The Effects of Attacks on Leadership or Morality on the Probability to Vote for Female or Male Politicians.

Gender stereotypes significantly shape the way voters perceive political candidates, particularly when it comes to leadership and morality dimensions. However, there are mixed findings on the effects of attacks on male and female politicians’ evaluation. To address this gap, our research examines how gendered political attacks targeting these dimensions influence voting decisions, with a focus on the moderating role of stereotypical and counter-stereotypical priming. In Study 1, 159 participants evaluated fictional male and female candidates after being exposed to either a leadership or morality-based attack. In Studies 2a and 2b, a larger sample of 1,046 participants was introduced to stereotypical (female politicians in morality roles) or counter-stereotypical (female politicians in leadership roles) primes before evaluating the candidate and voting likelihood post-attack. The findings revealed that attacks on morality negatively affected female politicians more than male politicians, while attacks on leadership had a stronger impact on male candidates. Importantly, counter-stereotypical priming (women in leadership roles) mitigated the negative effects of leadership attacks on female politicians, reversing the stereotypical bias observed in Study 1. These results demonstrate that gendered political attacks can exploit voters' pre-existing stereotypes, but strategic priming with counter-stereotypical information can lessen their impact. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing gender bias in political campaigns and improving the representation of female politicians in leadership positions.