Power, Gender, and Group Discussion

Abstract

This article reviews the growing literature on the ways in which gender informs our understanding of political psychology and how studies of political psychology shed light on the meaning of gender in society and politics. It focuses on gender gaps in contemporary American politics, where men tend to be more conservative and to engage in more influence-seeking action than women. The article develops explanations for these gaps and tests them with experimental data. The gender gaps in political attitudes and behaviors are not immutable but rather strongly responsive to the context. Two important features of the context are the gender composition of those present and the rules that govern how decisions are made and consequently how individuals communicate.

The Election Online: Debate, Support, Community

“…While it is not possible to determine with accuracy the gender of participants as most users adopt a pseudonym, it seems likely that participants are predominantly women. Tali Mendelberg and Christopher Karpowitz's (2016: 3) overview of research provides a useful account of why this matters:…”

Women’s voices in a deliberative assembly: An analysis of gender rates of participation in Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution 2012–2014

“…Studies of political participation in deliberative forums note that women are one cohort that may be disadvantaged in such processes as they tend to speak less than men thereby having less influence and authority (Gerber et al, 2019; Hansen, 2006; Karpowitz et al, 2012; Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014). However, it has been observed that contextual issues such as institutional design and communication formats can go some way to redressing imbalances in participation rates (Himmelroos, 2017; Karpowitz et al, 2012; Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014; Mendelberg et al, 2014; Mendelberg and Karpowitz, 2016).…”

“…Curato et al (2017: 31) acknowledge the role actors ‘in and around deliberative processes’ can play in addressing inequalities. For instance, recruitment processes may have a significant bearing on representation (Bächtiger et al, 2014; Fung, 2003; Smith, 2009), while the composition of small group deliberations and decision-making rules may help or hinder the participation of certain groups (Caluwaerts and Kavadis, 2014; Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014; Karpowitz and Raphael, 2016; Mendelberg and Karpowitz, 2016). Arguably, an examination of a mini-public’s inclusiveness requires an assessment of, inter alia, the selection rules, agenda-setting processes, and oversight powers, as well as the impact more generally of contextual issues (institutional rules), notably those relating to facilitation, decision-making rules, group composition, communication mode, and format (Bächtiger et al, 2014; Beauvais and Bächtiger, 2016; Felicettie et al, 2016).…”

“…Women also have different attitudes to men on key policy issues such as defence spending, social programmes, environmental matters, health care and the use of military force (Electoral Commission, 2004; Hansen, 1997). Women are significantly more interested in local politics, community-oriented issues and social welfare (Coffé, 2013; Fraile and Gomez, 2017) and ‘tend to favour, and to prioritize, the needs of those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged, poor, exploited, or stigmatized’ (Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014: 20), while men tend to be more economically conservative (Mendelberg and Karpowitz, 2016).…”

“…One of the reasons attributed to women’s lower levels of participation in deliberative processes in public arenas is the so-called ‘confidence gap’ (Hansen, 2006; Mendelberg and Karpowitz, 2016). Women have a tendency to underrate their abilities (Beyer and Bowden, 1997; Mendelberg and Karpowitz, 2016), which we suggest may result in them feeling more comfortable speaking in small group private roundtable sessions than in public plenary.…”