in politically competitive environments, but it is also crucial to recognize a significant limitation of Madsen’s research: His subjects were exclusively men, and thus the experiments offer no insight into whether these same processes affect women with orientations toward social dominance or in competitive environments. Research on genes, their connection to hormonal influences, and the resultant cognitive mechanisms could and should be extended to analyses of candidate emergence.

Evolution and risk in political behavior

A growing body of both theoretical and empirical research uses evolutionary theory to help explain human psychology. The theories remain piecemeal so that none applies systematically, but recent efforts have included forays into examining political behavior. Reference Fowler, Baker and Dawes85,Reference Madsen87,Reference Madsen93,Reference Alford and Hibbing94,Reference Eaves and Hatemi95,Reference Hatemi, Medland, Morley, Heath and Martin96,Reference McDermott97,Reference Hatemi, Smith, Alford, Martin and Hibbing98 With respect to political behavior, the topic of risk assessment has become an important focus in evolutionary psychology. For example, McDermott, Fowler, and Smirnov have written about the evolutionary roots of prospect theory, Reference McDermott, Fowler and Smirnov99 which argues that people make decisions based on their calculation of the potential risk or loss involved in their choice—valuing the potential gain much more significantly than the potential loss. Reference Kahneman and Tversky100 The theory is one of the most powerful and oft-employed tools in the social sciences and has been widely applied by political psychologists to such topics as the effects of framing Reference Druckman101 political decision making, Reference McDermott97,Reference Lau and Redlawsk102,Reference Mercer103,Reference Patty104,Reference Quattrone and Tversky105 public policy, Reference McDaniel and Sistrunk106 comparative politics, Reference Weyland107 and the behavior of state actors in international relations. Reference Mercer103,Reference Berejikian108,Reference Faber, Proops and Manstetten109,Reference Jervis110,Reference Jervis111,Reference Levy112,Reference Levy113,Reference McDermott114

McDermott and coauthors offer an evolutionary explanation for the risk-taking and risk-aversion patterns explained by prospect theory. They theorize that cognitive mechanisms that evolved to help our ancestors to make life and death decisions are still in place and help people today to make decisions. Models of politics, they argue, need:

Greater sensitivity to ecological rationality [emphasis original] …How a person thinks, and what constitutes rational behavior, depends on the situational and environmental context in which that individual operates. An ecologically valid model of political behavior, or any other behavior, involves the interaction between both individual characteristics and specific situational aspects of the environment. 115

These authors also note that in decision making in general and prospect theory specifically, gender-based differences exist. This conclusion is supported by experimental research by Fagley and Miller that found that women participants were affected by positive and negative framing of a threat, while men were not. Reference Fagley and Miller116 These gender-related differences in framing effects were also found in a later study that looked at the nature of risk domain—again the frames affected women more significantly than men. Reference Fagley and Miller117

Evolution and differential risk assessment between women and men

There are strong evolutionary arguments for differences between men and women in risk assessment. At the evolutionary root of gender differences in risk assessment are sex-related differences in the life history strategies—the timing of various forms of reproductive effort over a lifetime, including phenotypic effort, mating effort, reproduction, and nepotism. Reference Kaplan, Gangestad and Buss118 The allocation of these various efforts over a lifetime is shaped by natural selection to maximize inclusive fitness, a measure of the success an individual has in transmitting genetic materials to the next generation. There are two components to inclusive fitness: first, an individual’s own reproduction and, second, aid given by the individual that enhances their relatives’ reproduction, since an individual shares a fraction of identical genes with those relatives. Life history strategies can vary somewhat between the sexes due to sexual selection—a special type of natural selection that occurs due to competition among males for mates and because of female choice in mates. Reference Stearns119 Sexual selection results in sexual dimorphism (differences in traits between females and males). Cognitive processes can be subject to sexual selection, leading to differences in risk perception and risk taking between the sexes. Reference Darwin120

The life history strategies of human females differ from those of human males. Females mature at a younger age, and their mating effort is considerably less than for males. Most importantly, females must invest far more in reproduction (sex cells and gestation) than males and nearly always invest far more than males in parental care. Human males, on the other hand, mature at a later age and their mating effort can be considerable, especially in competition with other males to attract more and better quality mates. Compared to other species, human males also invest considerably in parental care, but doing so can involve tradeoffs that reduce mating effort. Reference Kaplan, Gangestad and Buss118

From an evolutionary standpoint, males who are successful in competing with other males garner reproductive benefits. On the other hand, males who do not compete successfully may fail entirely in attracting a mate and fathering children. Competition among males for mates may explain why, as prospect theory notes, individuals tend to engage in very risky behavior when threatened with losses. Reference McDermott, Fowler and Smirnov99 If males have few resources and find it difficult to attract and hold onto a mate, they will go to extreme risks to guard what few resources they do have (such as their reputations). Compared to human females, human males would likely have evolved to benefit from greater risk propensity, since the payoff in terms of reproductive fitness when making riskier choices would be much greater for males than for females. In summary, being a male involves riskier life strategies.

Along these lines, I posit that there is an evolutionary origin for the decision-making process (that is, risk assessment) that influences candidate emergence in democratic political systems. Because women and men have been subject to different evolutionary pressures, they have evolved different cognitive mechanisms of risk assessment. Environments in the ancestral past and the risks associated with those environments looked very different for women and men, and thus supported sexual selection for differences in traits between the sexes for dealing with these different environments. Furthermore, cultural responses to environmental pressures, associated with many gender-based differences in politics, continue to reflect this history of sexual selection. Thus, some gender-based differences that seem irrelevant in the modern environment may persist despite great efforts to overcome them because they reflect sex differences in evolution.

Anyone thinking critically about whether or not to seek public office must consider the specific risks in doing so. I hypothesize that those individual calculations of risk are gendered in important ways that have, in part, an evolutionary origin. My theoretical framework for the existence of gendered assessments of electoral risk and their subsequent effects on candidate emergence assumes the connection between politics and the control of resources and is thus rooted in life history theory, which argues that decisions about risk taking will be made in the context of decisions about resources in an effort to maximize survival and reproduction over the course of an individual’s life. Reference Schaffer121,Reference Williams122 Life history theory is now frequently used to explain human behavior, specifically variations in strategies used by individuals. Reference Charnov123,Reference Daan, Tinbergen, Krebs and Davies124,Reference Horn, Krebs and Davies125,Reference Low126,Reference Roff127,Reference Stearns128 Increasingly, researchers have been employing life history theory to empirically test how strategy variations influence risky decision making. Reference Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton and Robertson129 My theoretical discussion of a particular type of risk (electoral risk) is dual-faceted. The first dimension of my argument considers cognitive forces inherent to individual biology that prompt women to calculate risk in different ways than men. It reflects the evolutionary history in which the human psyche evolved. Although this history includes selective forces that would have had a similar impact both women and men, there were also selective forces surrounding risk that had a different impact on women than men. The second dimension of my argument considers environmental forces. It examines evolution’s impact on cultural environments and identifies factors in economic, social, and political environments that shape and differentiate the risks for women and men of running for political office.

Cognitive influences: Evolved traits and individual behavior

A fundamental assumption of behavioral genetics is that there are genetic influences underlying all behaviors Reference Buss130 and evolutionary processes throughout our ancestral history have shaped behavior, like other traits. The causal pathways may be lengthy, complicated, and difficult to ascertain, but they exist. Genes are sections of DNA that get translated, leading eventually to the production of distinct enzymes. Without genes, there is no development, no nervous system or brain, and, as a result, no behavior. Through these behaviors, human culture has also evolved. Reference Cosmides, Tooby and Dupré131

The process of natural selection is the process responsible for adaptations—traits that better enabled their bearers to survive and reproduce in the environments of prehistory and history. Malthus Reference Malthus132 and Darwin Reference Darwin120 argue that because far more organisms are born in any generation than could be supported by the resources available in the environment, individuals inevitably compete for those resources. Individuals with traits best adapted to the particular competitive environment will thrive and produce offspring who are likely also to carry the traits that made the parents successful. Reference Darwin120

Two critical issues determine whether a trait will be favored: First, does the trait favor the acquisition of resources used for survival and reproduction? Second, does the trait favor the acquisition of one particularly important resource—more and higher quality mates? Genes will be transferred to the next generation only if those initially carrying them possess both the resources to survive and have access to mating opportunities. A gene will increase in frequency, generation after generation, only if it is found in bodies that compete successfully for reproductive resources, including mates. There are thus two sets of intertwined selective pressures at work: Shortages of resources encourage competition for them, and shortages of mates and higher quality mates favor competition for access to them. Reference Darwin120 Risk is inherent to many calculations that individuals must make in both managing resources and reproduction. Trimpop argues that mate selection is inherently a form of social risk taking. Reference Trimpop133 It involves competition both for resources (used to attract mates) and for the mates themselves. Reference Buss134 Both competition for resources and for mates favor risk taking, and some of these risks are inherently political, with implications for power seeking.

Consider the adaptive traits that modern humans have and the selective pressures that would have favored them. Evolutionary theorists make a strong case that the Pleistocene Era is the most convincing place to look for the origins of more recently evolved human behaviors that distinguish modern Homo sapiens from their ancestors (such as Homo erectus). The theoretical justification for this focus is simple: 99 percent of the history of Homo sapiens occurred within hunter-gatherer (HG) societies, Reference Hatemi, McDermott, Hatemi and McDermott135 so most traits distinctive to modern humans would be traits that favored survival and reproduction in environments typical to a HG society. These are almost certainly the traits that modern humans possess. Reference Boehm137 By this logic, the political environment associated with HG societies has influenced how modern humans cope with their own political environments. Cultural anthropologists have argued that not only has the political nature of HG societies affected human nature, but human nature has also affected modern politics. Reference Boehm136,Reference Boehm137

In HG societies, male and female humans worked together to obtain resources needed for survival, Reference Bird138,Reference Marlowe139 and the division of labor between the sexes has been identified as the origin of traditional gender roles. Reference Lerner140 Women often focused on collecting localized vegetation that, in terms of calories and nutrients, made up the largest portion of the HG diet. For their part, men fished, hunted, and scavenged for meat. While the nutrients obtained from vegetation were mainstays of the diet, meat provided a greater concentration of fat and protein. Skill was needed to obtain this often scarce and unpredictable resource, and those who shared meat with others in the community achieved significant reputational benefits. Reference Kelly141 Successful hunters were therefore likely to wield significant influence within their social group and, as a result, male authority became the norm. Reference Boehm136 For this reason, humankind’s earliest politicians, headmen, were likely exclusively men. Reference Lee142 Because HG societies had little variation in wealth, they tended to be predominantly egalitarian, with leaders emerging to solve conflicts when authority and leadership were required. Reference Hannagan65 Apart from the headman (and perhaps a few skilled and successful hunters), very few men were able to attract and support more than one mate and their children. Reference Irons143 Therefore, while these societies were predominantly ecologically monogamous (a condition that would offer its own set of evolutionary pressures), a few men with greater ambition would succeed in becoming a headman, and be able to attract and support additional mates, father more children, and achieve greater personal reproduction. Their traits, including those that supported their ambition, would increase in frequency in the population, encouraging a tendency toward power seeking in future generations of men.

As Darwinian feminists would surely point out, women in HG societies also have had their own sets of ambitions and a role in political life. Women in HG societies are frequently described as being cooperative, Reference Sell, Griffith and Wilson144 particularly in their gathering duties, Reference Bird138,Reference Marlowe139 but these societies provided opportunities for female competition and power seeking in other aspects of communal life. Low, in her examination of traditional peoples around the world where women have a notable amount of power, identifies numerous ways that women exert their ambition and strength. Reference Low126 She notes that within the Creek Nation, for example, when a woman was cited for bravery, her son would receive a war title. The Saramacca of Guyana had a dual political structure where women held positions of authority in the realm of women’s affairs, while men did the same in more general communal affairs—an arrangement that may seem familiar to women in positions of power in contemporary democracies. Furthermore, although the fabric of egalitarian HG society was secured in part by a delicate balance between men’s limited political authority and women’s aversion to power seeking, women played a “counterdominance” role in society. Reference Hannagan65,Reference Boehm145,Reference Knauft, Sponsel and Gregor146 Women’s counterdominant behaviors would include their approval or disapproval of leaders and their actions, economic efforts, and the absolute dependency of men on women’s childbearing and rearing efforts.

As applied to humans, evolutionary theory suggests that individuals will be inclined to pursue political power (emerge as candidates) to the extent that political power can contribute to their reproductive success or, more specifically, their inclusive fitness, Reference Hamilton147 and evolutionary theory further supports the argument that men are able to derive potentially significant reproductive benefits from being politically ambitious, whereas women derive far fewer benefits from the same behavior. In theory, men can make a virtually unlimited contribution to the future gene pool through polygamous marriages, serial monogamy, taking concubines, and philandering, but the genetic contributions of women are limited by the number of children they are able to successfully gestate, bear, and raise. Therefore, men will be inclined to participate in activities that gain them reproductive opportunities. Namely, competing successfully for power will increase their access to additional resources and these resources can be used to attract mates and help support these mates and any offspring. Indeed, history is full of accounts of wealthy and powerful men with harems full of concubines or, at least, multiple wives and higher than average numbers of children (for example, Genghis Khan, the Ottoman sultans, and the Tiwi elders of Northern Australia). Reference Betzig148 Unlike men, women who use resources to attract multiple mates are not favored by natural selection. Instead, women are primarily predisposed by evolution to behaviors that give them access to resources that will help them raise healthy children. Reference Low126 Women carry the reproductive burden of pregnancy and, in most cases, they have been tasked with most of the early burden of caretaking. Reference Hrdy149,Reference Trivers150 Thus, the sex-differentiated benefits of ambition and caretaking have favored the emergence of traditional gender roles and help explain the evolutionary roots of gender differences in political ambition that we see today: One reason that women are less politically ambitious than men is because, in the environments of our ancestors, there were fewer benefits for females in taking the risk to seek political power.

Environmental influences: Social and cultural environmental expression of evolutionary factors

By this point, one dimension of my argument should be clear: Natural selection has favored men, but not women, who seek power, and this evolutionary reality is reflected in human history up through modern society. Geary summarizes this point:

Men in all cultures are highly motivated to attain social status and control of culturally significant resources. The resources are those needed to support survival and attract a mate or mates and can vary from land to herds of cows to a large paycheck. Whatever the form of resource, the outcome is the same. Women prefer culturally successful men as mates, and thus these men have more reproductive options. Reference Geary151

Chagnon and Irons offer empirical support of this argument by documenting the importance of “cultural success” for men. Reference Chagnon and Irons152 Cultural success is the fulfillment of conscious aspirations, and these authors argue that its importance is a cultural universal. Humans in evolutionary history, traditional societies, and modern cultural environments would all consciously strive toward proximate goals (such as wealth) that would improve their inclusive fitness. For men, cultural success would often be defined in terms of access to and control over resources, and the conscious drive associated with this control could be defined as ambition. Although the ambitious men throughout history who have struggled to achieve cultural success were probably ignorant to the concept of inclusive fitness, most were likely aware of their own culture’s definition of success and knew that there were ample rewards to be had from achieving it. There is typically a close correspondence between gendered cultural definitions of success and factors that are associated with reproductive success. For example, for much of U.S. history, women who were born into wealthy families married at younger ages and gave birth to more children than women who were not from wealthy backgrounds. Reference Essock-Vitale153

The fact that there is cultural variation in how ambition is defined and recognized is a crucial point that brings attention to the second facet of my evolutionary argument about electoral risk. Genetic dispositions are merely dispositions and must be activated by the social environment. Depending upon the characteristics of specific social environments, such dispositions may be expressed fully, expressed in attenuated form, or not expressed at all. For example, the political ambition of men in HG societies, if successful, was often rewarded by the ability to attract and keep several wives. However, the political ambition of men in modern societies, if successful, is not rewarded the same way because polygamy is widely prohibited by law. In the context of electoral risk assessment, the environment in which individuals are considering the risks of running for political office is at least as meaningful as genetic factors in shaping how they assess those risks.

Perhaps the most important environmental consideration is the long-standing cultural norm in most human societies that politics is men’s business. Reference Sapiro16 This is the norm of public man, private woman. The dominance of public man in human society is reflected in the history of patriarchal institutions, such as legislatures, political parties, courts, businesses, religious organizations, and the media, which have been structured so as to hinder women’s ability to gain access to them and to exercise influence within them. 154

The history of male domination in the political/public sphere and its primary institutions holds implications from a socialization perspective as well. Reference Enloe155 Patriarchal institutions serve to create what Fox and Lawless refer to as a “masculinized ethos.” Reference Fox and Lawless3 Where a masculinized ethos exists, so does an inherent bias against women and their issues. This bias creates a “gendered psyche,” Reference Fox and Lawless3,Reference Lawless and Fox4 which serves to make traditionally male realms such as politics feel like a man’s world, rather than a woman’s world or a gender-neutral environment. Women may be deterred from participation, and, if they do enter politics, they may conclude that they do not belong, are less effective than men, and cannot exercise influence. It is easy to presume that the differential burden of parenting that persists in human societies would be associated with women’s diminished ambition in general and political ambition in particular. In reality, the effect of the differential burden of parenting on ambition is not clear cut. As many evolutionary theorists have identified, Reference Low126 gender-related traits can almost always be placed on a spectrum full of shades of grey, rather than arranged in a stark binary. In the context of candidate emergence, this means that while men on average tend to be more politically ambitious than women, there will always be exceptions to this tendency—and the overlap on the spectrum may be significant.

When thinking about ambition and gender, it can be useful to consider the prevalence of gender-dominated careers other than politics. In the United States, Census data indicate that men dominate architecture and engineering careers, where they outnumber women two to one. Reference Census156 At the same time, women dominate personal care and service occupations by an even greater margin. 157 Of course, there may be reasons why biological differences between the sexes would support such culture-based career preferences. Reference Sapienza, Zingales and Maestripieri158,Reference Bussey and Bandura159 For example, as the primary caregivers of children, the professions of nursing or early childhood education may be marginally more attractive to women than men simply because, throughout human history, women’s life history strategies have been more nurturing. Similarly, a career in electoral politics, with its emphasis on power seeking and resource control, might seem less attractive to women because of evolutionary influences. However, overly simplified evolutionary explanations of the disproportionate representation of women and men in different careers cannot account for the near-global phenomenon of advancement toward gender parity in many careers. In most developed societies, the participation of women in the public sphere has increased. These advancements are often attributed in large part to women’s diminished fertility and the lower burden of child care due to modern birth control methods that give women greater control over their own fertility. 160 While this argument is certainly true, there has not been enough time for human behavior to adapt, as a result of natural selection, to birth control. Reference Schmitt, Shackelford and Buss161,Reference Buss and Schmitt162 Therefore, we do not know how traits like ambition may evolve.

Ultimately, the risk involved in emerging as a candidate for political office is distinct from the risks associated with other pursuits and, as such, may activate different adaptive responses regarding whether to exercise political ambition. Political scientists frequently employ a rational choice operationalization of electoral risk (the risk associated with pursuing political office), which identifies the probability of winning, cost of running, and level of office as the major variables in play in decisions to run for (higher) office. Reference Rohde70 However, deciding whether to seek political office involves a plethora of risk assessments. Obvious and quite general risks include one’s political party backing a different candidate, a better candidate(s) running for the same office, failure to get on the ballot, one’s potential ineffectiveness as candidate/officeholder, failure to be re-elected, dislike for public office, or loss of a campaign. Other risks may feature resource considerations, such as one’s capacity to secure financial support to run an effective campaign, the investment of one’s own resources (financial and otherwise) in a candidacy, and the potential loss of income from other employment sources while running for or holding political office. Risks may also involve aspects of the individual’s personal life and well-being. Running a campaign and holding a political office can take time away from other important obligations (family, job, and so on) and have the potential to harm familial relationships. Family members may also be subjected to negative media attention as well as other forms of stress. Robbins and Dorn theorize that political leadership can have dramatic health consequences. Reference Robins and Dorn163 Specifically, they argue that the stressors of politics may be hard on politicians and their families and lead to addictions and stress-related health issues. Some risk assessments will be unique to the particular office being considered. Scholars of U.S. Congressional elections have examined from many angles how candidate quality affects the cost-benefit analysis that someone considering a candidacy will make, including the incumbency advantage, Reference Carson, Engstrom and Roberts164,Reference Stone, Fulton, Maestas and Maisel165,Reference Trounstine166 party support of a candidacy, Reference Maisel and Stone167 and fundraising capacity. Reference Hernson168,Reference Maestas and Rugeley169,Reference Stone, Maisel and Maestas170,Reference Francia and Herrnson171

This categorization of risk types is not, by any means, a comprehensive description of every potential risk consideration that an individual evaluates whether or not to seek political office. The crucial point is that electoral risk offers distinct risk-based considerations for someone considering running.

Furthermore, in many contemporary political campaigns, risks, potential risks, or perceived risks can be gendered. In particular, women candidates face the possibility of sexism in media coverage Reference Huddy and Terkildsen39,Reference Devitt47,Reference Falk48,Reference Heldman, Carroll and Olson49,Reference Kahn50,Reference Kahn51,Reference Kahn52,Reference Kahn and Goldenberg53 and recruitment, Reference Niven57,Reference Niven58,Reference Sanbonmatsu172 online harassment, Reference Megarry173 violence, Reference Krook and Sanín174 or fundraising, where women have to work much harder to raise similar amounts as men. Reference Fulton, Maestas, Maisel and Stone11,Reference Jenkins175 Women may also face problematic voter stereotypes associated with their fertility Reference Deason, Greenlee and Langner176 or lack thereof, Reference Dittmar177 or how old their children are. Reference Stalsburg178 Women and men may also face different economic risks by entering the political arena. Sanbonmatsu, for example, finds that women are more likely than men to run for office in districts where the pay for office is lower because women are less likely to play the role of breadwinner in their families. Reference Krook and Sanín174 For these reasons, women interested in political office will assess the electoral risk differently than men in the same position.

Conclusion

A political-ambition gender gap persists despite dramatic social change, women still expressing less interest in running for political office than men express. Reference Schneider, Holman, Diekman and McAndrew64

According to the logic presented here, a component of the gender gap in candidate emergence may be attributed to the differential ways that men and women evaluate the risks associated with running for political office, and these differential ways in turn reflect evolved differences in psychology between men and women. In HG society, women and men pursued distinctively different strategies to achieve success. These strategies involved different components of risk, and, presumably, somewhat distinctive mental modules to assess those risks. Throughout most of evolutionary history, men who enjoyed political success—who took the risk and succeeded in the public sphere—would have benefitted in ways that enhanced their reproductive fitness. There would have been little (or perhaps no) incentive for women to take such risks to gain and hold on to power in the public sphere. External to the individual, the cultural environment has also been shaped by evolutionary history. Since the agricultural revolution, societies at different levels of sociocultural development have tended to reinforce evolved gender-based differences that have their origins in HG society, including that men’s ambitions are directed toward achieving success in the “public” sphere whereas women’s ambitions are directed toward achieving success in the “private” sphere, especially through establishing personally and often mutually beneficial bonds and interactions with close family and friends. As such, there are compelling reasons to believe that the mechanisms that evolved in our ancestors to handle risk assessment scenarios would be used today to evaluate modern scenarios, including the decision about whether or not to seek elective office.

The more complete understanding presented here of psychological causes of women’s lesser ambition offers insights that could help researchers better tailor empirical examination of gendered candidate emergence—perhaps reshaping the nature of experimentation or analysis. Researchers who are interested in connecting genetics to political behavior should begin to consider empirical studies that might identify variance in political ambitions. Updating the experiments of Madsen Reference Madsen87,Reference Madsen93 to incorporate more advanced knowledge of neurobiology and to include women could be a seminal start, particularly if studies are designed to make the risk environment variable.

Research in this area could assist practitioners of politics who are interested in recruiting, promoting, and electing women candidates. A greater understanding of the factors that contribute to women’s electoral risk aversion can lead to insight into factors that may mitigate those risks. For instance, researchers and practitioners alike may want to consider more specific strategies of recruitment that better entice women to consider running for office, as they may respond differently to the risks posed by those recruitment efforts. For those interested in narrowing the gender gap in political representation (governments, political parties, interest groups, and so on), these observations also suggest institutional changes that, if implemented, have the potential to make the systems themselves less risky for women candidates. Some changes, such as gender quotas, may not be tenable in the U.S. political system, but political culture change that promotes a more consensual model of politics could perhaps be achieved by thoughtful leadership. Political party chairs could, for example, make it explicitly known that they are interested in recruiting and supporting women candidates for particular seats, thereby reducing the risk involved for a woman interested in putting herself forward as a candidate for that position. Regardless, a deeper understanding of why men and women consider participating in electoral politics (or not) can offer important insights as to why politics stubbornly remains a male-dominated realm.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Gary R. Johnson, John Strate, and Ewa Golebiowska for their support, as well as their significant and valuable input. The Gender and Political Psychology Writing Group and several anonymous reviewers also offered helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Inter Parliamentary Union, “Women in Parliaments,”http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm, accessed September 6, 2016.Google Scholar
Center for American Women in Politics, Rutgers University, “Current numbers,” http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers, accessed September 6, 2016.Google Scholar
Fox, R. L. and Lawless, J. L., It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Lawless, J. L. and Fox, R. L., It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Liesen, L. T., “Women, behavior, and evolution: Understanding the debate between feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists,” Politics and the Life Sciences , 2007, 26(1): 5170.Google Scholar
Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J., “‘If only more candidates came forward’: Supply-side explanations of candidate selection in Britain,” British Journal of Political Science , 1993, 23(3): 373408.Google Scholar
Ashe, J. and Stewart, K., “Legislative recruitment: Using diagnostic testing to explain underrepresentation,” Party Politics , 2011, doi:1354068810389635.Google Scholar
Stalsburg, B., Running with Strollers: The Impact of Family Life on Political Ambition. PhD dissertation (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 2012).Google Scholar
Carroll, S. J., “The personal is political: The intersection and private lives and public roles among women and men in elective and appointive office,” Women and Politics , 1989, 9(2): 5167.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. J. and Sanbonmatsu, K., More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Fulton, S. A., Maestas, C. D., Maisel, L. S., and Stone, W. J., “The sense of a woman: Gender, ambition, and the decision to run for Congress,” Political Research Quarterly , 2006, 59(2): 235248, doi:10.1177/106591290605900206.Google Scholar
Thomas, S., “The personal is the political: Antecedents of gendered choices of elected representatives,” Sex Roles , 2002, 47(7–8): 343353.Google Scholar
Dodson, D. L., “Change and continuity in the relationship between private responsibilities and public office holding: The more things change, the more they stay the same,” Policy Studies Journal , 1997, 25(4): 569584, doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1997.tb00042.x.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, J. J., Political Woman (New York: Basic Books, 1974).Google Scholar
Lee, M. M., “Why few women hold public office: Democracy and sexual roles,” Political Science Quarterly , 1976, 91(2): 297314, doi:10.2307/2148414.Google Scholar
Sapiro, V., “Private costs of public commitments or public costs of private commitments? Family roles versus political ambition,” American Journal of Political Science , 1982, 26(2): 265279, doi:10.2307/2111039.Google Scholar
Stoper, E., “Wife and politician: Role strain among women in public office,” in A Portrait of Marginality, Githens, M. and Prestage, J. L., eds. (New York: David McKay, 1977), pp. 264283.Google Scholar
Burrell, B. C., “Party decline, party transformation and gender politics: The USA,” in Gender and Party Politics, Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P., eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 1993), pp. 291308.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. E. and Wolbrecht, C., “See Jane run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents,” Journal of Politics , 2009, 68(2): 233247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J., “Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’,” Journal of Politics , 1999, 61(3): 628657.Google Scholar
Phillips, A., Gender and Culture (Malden, MA: Polity, 2010).Google Scholar
Gaddie, R. K., Born to Run: Origins of the Political Career (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003).Google Scholar
Burt-Way, B. J. and Kelly, R. M., “Gender and sustaining political ambition: A study of Arizona elected officials,” Western Political Quarterly , 1992, 45(1): 1125.Google Scholar
Silbermann, R., “Gender roles, work-life balance, and running for office,” Quarterly Journal of Political Science , 2015, 10(2): 123153.Google Scholar
Lawless and Fox, 2010, p. 400.Google Scholar
Sapiro, V., “If US Senator Baker were a woman: An experimental study of candidate images,” Political Psychology , 1981, 3(1–2): 6183.Google Scholar
McGlen, N. et al. , Women, Politics, and American Society, 5th ed. (New York: Longman, 2011).Google Scholar
Black, J. H. and Erickson, L., “Women candidates and voter bias: Do women politicians need to be better? Electoral Studies , 2003, 22(1): 81100, doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(01)00028-2.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. J., Women as Candidates in American Politics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Cook, E. A., “Voter reaction to women candidates,” in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, Thomas, S. and Wilcox, C., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 5672.Google Scholar
Darcy, R. and Choike, J. R., “A formal analysis of legislative turnover: Women candidates and legislative representation,” American Journal of Political Science , 1986, 30(1): 237255.Google Scholar
Darcy, R. and Schramm, S. S., “When women run against men,” Public Opinion Quarterly , 1977, 41(1): 112, doi:10.1086/268347.Google Scholar
Dolan, K., “Voting for women in the ‘Year of the Woman’,” American Journal of Political Science , 1998, 42(1): 272293, doi:10.2307/2991756.Google Scholar
Fox, R. L. and Lawless, J. L., “Gendered perceptions and political candidacies: A central barrier to women’s equality in electoral politics,” American Journal of Political Science , 2010, 55(1): 5973, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, J. L. and Pearson, K., “The primary reason for women’s underrrepresentation? Reevaluating the conventional wisdom,” Journal of Politics , 2008, 70(1): 6782.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. and Steckenrider, J., “The relative irrelevance of candidate sex,” Women and Politics , 1997, 17(4): 7192, doi:10.1300/J014v17n04_04.Google Scholar
Woods, H., Stepping Up to Power: The Political Journey of Women in America (New York: Basic Books, 2001).Google Scholar
Fox, R. L. and Smith, E. R., “The electoral fortunes of women candidates for Congress,” Political Research Quarterly , 2001, 54(1): 205221.Google Scholar
Huddy, L. and Terkildsen, N., “Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates,” American Journal of Political Science , 1993, 37(1): 119147, doi:10.2307/2111526.Google Scholar
Koch, J. W., “Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates’ ideological orientations? Journal of Politics , 2000, 62(2): 414429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, J. L., “Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era,” Political Research Quarterly , 2004, 57(3): 479490.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. L., “Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections,” American Journal of Political Science , 1997, 41(1): 270283.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. L., “Race and gender cues in low-information elections,” Political Research Quarterly , 1998, 51(4): 895918.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, K., “Gender stereotypes and vote choice,” American Journal of Political Science , 2002, 46(2): 2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, N. M., “Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support female candidates,” Political Psychology , 2015, 36(6): 691708.Google Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, M., Gadarian, S. K., and Trounstine, J., “Electoral institutions, gender stereotypes, and women’s local representation,” Politics, Groups, and Identities , 2015, 3(2): 318334.Google Scholar
Devitt, J., “Framing gender on the campaign trail: Female gubernatorial candidates and the press,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , 2002, 79(2): 445463, doi:10.1177/107769900207900212.Google Scholar
Falk, E., Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Heldman, C., Carroll, S. J., and Olson, S., “Gender differences in print media coverage of presidential candidates: Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the Republican nomination,” in paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Washington, DC, August 2000) .Google Scholar
Kahn, K. F., “Does being male help? An investigation of the effects of candidate gender and campaign coverage on evaluations of US Senate candidates,” Journal of Politics , 1992, 541(2): 497517.Google Scholar
Kahn, K. F., “Does gender make a difference? An experimental examination of sex stereotypes and press patterns in statewide campaigns,” American Journal of Political Science , 1994, 38(1): 162195, doi:10.2307/2111340.Google Scholar
Kahn, K. F., The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Kahn, K. F. and Goldenberg, E. N., “Women candidates in the news: An examination of gender differences in the US Senate Campaign coverage,” Public Opinion Quarterly , 1991, 55(2): 180199, doi:10.1086/269251.Google Scholar
Norris, P., “Introduction: Theories of recruitment,” in Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 114.Google Scholar
Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J., Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, M. A., Gendered Recruitment Without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Niven, D., “Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias,” Women and Politics , 1998, 19(2): 5780.Google Scholar
Niven, D., “Throwing your hat out of the ring: Negative recruitment and the gender imbalance in state legislative candidacy,” Politics and Gender , 2006, 2(4): 473489.Google Scholar
Duerst-Lahti, G., “The bottleneck: Women becoming candidates,” in Women and Elective Office, Thomas, S. and Wilcox, C., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 1525.Google Scholar
Siavelis, P. M. and Morgenstern, S., “Candidate recruitment and selection in Latin America: A framework for analysis,” Latin American Politics and Society , 2008, 50(4): 2758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, J., “The dynamics of gender and party,” in Women, Gender, and Politics: A Reader, Krook, M. L. and Childs, S., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press on Demand, 2010).Google Scholar
The Impact of Gender Quotas, Franceschet, S., Krook, M. L., and Piscopo, J. M., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., and Bobo, L., “Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1994, 67(6): 998.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. C., Holman, M. R., Diekman, A. B., and McAndrew, T., “Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition,” Political Psychology , 2016, 37(4): 515531.Google Scholar
Hannagan, R. J., “Gendered political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach,” Sex Roles , 2008, 59(7–8): 465475, doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9417-3.Google Scholar
Kanthak, K. and Woon, J., “Women don’t run? Election aversion and candidate entry,” American Journal of Political Science , 2015, 59(3): 595612.Google Scholar
Preece, J. and Stoddard, O., “Why women don’t run: Experimental evidence on gender differences in political competition aversion,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 2015, 117: 296308.Google Scholar
Sweet-Cushman, J., Individual Differences in Psychological Evaluations of Electoral Risk: Furthering the Explanation of the Gender Gap in Candidate Emergence. PhD dissertation (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 2014).Google Scholar
Black, G. S., “A theory of political ambition: Career choices and the role of structural incentives,” American Political Science Review , 1972, 66(1): 144159, doi:10.2307/1959283.Google Scholar
Rohde, D. W., “Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the United States House of Representatives,” American Journal of Political Science , 1979, 23(1): 126, doi:10.2307/2110769.Google Scholar
Bledsoe, T. and Herring, M., “Victims of circumstances: Women in pursuit of political office,” American Political Science Review , 1990, 84(1): 213223, doi:10.2307/1963638.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B., “The psychology of risk,” in Risk and Decisions, Singleton, W. T. and Hovden, J., eds. (New York: Wiley, 1987), pp. 2539.Google Scholar
Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O., “Risk perception research,” in Cross-Cultural Risk Perception, vol. 13 (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2000), pp. 1153.Google Scholar
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., and Schafer, W. D., “Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin , 1999, 125(3): 367383, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., and Betz, N. E., “A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 2002, 15(4): 263290, doi:10.1002/bdm.414.Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E. and Jacklin, C. N., The Psychology of Sex Differences, vol. 1 (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
Waldron, I., Mccloskey, C., and Earle, I., “Trends in gender differences in accidents mortality: Relationships to changing gender roles and other societal trends,” Demographic Research , 2005, 13(17): 415454.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B. and Hyde, J. S., “Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin , 1993, 114(1): 29, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29.Google Scholar
Sundén, A. E. and Surette, B. J., “Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans,” American Economic Review , 1998, 88(2): 207211.Google Scholar
Bord, R. J. and O’Connor, R. E., “The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk,” Social Science Quarterly , 1997, 78(4): 830840.Google Scholar
Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M., “Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation,” Journal of Business Research , 2004, 57(7): 768775, doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00363-6.Google Scholar
Rhodes, N. and Pivik, K., “Age and gender differences in risky driving: The roles of positive affect and risk perception,” Accident Analysis and Prevention , 2011, 43(3): 923931, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.015.Google Scholar
Sigelman, L., “The coevolution of American political science and the American Political Science Review,” American Political Science Review , 2006, 100(4): 463, doi:10.1017/S0003055406062319.Google Scholar
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., and Hibbing, J. R., “Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review , 2005, 99(2): 153167, doi:10.1017/S0003055405051579.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., and Dawes, C. T., “Genetic variation in political participation,” American Political Science Review , 2008, 102(2): 233248, doi:10.1017/S0003055408080209.Google Scholar
Sturgis, P., Read, S., Hatemi, P. K., Zhu, G., Trull, T., Wright, M. J., and Martin, N. G., “A genetic basis for social trust? Political Behavior , 2010, 32(2): 205230, doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9101-5.Google Scholar
Madsen, D., “A biochemical property relating to power seeking in humans,” American Political Science Review , 1985, 79(2): 448457, doi:10.2307/1956659.Google Scholar
Raleigh, M. J., Brammer, G. L., Yuwiler, A., Flannery, J. W., McGuire, M. T., and Geller, E., “Serotonergic influences on the social behavior of vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus) ,” Experimental Neurology , 1980, 68(2): 322334.Google Scholar
Raleigh, M. J. and McGuire, M. T., “Bidirectional relationships between tryptophan and social behavior in vervet monkeys,” in Kynurenine and Serotonin Pathways: Progress in Tryptophan Research, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 294, Schwarcz, R., Young, S. N., and Brown, R. R., eds. (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1991), pp. 289298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raleigh, M. J., McGuire, M. T., Brammer, G. L., and Yuwiler, A., “Social and environmental influences on blood serotonin concentrations in monkeys,” Archives of General Psychiatry , 1984, 41(4): 405410.Google Scholar
Raleigh, M. J., McGuire, M. T., Brammer, G. L., Pollack, D. B., and Yuwiler, A., “Serotonergic mechanisms promote dominance acquisition in adult male vervet monkeys,” Brain Research , 1991, 559(2): 181190.Google Scholar
Steklis, H. D., Raleigh, M. J., Kling, A. S., and Tachiki, K., “Biochemical and hormonal correlates of dominance and social behavior in all-male groups of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) ,” American Journal of Primatology , 1986, 11(2): 133145.Google Scholar
Madsen, D., “Power seekers are different: Further biochemical evidence,” American Political Science Review , 1986, 80(1): 261269, doi:10.2307/1957094.Google Scholar
Alford, J. R. and Hibbing, J. R., “The origin of politics: An evolutionary theory of political behavior,” Perspectives on Politics , 2004, 2(4): 707723, doi:10.1017/S1537592704040460.Google Scholar
Eaves, L. J. and Hatemi, P. K., “Transmission of attitudes toward abortion and gay rights: Effects of genes, social learning and mate selection,” Behavior Genetics , 2008, 38(3): 247256.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Morley, K. I., Heath, A. C., and Martin, N. G., “The genetics of voting: An Australian twin study,” Behavior Genetics , 2007, 37(3): 435448.Google Scholar
McDermott, R., Political Psychology in International Relations (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Smith, K., Alford, J. R., Martin, N. G., and Hibbing, J. R., “The genetic and environmental foundations of political, psychological, social, and economic behaviors: a panel study of twins and families,” Twin Research and Human Genetics , 2015, 18(3): 243255.Google Scholar
McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., and Smirnov, O., “On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences,” Journal of Politics , 2008, 70(2): 335350.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk,” Econometrica , 1979, 47(2): 263291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., “On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics , 2001, 63(4): 10411066.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. and Redlawsk, D. P., “Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making,” American Journal of Political Science , 2001, 45(4): 951971.Google Scholar
Mercer, J., “Prospect theory and political science,” Annual Review of Political Science , 2005, 8: 121, doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104911.Google Scholar
Patty, J. W., “Loss aversion, presidential responsibility, and midterm congressional elections,” Electoral Studies , 2006, 25(2): 227247.Google Scholar
Quattrone, G. A. and Tversky, A., “Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice,” American Political Science Review , 1988, 82(3): 719736.Google Scholar
McDaniel, W. C. and Sistrunk, F., “Management dilemmas and decisions impact of framing and anticipated responses,” Journal of Conflict Resolution , 1991, 35(1): 2142.Google Scholar
Weyland, K., “Risk taking in Latin American economic restructuring: Lessons from prospect theory,” International Studies Quarterly , 1996, 40: 185207.Google Scholar
Berejikian, J. D., “A cognitive theory of deterrence,” Journal of Peace Research , 2002, 39(2): 165183, doi:10.1177/0022343302039002002.Google Scholar
Faber, M. M., Proops, J. L., and Manstetten, R., Evolution, Time, Production and the Environment (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1990).Google Scholar
Jervis, R., “Leadership, post-Cold War politics, and psychology,” Political Psychology , 1994, 15(4): 769777, doi:10.2307/3791635.Google Scholar
Jervis, R., “The implications of prospect theory for human nature and values,” Political Psychology , 2004, 25(2): 163176.Google Scholar
Levy, J. S., “Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield,” International Organization , 1994, 48(2): 279312.Google Scholar
Levy, J. S., “Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations,” International Studies Quarterly , 1997, 41(1): 87112, doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00034.Google Scholar
McDermott, R., Risk Taking in International Relations (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998).Google Scholar
McDermott et al., 2008, pp. 336.Google Scholar
Fagley, N. and Miller, P. M., “The effect of framing on choice interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 1990, 16(3): 496510, doi:10.1177/0146167290163008.Google Scholar
Fagley, N. S. and Miller, P. M., “Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 1997, 71(3): 355373, doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2725.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. S. and Gangestad, S. W., “Life history theory and evolutionary psychology,” in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Buss, D. M., ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), pp. 6895.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C., “The evolution of life history traits: A critique of the theory and a review of the data,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 1977, 8: 145171.Google Scholar
Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1871).Google Scholar
Schaffer, W. M., “The application of optimal control theory to the general life history problem,” American Naturalist , 1983, 121(3): 418431.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C., Sex and Evolution, vol. 8 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L., Life History Invariants: Some Explorations of Symmetry in Evolutionary Ecology, vol. 6 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Daan, S. and Tinbergen, J., “Adaptation of life histories,” in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4th ed., Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B., eds. (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 1997), pp. 311333.Google Scholar
Horn, H. S., “Optimal tactics of reproduction and life-history,” in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B., eds. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1978), pp. 411429.Google Scholar
Low, B. S., Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Roff, D., The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis (New York: Chapman and Hall, 1992).Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C., The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., and Robertson, T. E., “The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2011, 100(6): 1015.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., “Evolutionary personality psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology , 1991, 42(1): 459491, doi:annurev.ps.42.020191.002331.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J., “From evolution to behavior: Evolutionary psychology as the missing link,” in The Latest on the Best Essays on Evolution and Optimality, Dupré, J., ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), pp. 277306.Google Scholar
Malthus, T. R., The First Essay (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959).Google Scholar
Trimpop, R. M., The Psychology of Risk Taking Behavior, vol. 107 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland Elsevier Science, 1994).Google Scholar
Buss, D., “The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1988, 54(4): 616, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K. and McDermott, R., “Evolution as a theory for political behavior,” in Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics, Hatemi, P. and McDermott, R., eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Boehm, C., “Egalitarian behaviour and the evolution of political intelligence,” Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations , 1997a, 2: 341.Google Scholar
Boehm, C., “Impact of the human egalitarian syndrome on Darwinian selection mechanics,” American Naturalist , 1997b, 150(Supplement 1): S100S121, doi:10.1086/286052.Google Scholar
Bird, R., “Cooperation and conflict: The behavioral ecology of the sexual division of labor,” Evolutionary Anthropology Issues, News, and Reviews , 1999, 8(2): 6575, doi:10.1002/1520-6505.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. W., “Hunting and gathering the human sexual division of foraging labor,” Cross-Cultural Research , 2007, 41(2): 170195, doi:10.1177/1069397106297529.Google Scholar
Lerner, G., The Creation of Patriarchy, vol. 1 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Kelly, R., The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Lee, M. M., “Why few women hold public office: Democracy and sexual roles,” Political Science Quarterly , 1976, 91(2): 297314, doi:10.2307/2148414.Google Scholar
Irons, W., “Monogamy, contraception and the cultural and reproductive success hypothesis,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 1993, 16(2): 295296, doi:10.1017/s0140525x00030089.Google Scholar
Sell, J., Griffith, W. I., and Wilson, R. K., “Are women more cooperative than men in social dilemmas? Social Psychology Quarterly , 1993, 56(3): 211222, doi:10.2307/2786779.Google Scholar
Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: Egalitarianism and the Evolution of Human Altruism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Knauft, B. M., “Culture and cooperation in human evolution,” in The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence, Sponsel, L. and Gregor, T., eds. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), pp. 3767.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D., “The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II,” Journal of Theoretical Biology , 1964, 7(1): 1752, doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. L., Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History (Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction, 1986).Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B., Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection (New York: Ballantine Books, 1999).Google Scholar
Trivers, R., Parental Investment and Sexual Selection (Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1972).Google Scholar
Geary, D. C., Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), p. 9.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. A. and Irons, W., Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, 1979), p. 257.Google Scholar
Essock-Vitale, S. M., “The reproductive success of wealthy Americans,” Ethology and Sociobiology , 1984, 5(1): 4549, doi:10.1016/0162-3095(84)90034-7.Google Scholar
Hannagan, 2008, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
Enloe, C. H., The Curious Feminist (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Census, U. S., “Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin,” 2010 https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf, accessed September 13, 2016.Google Scholar
U.S. Census, “Men in nursing occupations,” 2013,https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations.pdf, accessed September 13, 2016.Google Scholar
Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., and Maestripieri, D., “Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2009, 106(36): 1526815273, doi:10.1073/pnas.0907352106.Google Scholar
Bussey, K. and Bandura, A., “Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation,” Psychological Review , 1994, 106(4): 676, doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.676.Google Scholar
United Nations Population Fund, “Empowering women: Gender equality,” http://www.unfpa.org/gender/empowerment.htm, accessed September 6, 2016.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D., Shackelford, T., and Buss, D., “Are men really more ‘oriented’ toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research,” Psychology, Evolution, and Gender , 2001, 3(3): 211239, doi:10.1080/14616660110119331.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. and Schmitt, D. P., “Evolutionary psychology and feminism,” Sex Roles , 2011, 64(9–10): 768787, doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.Google Scholar
Robins, R. S. and Dorn, R. M., “Stress and political leadership,” Politics and the Life Sciences , 1993, 12(1): 317.Google Scholar
Carson, J. L., Engstrom, E. J., and Roberts, J. M., “Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in Congress,” American Political Science Review , 2007, 101(2): 289301, doi:10.1017/S0003055407070311.Google Scholar
Stone, W. J., Fulton, S. A., Maestas, C. D., and Maisel, L. S., “Incumbency reconsidered: Prospects, strategic retirement, and incumbent quality in US House elections,” Journal of Politics , 2010, 72(1): 178190.Google Scholar
Trounstine, J., “Evidence of a local incumbency advantage,” Legislative Studies Quarterly , 2011, 36(2): 255280, doi:10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00013.x.Google Scholar
Maisel, L. S. and Stone, W. J., “Determinants of candidate emergence in US house elections: An exploratory study,” Legislative Studies Quarterly , 1997, 22(1): 7996.Google Scholar
Hernson, P. S., “Campaign professionalism and fundraising in congressional elections,” Journal of Politics , 1992, 54(3): 859870, doi:10.2307/2132315.Google Scholar
Maestas, C. D. and Rugeley, C. R., “Assessing the ‘experience bonus’ through examining strategic entry, candidate quality, and campaign receipts in US house elections,” American Journal of Political Science , 2008, 52(3): 520535.Google Scholar
Stone, W. J., Maisel, L. S., and Maestas, C. D., “Quality counts: Extending the strategic politician model of incumbent deterrence,” American Journal of Political Science , 2004, 48(3): 479495, doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00082.x.Google Scholar
Francia, P. L. and Herrnson, P. S., “The impact of public finance laws on fundraising in state legislative elections,” American Politics Research , 2003, 31(5): 520539, doi:10.1177/1532673X03256784.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, K., “The legislative party and candidate recruitment in the American states,” Party Politics , 2006, 12(2): 233256.Google Scholar
Megarry, J., “Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age,” Women’s Studies International Forum , 2014, 47: 4655.Google Scholar
Krook, M. L. and Sanín, J. R., “Violence against women in politics,” Política y gobierno , 2016, 23(2).Google Scholar
Jenkins, S., “A woman’s work is never done? Fundraising perception and effort among female state legislative candidates,” Political Research Quarterly , 2007, 60(2): 230239.Google Scholar
Deason, G., Greenlee, J. S., and Langner, C. A., “Mothers on the campaign trail: Implications of politicized motherhood for women in politics,” Politics, Groups, and Identities , 2015, 3(1): 133148.Google Scholar
Dittmar, K., Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Stalsburg, B. L., “Voting for mom: The political consequences of being a parent for male and female candidates,” Politics and Gender , 2010, 6(3): 373404.Google Scholar