Does Descriptive Representation Facilitate Women's Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect Deliberation

Abstract

Does low descriptive representation inhibit substantive representation for women in deliberating groups? We address this question and go beyond to ask if the effects of descriptive representation also depend on decision rule. We conducted an experiment on distributive decisions, randomizing the group's gender composition and decision rule, including many groups, and linking individuals’ predeliberation attitudes to their speech and to postdeliberation decisions. Women's descriptive representation does produce substantive representation, but primarily under majority rule—when women are many, they are more likely to voice women's distinctive concerns about children, family, the poor, and the needy, and less likely to voice men's distinctive concerns. Men's references shift similarly with women's numerical status. These effects are associated with group decisions that are more generous to the poor. Unanimous rule protects women in the numerical minority, mitigating some of the negative effects of low descriptive representation. Descriptive representation matters, but in interaction with the decision rule.

When Do Men Represent Women’s Interests in Parliament? How the Presence of Women in Parliament Affects the Legislative Behavior of Male Politicians

“…The analysis of male MPs' behavior also highlights why having a critical mass of women is not always enough to produce more women-friendly outcomes (c.f. Karpowitz et al 2015;Mendelberg and Karpowitz 2016;Mendelberg et al 2014). Even if a greater proportion of women in parliament allows female MPs to work together effectively to push for the representation of women's interests, this influx of women simultaneously provokes a negative effect among male MPs, making them less willing to act on women's behalf.…”

“…One important factor in this regard is the question whether male MPs' legislative behavior is affected by the presence of an increasing number of women in the parliament: Contrary to the expectations of critical mass theory (Dahlerup 1988;Kanter 1977), an increasing number of female MPs does not always result in a more intense substantive representation of women's issues (e.g. Crowley 2004;Dingler et al 2019;Karpowitz et al 2015;Mendelberg et al 2014;Mendelberg and Karpowitz 2016;Towns 2003). This suggests that a greater proportion of women in the parliament not only affects the possibilities of female MPs working together on issues related to women, but will also affect the behavior of male MPs Yoder 1991).…”

The Influence of Women Legislators on State Health Care Spending for the Poor

“…For example, female legislators are more likely to be supportive of welfare policy than their male counterparts, however the results are contingent upon the majority party status of the women legislators as well as the incorporation of women on relevant legislative committees [6]. Mendelberg et al assert, "women's descriptive representation does produce substantive representation but primarily under majority rule-when women are many, they are more likely to voice women's distinctive concerns about children, family, the poor and the needy, and less likely to voice men's distinctive concerns" ( [48], p. 291). In their multivariate study of TANF policies across the states in 1998, Reingold and Smith [18] find that women's influence, if present, is a result of a combination of absolute numbers as well as legislative incorporation into leadership (a finding consistent with Preuhs' [49] analysis of minority legislators).…”

“…According to gender role theory, women are less likely to be assertive and their concerns are given less attention when they are a numerical minority ( [48], p. 293, refers to this dynamic as a "minority status" hypothesis). Despite the numerous ways in which politicians can represent their constituents, policy responsiveness requires the passage of beneficial legislation, or the blockage of that which is harmful.…”

Political Deliberation

“…However, most of these studies use highly stylized forms of communication where players send signals (e.g., "red" or "blue") over computers but do not actually talk face to face (for an exception see Myers, 2012a). Finally, Karpowitz, Mendelberg, and Shaker (2012) have subjects deliberate and decide between different rules for redistributing income that they will earn in a subsequent, unknown experimental task (see also Karpowitz et al, 2012, Mendelberg, Karpowitz, & Goedert, 2013. In this deliberation task, which loosely mirrors Rawls's original position (1971), groups' decisions can be judged as more or less just based on how generously they decide to redistribute income to the poor, though such judgment obviously requires a commitment to a particular substantive conception of justice (such as Rawls's; see also Guttmann & Thompson, 1996).…”