The Effects of Gender Issue Ownership: Results from a Survey Experiment

• In Event: Using Surveys to Measure and Explore Gender

Abstract

First discussed in Budge and Farlie (1983), and formally described in Petrocik (1993), It is established that parties are seen as having competency “advantages” for certain issues. This “issue ownership” suggests that Democrats own issues like health care and the environment, while the Republican party owns crime and border security. There are even advantages to candidates campaigning on their owned issues and making the election “about” issues on which they have an advantage. In addition to party issue ownership, there is evidence of other kinds of perceived differences in issue competency. Due to gender stereotypes, male and female candidates are seen as having different levels of competencies on handling different issues. In some cases, people might identify with one party, but the gender of the candidate of the opposing party has an advantage of being seen as better able to handle issues important to that voter. In these cases, does the opposing candidate’s “gender issue ownership” increase the likelihood that voters defect from their party identification, and vote for the candidate who, according to gender issue ownership, can better handle issues important to that voter? Or is party identification such a strong factor that Americans vote for their party? While increases in polarization might suggest that party is the stronger factor, it is possible these gender stereotypes still play a role. This project uses a survey experiment from the 2023 Congressional Elections Studies to determine the role of gender issues ownership, and its interaction with party identification in determining vote choice.

Author

• Sarah Heise, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga