Not All Women? Exploring the In-Group Effects of Gendered Vulnerability

• In Event: The Difference Women Make: Inclusion, Representation, and Public Policy

Abstract

Lazarus and Steigerwalt (2018) demonstrate that female members of Congress are more constituent-oriented than male members of Congress are. This is because female members both face more obstacles in their pursuit of reelection, and also because women are socialized to doubt their abilities to a much greater extent than men, which leads them to perceive themselves as being more electorally vulnerable even if they are not. As a result of this “gendered vulnerability”, female members spend more time on constituent-oriented activities such as procuring pork barrel spending, traveling to the district, casework, and others; they also more faithfully represent their constituents’ policy preferences than men do.

In this paper, we explore in-group variation in this trend. In other words, we explore the extent to which there is systematic variation in the extent to which female members of Congress adopt this constituent-focused orientation. For instance, do women who are objectively electorally vulnerable focus more on constituents than other women? Do senior female Congress members engage in less constituent focused behavior (because they tend to be relatively electorally safe), or more such behavior (because they have engaged in a process of learning over their careers) than junior members? Do party leaders, committee chairs, or members of senior committees still engage in outsized levels of constituent focused behavior? Answering questions such as these will help us more deeply understand how male and female members differ from one another. Additionally, it will shed light on the broader question of the extent to which experience, electoral safety, and institutional responsibility conflict with “the electoral connection.”

Authors

• Amy L. Steigerwalt, Georgia State University

• Jeffrey Lazarus, Georgia State University