“You Should Know Better”- The Consequences of Descriptive Representation

• In Event: Perspectives on Identity in American Politics

Abstract

Existing research on descriptive representation maintains that political candidates often receive more political support from in-group voters than their out-group competitors. Scholars claim this is due in large part to the assumption that descriptive candidates have a greater inclination to act in ways that benefit their shared identity group. This paper explores the other side of these heightened expectations and asks- How do voters evaluate a descriptive representative whose actions are perceived as being at odds with group expectations? Moreover, how do those evaluations compare to out-group candidates who behave in similar ways? Though out-group candidates may not receive the political benefits that in-group candidates receive, we contend that the upside for these candidates is that they are largely able to evade political consequences because voters hold them to different standards. Using an experimental design with Black and White subjects, we examine the costs leveled against political candidates who meet voters’ expectations and those who do not, and seeing whether the shared identity conditions voters’ evaluations. In doing so, we provide a more holistic view of the ways in which descriptive representation matters to voters.

Authors

• Julian Wamble, George Washington University

• Jared Clemons, Duke University