Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T19:43:37.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexicographic Preferences in Candidate Choice. How Party Affiliation Dominates Gender and Race

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2024

Morten Hjortskov Open the ORCID record for Morten Hjortskov [Opens in a new window]  and
Simon Calmar Andersen Open the ORCID record for Simon Calmar Andersen [Opens in a new window]
Morten Hjortskov*
Affiliation:
Department of Children and Education, VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Aarhus N, Denmark
Simon Calmar Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
*
Corresponding author: Morten Hjortskov; Email: mohl@vive.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding which political candidates are elected for office is fundamental to democracy and political science. Whereas there is much agreement that party affiliation is one of the most important candidate characteristics to voters, evidence regarding the gender and race of the candidate is mixed. We suggest voters have lexicographic preferences, meaning they rank their preferences and focus primarily on the candidate's party affiliation. Second-order preferences such as gender and race are mostly necessary when there is a tie in first-order preferences when voters choose between two same-party candidates or have no party information. We show how conjoint experiments can be used to test for lexicographic preferences and use data from a US-representative sample and a pre-registered replication to confirm that in the United States, gender and race are second-order preferences. Lexicographic preferences provide a theoretical lens explaining some of the mixed results of gender and race in the candidate literature.

Keywords

candidatesvotersconjointgenderrace
Type
Letter
Information
British Journal of Political Science , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, SF, Kocak, K, and Magazinnik, A (2022) What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments? American Journal of Political Science 66(4), 1008–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A and Stauffer, KE (2019) Voting for women in nonpartisan and partisan elections. Electoral Studies 57, 245–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansak, K et al. (2023) Using conjoint experiments to analyze election outcomes: The essential role of the average marginal component effect. Political Analysis 31(4), 500–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (2002) Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24(2), 117–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021226224601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, SJ and Lavine, H. (2005) Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. The American Political Science Review 99(2), 169–84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, NM (2015) Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support female candidates. Political Psychology 36(6), 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, NM (2017) The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology 38(2), 279–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, NM (2018) Untangling the relationship between partisanship, gender stereotypes, and support for female candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1268875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D, Hutchinson, WG, and Scarpa, R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 41(3), 401–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9198-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, J, Green, DP, and Sears, DO (1990) White reactions to Black candidates: When does race matter? Public Opinion Quarterly 54(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/269185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, C et al. (2022) Pragmatic bias impedes women's access to political leadership. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(6), e2112616119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112616119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crosson, J (2020) Extreme districts, moderate winners: Same-party challenges, and deterrence in top-two primaries. Political Science Research and Methods 9(3), 532–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, M, Gadarian, SK, and Trounstine, J (2020a) Voting can be hard, information helps. Urban Affairs Review 56(1), 124–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419831074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, M et al. (2020b) A different kind of disadvantage: Candidate race, cognitive complexity, and voter choice. Political Behavior 42(2), 509–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9505-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditonto, TM, Hamilton, AJ, and Redlawsk, DP (2014) Gender stereotypes, information search, and voting behavior in political campaigns. Political Behavior 36(2), 335–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9232-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, K (2014) Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates: What really matters? Political Research Quarterly 67(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913487949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drakopoulos, SA (1994) Hierarchical choice in economics. Journal of Economic Surveys 8(2), 133–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.1994.tb00097.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN et al. (2021) Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour 5(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutter, LE (1981) Voter preferences, simple electoral games, and equilibria in two-candidate contests. Public Choice 37(3), 403–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, SD et al. (2015) Candidate ethnicity and vote choice in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 45(4), 883–905. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchino, F and Zucchini, F (2015) Voting in a multi-dimensional space: A conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3(2), 221–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganter, F (2023) Identification of preferences in forced-choice conjoint experiments: Reassessing the quantity of interest. Political Analysis 31(1), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldmacher, S, Nagourney, A, and Medina, J (2020) The Kamala Harris pick: Geographic balance takes back seat to gender, race. The New York Times, 11 August 2020. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/harris-biden-geography-balance.html (accessed 12 August 2020).Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ, and Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D (2011) When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender 7(2), 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herndon, AW (2020) Black leaders want a Black woman as Biden's running mate. But who? The New York Times, 24 April 2020. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/politics/joe-biden-vice-president-black-candidates.html (accessed 10 August 2020).Google Scholar
Highton, B (2004) White voters and African American candidates for Congress. Political Behavior 26(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjortskov, M and Andersen, SC (2024) “Replication Data for: ‘Lexicographic Preferences in Candidate Choice. How Party Affiliation Dominates Gender and Race'”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/F53FQ1, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiuchi, Y, Smith, DM, and Yamamoto, T (2020) Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: A conjoint experiment in Japan. Political Science Research and Methods 8(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S, Sood, G, and Lelkes, Y (2012) Affect, not ideology. A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3), 405–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1), 129–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juenke, EG and Shah, P (2015) Not the usual story: The effect of candidate supply on models of Latino descriptive representation. Politics, Groups, and Identities 3(3), 438–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, CD (2007) Implicit attitudes, explicit choices: When subliminal priming predicts candidate preference. Political Behavior 29(3), 343–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9030-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, DC and Matland, RE (2003) Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a republican candidate. American Politics Research 31(6), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03255286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, PA and Coppock, A (2018) Candidate choice without party labels. Political Behavior 40(3), 571–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9414-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, RR and Redlawsk, DP (2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science 45(4), 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, JL (2015) Female candidates and legislators. Annual Review of Political Science 18(1), 349–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, TJ (2018) Cregg: Simple conjoint analyses and visualization. R package version 0.3.3. 1.Google Scholar
Leeper, TJ, Hobolt, SB, and Tilley, J (2020) Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis 28(2), 207–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, RE and King, DC (2002) Women as candidates in congressional elections. In Rosenthal, CS (ed.), Women Transforming Congress. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 119–45.Google Scholar
McGraw, KM (2011) Candidate impressions and evaluations. In Druckman, JN, Green, DP, Kuklinski, JH and Lupia, A (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, SL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, WM (1993) The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37(2), 472–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberger, RS et al. (2003) Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: Integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics 44(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00221-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, K and Dolan, K (2009) Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research Quarterly 62(3), 485–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, MC and Bos, AL (2016) The interplay of candidate party and gender in evaluations of political candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37(3), 274–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1188598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, S and Coppock, A (2022) What have we learned about gender from candidate choice experiments? A meta-analysis of 67 factorial survey experiments. Journal of Politics 84(2), 655–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/716290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A (2002) Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(3), 383–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00082-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, L and Sigelman, CK (1982) Sexism, racism, and ageism in voting behavior: An experimental analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 45(4), 263–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, HA (1959) Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review 49(3), 253–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1809901.Google Scholar
Smith, DM (2018) Dynasties and Democracy: The Inherited Incumbency Advantage in Japan 1st edn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stauffer, KE and Fisk, CA (2022) Are you my candidate? Gender, undervoting, and vote choice in same-party matchups. Politics & Gender 18(3), 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X20000677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, SJ et al. (2018) The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research 57(2), 333–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hjortskov and Andersen supplementary material

Hjortskov and Andersen supplementary material
Download Hjortskov and Andersen supplementary material(File)
File 414.6 KB