The price of greater representation: A cross-national analysis of parliamentary representation and media coverage sentiment for women

Abstract

Previous research suggested that news media coverage tone tends to become more negative for successful women in politics (but not for successful men) when compared with less successful and well-known women. This study tests this in 17 countries. Specifically, it examines relationships between greater parliamentary representation of women and the coverage tone in articles on women in that country through a computational analysis of millions of persons’ names in more than 1,000 newspapers. Growth in parliamentary representation of women is associated with more negative coverage, lending support for explanations that suggest reactionary responses to perceived breaching of gendered social hierarchies.

Women Who Break the Glass Ceiling Get a “Paper Cut”: Gender, Fame, and Media Sentiment

“…The latter received more coverage of their appearance and personal life, more negative coverage of their political viability, and more stereotypical trait coverage (Aaldering and Van der Pas 2020, Van der Pas and Aaldering 2020). In another recent cross-national study, Shor and Miltsov (2020) found that growth in the parliamentary representation of women was associated with more negative coverage to women in various countries.…”

A manifesto for computational sociology: The Canadian perspective

“…Computational methods include a gamut of different techniques including machine learning (e.g., deep learning, statistical learning, reinforcement learning), social network analysis, text and data mining (e.g., sentiment analysis, topic modelling, named‐entity recognition), agent‐based modelling, more flexible regression/estimation models (e.g., regression shrinkage and selection, Bayesian statistics, spatial regression models), advances in survey methods (e.g., survey experiments, optimum design, respondent‐driven sampling), and so on. Some sociologists in Canada have contributed directly to the development of particular methods (Alexander & Alkema, 2021; Andersen, 2008; Bignami‐Van Assche et al., forthcoming; Fosse & Winship, 2019; Fox, 2015; Fox & Andersen, 2006; Fu et al., 2020, 2021; Hayduk, 1996; Li et al., forthcoming; Miles, 2016; Nelson, 2020; Stecklov et al., 2018; Wellman et al., 2003, 2020), but more often sociologists have embraced and adapted methods developed by computer scientists, statisticians, and econometricians (Abul‐Fottouh et al., 2020; Boase, 2016; Das, 2022; Gallupe et al., 2019; Gruzd & Mai, 2020; Gu et al., 2021; Hogan & Berry, 2011; Howe et al., forthcoming; Kudla & Parnaby, 2018; Letarte et al., 2021; Li & Luo, 2020; McLevey, 2022; McMahan & McFarland, 2021; Quan‐Haase et al., 2021; Richardson et al., 2021; Roth et al., forthcoming; Shor & Miltsov, 2020; Shor et al., 2013; Silver & Silva, 2021; Smith, 2020; Sytsma et al., 2021; Veenstra & Vanzella‐Yang, 2022; Yuan et al., 2022).…”