One explanation for the dearth of women in elected office is that voters stereotype candidates based on their gender. Research in this vein often assumes that female candidates will be stereotyped similarly to women (e.g., as compassionate) and measures stereotypes as such. We question this assumption, proposing instead that female politicians constitute a subtype-a new stereotypical category with its own qualities-of the broader group of women. We compare the content of female politician stereotypes to other relevant comparison groups including politicians, male politicians, and female professionals. Using a classic methodology to determine stereotype content (Katz & Braly, 1933), we find that female politicians do not share the qualities that are ascribed to women (e.g., warm, empathetic). Our results show that female politicians seem to be "losing" on male stereotypical qualities while also not having any advantage on qualities typical of women. The content of female politician stereotypes is nebulous and lacks clarity in comparison to all other groups examined. We discuss implications for the future measurement of politician stereotypes.

We provide a novel approach to understanding the political ambition gap between men and women by examining perceptions of the role of politician. Across three studies, we find that political careers are viewed as fulfilling power‐related goals, such as self‐promotion and competition. We connect these goals to a tolerance for interpersonal conflict and both of these factors to political ambition. Women's lack of interest in conflict and power‐related activities mediates the relationship between gender and political ambition. In an experiment, we show that framing a political career as fulfilling communal goals—and not power‐related goals—reduces the ambition gap.

Social role theory provides a framework to help understand the complexity of gender in the political sphere. We demonstrate how SRT both helps to explain extant research findings and to generate future research that will help explain the complicated ways in which gender shapes U.S. politics. This article considers two broad categories of behavior: the gendered opinions and engagement of the citizenry and the gendered evaluations of political actors by elites and voters. Within each category, we propose moving beyond the male-female binary and consider the effects of gender in conjunction with other key political identities, such as race, ethnicity, age, as well as examining the effects of (dis)ability, and class. As well, our work demonstrates how masculinity encompasses the U.S. political system and serves as a backdrop in front of which gender roles shape political behavior, and role incongruity can lead to prejudice. This project lays the groundwork for future work to apply theories from psychology to a gendered analysis of U.S. politics. Through a better understanding of sex, gender, and their combined effects with race and other intersectional identities, we contribute to a broader goal of creating a more inclusive U.S. politics. bs_bs_banner Gender in the CitizenryTo consider how gender affects the opinions and participation of the citizenry, we first introduce key concepts that lay the groundwork for social role theory. As a central organizing theory, social role theory provides an explanation for how the powerful, pervasive, segregated social roles of men and women produce gender stereotypes and gendered behavior. Then, we organize the article into sections that address the main outcomes of interest we introduced above: public opinion and political participation. We conclude each section with future research.

Men and women tend to espouse different political attitudes, as widely noted by both journalists and social scientists. A deeper understanding of why and when gender gaps exist is necessary because at least some gender differences in the political realm are both pervasive and impactful. In this article, we apply a social role theory framework to understanding gender gaps in political attitudes. The core principles are that men's and women's political attitudes diverge because of diffuse gender roles (e.g., broad expectations based on sex) as well as differential specific roles (e.g., family and occupational roles). We delineate several mechanisms by which diffuse and specific roles would produce differences and similarities in political attitudes. In particular, our analysis examines (a) the influence of gender-stereotypic expectations, (b) internalized traits and goals, and (c) variations in status and resources. A range of evidence shows that the general shape of gender differences in political attitudes aligns with the social roles of men and women, particularly with regard to elements that associate agency and higher status with men and communion and lower status with women. Additionally, we consider intersections among diffuse gender roles and specific roles, following the general principle that gender gaps in political attitudes emerge especially when both diffuse gender roles and specific roles emphasize agency for men and communion for women. The consideration of a social role perspective offers opportunities not only to integrate existing data about gender gaps in political attitudes but also to highlight directions for new research.

Much research suggests that political experts are more likely to structure attitudes toward different issues in an ideologically consistent fashion. Based on recent studies of motivational influences on social cognition, we hypothesize that only experts with a high need to evaluate-a strong motivation to establish evaluations of social objects-may "apply" ideology to a variety of issues. Data from the 1998 NES Pilot and 2000 NES are used to examine this hypothesis. While experts do show more ideological constraint, this relationship appears to be limited to individuals with a high need to evaluate. Additional analyses indicated that this interactive effect extended to other indices of the use of ideology as well. Perhaps one of the most significant-and controversial-conclusions of modern public opinion research is that a large portion of the public does not structure its attitudes toward various political issues in terms of underlying ideological predispositions (Bennett 1989; Converse 1964; Judd and Krosnick 1989; Luskin 1987; Zaller 1992). One of the earliest and most influential demonstrations of this was provided by Converse (1964), who examined the attitudes of an "elite" group of congresspersons and those of a "mass" national probability sample. Converse reasoned that the "use" of ideology would manifest itself as consistency in one's attitudes toward different issues at the same point in time (i.e., attitude constraint) and consistency in one's attitudes toward the same issue over time