JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

The candidate evaluation literature has emphasized the contribution of both candidate characteristics and voter characteristics (e.g., party identification) to candidate appraisals. But the literature on attribution and sex role stereotypes suggests that women candidates may be evaluated differently than their male counterparts. This paper presents the results of a survey of 98 voters in which we explored the relationships among gender role attitudes, voters' attribution of leadership traits, and support for male and female candidates. The surveys were conducted in Syracuse, New York, during the 1990 campaigns, which included three male-female races. Our results substantiate the hypothesis that when candidate information is sparse, gender role attitudes are consequential in the initial evaluation of lesser known women candidates. Gender attitudes are important factors in candidate favorability when the candidates are women challengers. Secondly, we found that voters had a tendency to attribute particular leadership qualities and issue skills based on sex to hypothetical candidates, if no other information was available. In addition, we found that the more egalitarian the voters' gender role attitudes, the more likely they were to evaluate favorably actual women candidates. Finally, it was the case that all incumbents, male and female, were rated more positively on both "masculine" and "feminine" traits than were challengers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract