Popular in Social Sciences

Political Science

V-Dem’s Conceptions of Democracy and Their Consequences

University of Notre Dame Michael Coppedge

Central Monetary Authorities

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

European Central Bank Ulrich Bindseil

Social Identities and Divisions

A new explanation of antisemitism: Jew hatred as a civilisational phenomenon

Boston University Liah Greenfeld

Central Monetary Authorities

Financing Private Credit

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Nina Boyarchenko

Economics

Failing Banks

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emil Verner

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

American Politics

Moving Beyond Binary Measures of Gender in Political Ambition

View more insights in Social Sciences - Political Science - Politics and Gender

View more figures from Susquehanna University

View the page of Rolfe Peterson

Read the Study

Next in Political Science

The Liberalism of Refuge

Bryan Garsten | Yale University

Do Billboard Advertisements Increase Voter Turnout?

Donald Green | Columbia University

How do gendered personalities, beyond biological sex, shape political ambition, and what does this reveal about the persistent sex gap in political ambition?

Image courtesy of interviewee. November 5, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The speaker discusses their research on political ambition, particularly focusing on how individual psychology and traits influence the decision to run for office, with a consideration of gender and socialization. They emphasize the importance of understanding the nuances of gender beyond the traditional binary classification of male and female. Drawing on the work of Monica McDermott, the speaker argues for a more continuous model of gender, encompassing a spectrum of masculinity and femininity rather than a simple dichotomy.

The speaker highlights existing literature that showcases the gender gaps in political behavior and ambition, pointing out that men generally exhibit higher political ambition while women often view themselves as less qualified despite having similar qualifications. The research utilizes the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure masculinity and femininity, finding that higher masculine traits are positively correlated with nascent ambition for office, while higher feminine traits are negatively correlated.

The findings reveal that there is considerable heterogeneity among individuals regarding masculinity and femininity, and that a binary measure of sex still matters but doesn't capture the complexity of political behaviors. The speaker calls for researchers to adopt more granular approaches to studying gender in political contexts. They conclude by acknowledging the evolving nature of gender roles and the importance of understanding these complexities in relation to political participation and leadership.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Individual Variation in Political Ambition**: The author emphasizes a lifelong interest in understanding the psychological traits and variances among individuals that drive them to run for political office, particularly in the convideo of gender differences. The study aims to explore the complexities behind why some individuals are more politically ambitious than others.

2. **Beyond the Gender Binary**: The research seeks to move past the traditional binary conception of gender (male/female) by considering gender as a continuum that encompasses varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. This deeper examination aims to uncover the nuanced factors that affect political behavior and aspirations beyond simply categorizing individuals by sex.

3. **Socialization Across Lifespan**: The video highlights that gender differences in political ambition and behavior start from a young age due to socialization processes. Research indicates that children internalize gender stereotypes early on, which can influence their future ambitions, including the likelihood of running for political office.

4. **Impact of Masculinity and Femininity on Ambition**: The findings indicate that higher levels of masculine traits correlate positively with nascent political ambition, while higher levels of femininity correlate negatively. This pattern is noted for both men and women, suggesting that the traits associated with traditional masculinity may foster more political ambition and engagement.

5. **Call for Granular Gender Measurement in Research**: The author advocates for more sophisticated measures to capture the complexity of gender in political behavior studies. They suggest that understanding the continuous nature of masculinity and femininity can lead to richer insights into why certain individuals pursue political ambitions and how these traits intersect with socialization and identity in the contemporary political landscape.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video that capture the author's main points:

1. **Personal Convideo of Research:**
- "I've always been interested as a scholar in thinking about the variation in individuals and their psychology and their traits that lead them to think about running for office and be ambitious and those who are not."

2. **Gender and Political Ambition:**
- "There is a vast amount of literature on political ambition and on gender gaps broadly in American political behavior and political behavior abroad."

3. **Moving Beyond Binary Conceptions:**
- "We wanted to dig down under this base division and see what's really driving... the distinction between men and women when it comes to... questions, whether it's political knowledge, whether it's domestic ambition and whether you run for office."

4. **Socialization and Gender:**
- "Socialization... is happening currently for gender... starts very early."

5. **Research on Political Leaders:**
- "66% of them draw a male leader... it starts very early."

6. **Ambition and Perceptions of Qualification:**
- "Women need to be encouraged, need to be asked, and are less likely to be asked or told you should run for office someday."

7. **Gender Traits and Political Ambition:**
- "Masculinity in particular is positively related to nascent ambition... higher you score on femininity, you are less likely to have thought about running for political office."

8. **Granularity in Gender Measurement:**
- "We hope that scholars will try to find ways to get more granular."

9. **Fluidity of Gender Roles:**
- "Gender identity and roles are becoming more fluid and more politicized in the United States."

10. **Calls for Refined Measures:**
- "For my co-author Carl and myself, we are just sort of pushing for more refined and granular measures to understand the complexity of gender and political behavior today."

These quotes highlight the focus on gender, political ambition, socialization, and the importance of nuanced research in understanding these dynamics.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.285 --> 00:00:03.565
I think there's, one of the major contexts of the work

2
00:00:04.385 --> 00:00:06.605
was, thinking about, personally,

3
00:00:06.675 --> 00:00:08.725
I've always been interested as a scholar

4
00:00:09.305 --> 00:00:12.085
in thinking about the variation in individuals

5
00:00:12.105 --> 00:00:14.925
and their psychology and their traits that lead them

6
00:00:14.925 --> 00:00:17.205
to think about running for office and be ambitious

7
00:00:17.505 --> 00:00:19.645
and those who are not.

8
00:00:20.185 --> 00:00:22.565
And then I also think for most, scholars

9
00:00:22.585 --> 00:00:23.645
and for most research,

10
00:00:23.995 --> 00:00:26.445
there's always something a little bit personal in it from

11
00:00:26.445 --> 00:00:27.805
their own experience to think about.

12
00:00:27.825 --> 00:00:31.405
And I think over, as I looked back on my, life as well,

13
00:00:31.485 --> 00:00:34.325
I was sort of intrigued by the notions of how masculinity

14
00:00:34.325 --> 00:00:38.045
and femininity affected my peers and myself as we grew up.

15
00:00:38.135 --> 00:00:41.925
There is a vast amount of literature on,

16
00:00:41.925 --> 00:00:42.965
political ambition

17
00:00:43.145 --> 00:00:46.365
and on gender gaps broadly in American political behavior

18
00:00:46.585 --> 00:00:48.045
and political behavior abroad.

19
00:00:48.165 --> 00:00:51.205
I generally study, domestic American politics,

20
00:00:51.905 --> 00:00:55.725
and a lot of that research has studies that show variation

21
00:00:55.795 --> 00:00:58.445
between men and women on participation,

22
00:00:58.545 --> 00:01:00.445
on political knowledge, on voting habits,

23
00:01:00.585 --> 00:01:02.045
on the desire to run for office.

24
00:01:02.545 --> 00:01:06.245
And there's a really rich literature, oftentimes,

25
00:01:06.275 --> 00:01:08.365
exemplified by the researchers fox

26
00:01:08.365 --> 00:01:10.965
and law list that look at the differences in men

27
00:01:10.965 --> 00:01:13.725
and women actually running for office,

28
00:01:13.745 --> 00:01:15.125
and the gaps that are there.

29
00:01:15.745 --> 00:01:19.885
Um, but what really motivated us was this ability to go

30
00:01:19.905 --> 00:01:23.165
beyond simply looking at gender or men

31
00:01:23.165 --> 00:01:25.605
and women using this measure, which is a classic measure,

32
00:01:25.605 --> 00:01:28.525
which has been used for decades by most

33
00:01:28.525 --> 00:01:30.125
of us gathering public opinion research.

34
00:01:30.145 --> 00:01:32.005
And by the American National Election study

35
00:01:32.395 --> 00:01:35.685
that turns into a dichotomous variable, a zero one,

36
00:01:35.945 --> 00:01:39.005
and we wanted to find ways to sort of push beyond that.

37
00:01:39.145 --> 00:01:40.845
And we had my co-author

38
00:01:40.845 --> 00:01:43.965
and I had interacted with a scholar named Monica McDermott,

39
00:01:43.965 --> 00:01:47.005
who wrote a book in 2016 that brought in this idea.

40
00:01:47.345 --> 00:01:49.325
And to me, my eyes just opened.

41
00:01:49.505 --> 00:01:52.485
And I thought, wow, there is so much research

42
00:01:52.515 --> 00:01:55.965
that could benefit from exploring moving past

43
00:01:56.305 --> 00:01:58.365
and beyond this binary conception of gender.

44
00:01:58.555 --> 00:02:00.565
It's a, it's frequently, I think,

45
00:02:00.725 --> 00:02:03.765
a still developing delineation and distinction.

46
00:02:03.785 --> 00:02:05.605
And it's, sometimes a difficult

47
00:02:06.115 --> 00:02:07.365
sort of distinction to make.

48
00:02:07.365 --> 00:02:09.965
There's a, a work of, current work,

49
00:02:10.515 --> 00:02:12.565
reviewing the literature in gender

50
00:02:12.625 --> 00:02:15.005
and psychology that starts the paper

51
00:02:15.105 --> 00:02:16.725
by saying gender slash sex.

52
00:02:17.305 --> 00:02:19.165
Um, almost using it synonymously

53
00:02:19.225 --> 00:02:21.245
before then trying to disentangle it.

54
00:02:21.685 --> 00:02:25.605
I think generally most researchers would attach sex to more

55
00:02:25.605 --> 00:02:27.365
of a biological origin,

56
00:02:27.585 --> 00:02:31.165
and then gender being more, sociological

57
00:02:31.715 --> 00:02:35.405
more about personality, more about socialization and traits.

58
00:02:35.785 --> 00:02:39.365
Uh, we really used our definition drawing back from the work

59
00:02:39.945 --> 00:02:42.285
on Monica, from Monica McDermott.

60
00:02:42.625 --> 00:02:46.125
And their, her definition was the construct Society is built

61
00:02:46.125 --> 00:02:47.805
over time to reflect behaviors

62
00:02:47.945 --> 00:02:50.645
and beliefs, thought to be typical of though

63
00:02:50.645 --> 00:02:54.845
by no means unique to the sexes and their roles in society.

64
00:02:55.425 --> 00:02:57.365
But there are many definitions of it.

65
00:02:57.785 --> 00:03:00.245
And analytically what we tried to do was

66
00:03:00.245 --> 00:03:01.285
to look at masculine

67
00:03:01.285 --> 00:03:04.205
and femininity as primarily how we thought about gender,

68
00:03:04.615 --> 00:03:06.245
these traits that we all have.

69
00:03:06.905 --> 00:03:09.365
And then the zero one dichotomous measure,

70
00:03:09.465 --> 00:03:12.685
the classic measure in political science we term as sex,

71
00:03:12.925 --> 00:03:14.045
I think you said in this area,

72
00:03:14.145 --> 00:03:17.885
but I generally think of it pretty broadly in in any number

73
00:03:17.885 --> 00:03:19.565
of areas in political behavior.

74
00:03:20.545 --> 00:03:23.125
And there's a, a wonderful article by Bittner

75
00:03:23.125 --> 00:03:24.685
and Goodyear grant in 2017

76
00:03:24.755 --> 00:03:28.085
that makes this argument very crystallized, this argument

77
00:03:28.315 --> 00:03:31.405
that essentially we have been conflating sex

78
00:03:31.425 --> 00:03:32.845
and gender in political behavior.

79
00:03:33.625 --> 00:03:36.445
Um, and they put forward some ways to potentially try

80
00:03:36.445 --> 00:03:38.405
to measure it without sort of settling on one.

81
00:03:38.985 --> 00:03:42.165
Uh, but the basic idea on some level is

82
00:03:42.165 --> 00:03:44.605
that you are simplifying the world

83
00:03:44.605 --> 00:03:48.365
between this dichotomous variable where for my co-author

84
00:03:48.365 --> 00:03:50.685
and I, we want to think about it more as a continuum,

85
00:03:51.025 --> 00:03:54.725
as gender, being able to go on a continuous scale of

86
00:03:55.405 --> 00:03:56.645
masculinity and femininity,

87
00:03:57.185 --> 00:03:59.045
and also in really kind of a blunt

88
00:03:59.605 --> 00:04:00.645
research method sort of way.

89
00:04:01.065 --> 00:04:03.765
We wanted to dig down under this base division

90
00:04:03.985 --> 00:04:07.765
and see what's really driving, you know, the distinction

91
00:04:07.765 --> 00:04:10.965
between men and women when it comes to all kinds of say

92
00:04:10.965 --> 00:04:13.965
of questions, whether it's political knowledge,

93
00:04:13.965 --> 00:04:16.285
whether it's domestic ambition

94
00:04:16.385 --> 00:04:18.045
and sort of, nascent ambition

95
00:04:18.045 --> 00:04:20.765
and whether you run for office, whether it's participation,

96
00:04:20.765 --> 00:04:23.005
whether it's voting, in an election,

97
00:04:23.015 --> 00:04:24.365
which candidate you prefer.

98
00:04:24.945 --> 00:04:27.645
Um, we think that there's value to sort of digging below

99
00:04:28.145 --> 00:04:31.445
and thinking about gender in a more granular

100
00:04:31.745 --> 00:04:32.765
and more nuanced way.

101
00:04:32.915 --> 00:04:35.845
It's a fantastic, sort of discussion

102
00:04:35.845 --> 00:04:38.445
and fantastic lecture really to sort of think about

103
00:04:38.835 --> 00:04:41.525
because there's, just a ton of work

104
00:04:41.935 --> 00:04:45.485
where scholars are exploring all the ways that,

105
00:04:45.485 --> 00:04:46.645
socialization happens.

106
00:04:47.305 --> 00:04:48.485
Um,

107
00:04:48.745 --> 00:04:51.445
and I think one of the ways that, what I would say to start

108
00:04:51.445 --> 00:04:53.725
with is that we know it starts very early.

109
00:04:54.265 --> 00:04:58.045
And so there's a lot of research now that shows that the,

110
00:04:58.105 --> 00:04:59.165
the difference between men

111
00:04:59.165 --> 00:05:03.125
and women as we are socialized is happening across our

112
00:05:03.235 --> 00:05:04.805
lifespans and is happening

113
00:05:05.445 --> 00:05:07.285
frequently in all kinds of interactions.

114
00:05:07.355 --> 00:05:10.325
Whether they're formal interactions and things like school

115
00:05:10.785 --> 00:05:13.845
and work, whether it's conversations, whether it's coaches

116
00:05:14.105 --> 00:05:15.685
or mentors or friends.

117
00:05:16.315 --> 00:05:19.605
That socialization is happening currently for gender

118
00:05:19.985 --> 00:05:21.205
and for politics.

119
00:05:21.985 --> 00:05:25.565
And so one of the great sort of recent research articles

120
00:05:25.565 --> 00:05:30.005
by Bose and our co-authors in 2022 uses a draw political

121
00:05:30.005 --> 00:05:32.685
leader test, which is pretty fascinating

122
00:05:32.685 --> 00:05:35.765
because it comes from the idea, from STEM fields

123
00:05:35.945 --> 00:05:38.765
of asking pe asking children to draw pictures

124
00:05:38.765 --> 00:05:41.805
of a scientist and looking at the gender sort of stereotypes

125
00:05:41.805 --> 00:05:43.765
around it, will they replicate this?

126
00:05:43.865 --> 00:05:45.605
But they do draw a political leader,

127
00:05:46.165 --> 00:05:49.365
and it's students who in US schools would be grade one

128
00:05:49.365 --> 00:05:53.685
to six and 66% of them draw a male leader

129
00:05:53.945 --> 00:05:56.405
and only 13% draw a female leader.

130
00:05:56.785 --> 00:05:58.605
And so it starts very early.

131
00:05:58.745 --> 00:06:02.325
And then when you look at even the candidate stage of

132
00:06:02.325 --> 00:06:05.325
where people would actually run for office, there's a lot

133
00:06:05.325 --> 00:06:09.525
of research that shows that, that, women need

134
00:06:09.525 --> 00:06:11.325
to be encouraged, need to be asked,

135
00:06:11.385 --> 00:06:12.925
and are less likely to be asked

136
00:06:12.925 --> 00:06:15.125
or told you should run for office someday.

137
00:06:15.465 --> 00:06:19.525
One of the most fascinating findings that comes out of,

138
00:06:19.545 --> 00:06:23.845
of the large scale research studies over time on this is

139
00:06:23.995 --> 00:06:27.685
that, women can, women potential candidates

140
00:06:27.785 --> 00:06:30.325
who could run for office will rate themselves

141
00:06:30.425 --> 00:06:33.525
as less qualified than their male counterparts

142
00:06:33.915 --> 00:06:36.285
with the same qualifications, right?

143
00:06:36.305 --> 00:06:40.085
So there's already this sort of built in, lower level

144
00:06:40.105 --> 00:06:43.845
of ambition and views of qualification that translate into,

145
00:06:44.145 --> 00:06:45.365
expressed ambition.

146
00:06:45.765 --> 00:06:49.085
I think you're right that you're seeing progress in terms of

147
00:06:49.315 --> 00:06:51.125
what you might consider,

148
00:06:51.565 --> 00:06:53.885
academic qualification attainment, levels

149
00:06:54.385 --> 00:06:56.205
of performance if you talk

150
00:06:56.205 --> 00:06:58.325
to most professors right, about this.

151
00:06:58.865 --> 00:07:02.165
Um, but oftentimes it doesn't translate to that next step.

152
00:07:02.305 --> 00:07:04.765
And our concern is really about that next step

153
00:07:04.825 --> 00:07:07.725
of being politically running for political office.

154
00:07:07.955 --> 00:07:10.485
There's some great questions embedded in a as well.

155
00:07:11.065 --> 00:07:14.965
Um, so, what we, use to,

156
00:07:15.385 --> 00:07:18.525
to measure masculine femininity is drawn from the work

157
00:07:18.585 --> 00:07:22.285
of Sandra Bam, a gender psychologist, originally

158
00:07:22.845 --> 00:07:27.125
conceived of in the 1970s, so 50 years ago, creating

159
00:07:27.965 --> 00:07:30.285
a way to measure masculine femininity

160
00:07:30.345 --> 00:07:31.765
by looking at descriptors

161
00:07:31.765 --> 00:07:33.885
and traits that would be considered sort of typical

162
00:07:34.025 --> 00:07:36.845
or ideal for men and women in society.

163
00:07:37.505 --> 00:07:41.685
And so, it has been one answer is sort of,

164
00:07:41.685 --> 00:07:45.685
it has been widely, validated, used,

165
00:07:46.155 --> 00:07:47.925
over time in different contexts.

166
00:07:48.075 --> 00:07:49.805
When you go to a web of science

167
00:07:49.985 --> 00:07:51.085
or to a Google scholar,

168
00:07:51.155 --> 00:07:53.965
it's been cited over 6,000 times now.

169
00:07:54.215 --> 00:07:55.845
There has definitely been critique

170
00:07:55.865 --> 00:07:58.805
and pushback on her conception as well.

171
00:07:59.425 --> 00:08:02.165
Um, but it is certainly the most prominent, so

172
00:08:02.165 --> 00:08:06.285
for example, one of the, the, the battery that we use,

173
00:08:06.665 --> 00:08:10.125
the BIM sex Rules inventory, we use the Brief Battery,

174
00:08:10.535 --> 00:08:11.805
which is an inventory

175
00:08:11.805 --> 00:08:15.125
that asks you descriptors about yourself that are masculine

176
00:08:15.125 --> 00:08:16.205
and feminine descriptors.

177
00:08:16.905 --> 00:08:20.605
And, why, the reason why we use the brief one is

178
00:08:20.605 --> 00:08:23.605
that BIM actually revised her original BSRI

179
00:08:23.905 --> 00:08:25.485
and cut out some of the items

180
00:08:26.155 --> 00:08:28.765
that I think if we looked at today, we would say,

181
00:08:28.765 --> 00:08:31.485
this is doesn't age well for, aspects,

182
00:08:31.505 --> 00:08:33.205
but even at the time would've been viewed

183
00:08:33.205 --> 00:08:34.445
as think more negative items.

184
00:08:34.985 --> 00:08:38.005
So for example, if you look at the original BSRI, one

185
00:08:38.005 --> 00:08:39.925
of the feminine traits is gullible

186
00:08:40.105 --> 00:08:42.125
and another one is childlike.

187
00:08:42.745 --> 00:08:47.445
Um, and those traits are not in the revised brief BSRI,

188
00:08:47.445 --> 00:08:49.485
which is what we used for this research study.

189
00:08:50.065 --> 00:08:54.805
Um, and so it's also the, the, the

190
00:08:54.895 --> 00:08:58.175
Instrument that is used in the Monica McDermott book

191
00:08:58.175 --> 00:08:59.575
that inspired a lot of our research.

192
00:08:59.805 --> 00:09:02.375
I've looked at political ambition in a number

193
00:09:02.395 --> 00:09:04.335
of different ways in my research,

194
00:09:04.685 --> 00:09:06.815
usually psychological ways I'm interested in

195
00:09:06.815 --> 00:09:10.615
how personality shapes it, whether that's your extroversion

196
00:09:10.755 --> 00:09:13.855
as a personality type, whether you might have some dark,

197
00:09:14.315 --> 00:09:16.095
traits like Machiavellianism.

198
00:09:16.715 --> 00:09:20.895
Uh, and so what we did was explore nascent ambition.

199
00:09:20.915 --> 00:09:23.935
And nascent ambition does, it does merit a a,

200
00:09:24.095 --> 00:09:25.575
a mini sort of capsule on it.

201
00:09:25.885 --> 00:09:28.135
Nascent ambition is usually studied,

202
00:09:28.195 --> 00:09:31.775
in the mass population and not among, elected leaders

203
00:09:31.775 --> 00:09:33.695
because the way that it's thought

204
00:09:33.695 --> 00:09:36.295
of is almost like the roots of political ambition.

205
00:09:36.595 --> 00:09:38.735
So you're sort of developing them over time.

206
00:09:38.875 --> 00:09:40.415
And that's really fascinating to us

207
00:09:40.415 --> 00:09:43.895
because it means we can study it in broad populations

208
00:09:44.075 --> 00:09:47.535
and see like what is determining who thinks about running

209
00:09:47.555 --> 00:09:50.415
for political office and who feels they're qualified to run

210
00:09:50.415 --> 00:09:52.335
for political office just at a base level.

211
00:09:52.915 --> 00:09:55.695
And so what we did is we used the BSRI

212
00:09:56.035 --> 00:09:57.935
to measure masculinity and femininity,

213
00:09:58.395 --> 00:10:01.815
and then we, we do have the binary measure that we consider

214
00:10:01.815 --> 00:10:03.095
for sex, the zero one,

215
00:10:03.395 --> 00:10:06.695
and we predict, whether you have thought about running

216
00:10:06.715 --> 00:10:09.615
for political office and whether you feel you're qualified

217
00:10:09.615 --> 00:10:11.815
to run for political office in our study.

218
00:10:12.275 --> 00:10:14.335
And what we find, I think what was sort

219
00:10:14.335 --> 00:10:16.895
of surprising about our findings on some level is just

220
00:10:16.915 --> 00:10:18.615
how robust and strong they were.

221
00:10:19.155 --> 00:10:22.215
Um, that is masculinity in particular

222
00:10:22.795 --> 00:10:27.255
is positively related to nascent ambition on both of those,

223
00:10:28.115 --> 00:10:31.455
items that I, that I mentioned for both men

224
00:10:31.515 --> 00:10:34.455
and women, if you're scoring higher in masculinity,

225
00:10:34.635 --> 00:10:36.335
you're more likely to respond

226
00:10:36.485 --> 00:10:38.335
that you've thought about running for political office

227
00:10:38.755 --> 00:10:40.895
and that you're qualified to run for political office.

228
00:10:41.195 --> 00:10:44.455
And then what we found also is that for femininity,

229
00:10:44.455 --> 00:10:46.215
it worked in the opposite direction.

230
00:10:46.875 --> 00:10:49.055
You are less likely to have thought about running

231
00:10:49.055 --> 00:10:52.015
for political office the higher you score on femininity,

232
00:10:52.035 --> 00:10:53.375
for both men and women.

233
00:10:53.995 --> 00:10:57.575
And it's sort of notable about the other surprising thing

234
00:10:57.575 --> 00:10:59.215
or for interesting thing to think about.

235
00:10:59.875 --> 00:11:02.055
One of the things that I think validates using these type

236
00:11:02.055 --> 00:11:05.215
of measures is that when you look at the distribution

237
00:11:05.395 --> 00:11:07.735
of masculinity and femininity in our sample,

238
00:11:08.205 --> 00:11:11.815
what you notice is there's a lot of heterogeneity, like men

239
00:11:12.035 --> 00:11:14.375
and women who I, people identify as men

240
00:11:14.395 --> 00:11:18.615
and as women both have score and high score on femininity

241
00:11:18.635 --> 00:11:21.135
and masculinity, there's real diversity to it.

242
00:11:21.355 --> 00:11:24.695
And even though men score slightly higher on masculine

243
00:11:24.755 --> 00:11:26.815
traits, it is not that much higher.

244
00:11:27.235 --> 00:11:28.855
Uh, women score high as well.

245
00:11:29.235 --> 00:11:31.095
And in femini in feminine traits,

246
00:11:31.095 --> 00:11:32.775
women score a little bit higher than men,

247
00:11:32.775 --> 00:11:34.615
but there's a lot of diversity underneath

248
00:11:34.615 --> 00:11:35.735
that binary measure.

249
00:11:36.355 --> 00:11:39.015
And so for us, we found pretty clearly that even

250
00:11:39.015 --> 00:11:42.175
with sex in the model, there is added value

251
00:11:42.355 --> 00:11:44.935
to having masculine and femininity when looking at this,

252
00:11:45.355 --> 00:11:46.455
phenomenon.

253
00:11:46.735 --> 00:11:48.455
I think it's, it's really interesting

254
00:11:48.455 --> 00:11:49.975
because, you know, I view,

255
00:11:50.175 --> 00:11:51.775
I don't wanna diminish our research,

256
00:11:51.835 --> 00:11:55.245
but I view it sort of as, you know, building on some of this

257
00:11:56.005 --> 00:11:57.885
excellent and wonderful gender research

258
00:11:57.945 --> 00:11:59.125
by a number of scholars.

259
00:11:59.745 --> 00:12:02.565
But the first thing for us was, you know,

260
00:12:02.625 --> 00:12:04.285
is there value added in doing this?

261
00:12:04.625 --> 00:12:07.565
And because you're looking back at 50 years of research

262
00:12:08.295 --> 00:12:13.085
books, articles, chapters about gender DAPs,

263
00:12:13.585 --> 00:12:16.645
and now all of that research to me, I see as well,

264
00:12:16.645 --> 00:12:17.765
what would happen if you could,

265
00:12:17.905 --> 00:12:20.045
if you were measuring masculinity, femininity

266
00:12:20.105 --> 00:12:21.685
as well as this?

267
00:12:21.985 --> 00:12:24.125
And it's important to note in our research that the sex,

268
00:12:24.155 --> 00:12:26.165
that sex, the sexual identity measure,

269
00:12:26.545 --> 00:12:28.285
the binary still matters.

270
00:12:28.775 --> 00:12:31.645
Women are more, are less likely to have nascent ambition,

271
00:12:31.985 --> 00:12:35.125
but it is much lower effect than masculinity is

272
00:12:35.705 --> 00:12:37.005
in our, in our estimates.

273
00:12:37.425 --> 00:12:40.925
And so the implications are that we hope

274
00:12:41.035 --> 00:12:45.805
that scholars will try to find ways to get more granular

275
00:12:46.065 --> 00:12:49.365
and precise measures of of gender.

276
00:12:49.685 --> 00:12:50.805
I mean, a lot of the studies

277
00:12:50.875 --> 00:12:54.045
that use the simple binary measure have scholars

278
00:12:54.045 --> 00:12:56.325
that understand gender and socialization

279
00:12:56.465 --> 00:12:59.125
and you know, they're not like foolish about this.

280
00:12:59.125 --> 00:13:00.165
They sort of understand it,

281
00:13:00.185 --> 00:13:02.925
but it's difficult to find ways to measure it properly.

282
00:13:03.385 --> 00:13:05.765
One of the in things that inhibits it is

283
00:13:05.765 --> 00:13:09.165
that it's difficult in most large scale survey projects

284
00:13:09.625 --> 00:13:11.685
to have 20 to 40 questions

285
00:13:11.985 --> 00:13:14.885
to measure gender when they are used to just doing one.

286
00:13:15.585 --> 00:13:17.765
Um, and there have been some scholars that have tried

287
00:13:17.765 --> 00:13:20.365
to use like single item measures that would just ask you,

288
00:13:20.745 --> 00:13:23.165
on this scale, how masculine are you?

289
00:13:23.225 --> 00:13:24.925
How feminine are you? But they don't seem

290
00:13:24.925 --> 00:13:28.485
to provide the leverage that something like the BSRI does.

291
00:13:29.185 --> 00:13:32.285
Now, in terms of society and broader and future studies

292
00:13:32.345 --> 00:13:37.005
and current studies, I mean, I see a, the,

293
00:13:37.075 --> 00:13:39.685
that bm, even though it was developed 50 years ago,

294
00:13:40.075 --> 00:13:41.845
society has changed and shifted.

295
00:13:41.985 --> 00:13:45.965
But I still feel a lot of these things intuitively for me,

296
00:13:45.995 --> 00:13:48.205
what my, my guess is, is this, what's happening

297
00:13:48.205 --> 00:13:51.325
with measures like the BSRI is that men

298
00:13:51.665 --> 00:13:54.005
as they've are socialized to be a little more caring

299
00:13:54.065 --> 00:13:55.645
and to think of others a little bit more,

300
00:13:56.185 --> 00:13:57.525
are gaining more femininity.

301
00:13:57.735 --> 00:13:59.765
Women are gaining more of the masculinity,

302
00:13:59.765 --> 00:14:02.685
they're becoming more socialized to being leaders,

303
00:14:02.905 --> 00:14:05.285
to being aggressive, to being, you know,

304
00:14:05.365 --> 00:14:06.725
forceful in their lives.

305
00:14:06.945 --> 00:14:08.005
And I think that's excellent.

306
00:14:08.005 --> 00:14:11.125
So I would imagine there's been a bit of a, of a merging

307
00:14:11.305 --> 00:14:12.525
of these things in a way.

308
00:14:13.225 --> 00:14:14.965
And then the other thing that's happening is

309
00:14:14.965 --> 00:14:17.885
that gender identity and roles are becoming more fluid

310
00:14:18.065 --> 00:14:20.285
and more politicized in the United States

311
00:14:20.345 --> 00:14:21.805
and probably around the world.

312
00:14:21.865 --> 00:14:24.485
And most, most democracies,

313
00:14:24.805 --> 00:14:28.885
presidential campaigns are in the United States context at

314
00:14:28.885 --> 00:14:31.365
least, are using masculine appeals.

315
00:14:31.825 --> 00:14:34.685
Um, almost trying to out masculine other candidates.

316
00:14:34.985 --> 00:14:37.085
And we need to know what determines

317
00:14:37.085 --> 00:14:38.845
who receives those sort of appeals.

318
00:14:39.145 --> 00:14:41.085
And maybe it's about the masculinity

319
00:14:41.085 --> 00:14:43.565
and femininity that they have in their traits.

320
00:14:43.585 --> 00:14:46.245
And we can't measure that if we just use the binary.

321
00:14:47.065 --> 00:14:48.765
We also have prominent women running

322
00:14:48.825 --> 00:14:50.885
for political office of major

323
00:14:50.925 --> 00:14:53.085
Presidential candidate currently in the United States

324
00:14:53.085 --> 00:14:54.965
that could be the first female president leaders

325
00:14:54.965 --> 00:14:56.565
around the world, right?

326
00:14:56.625 --> 00:15:00.685
And we sort of wanna know what drives this, like, is it,

327
00:15:00.715 --> 00:15:04.005
does it have to do partially with the masculine femininity

328
00:15:04.005 --> 00:15:07.205
that those individuals have that have helped guide them

329
00:15:07.545 --> 00:15:10.405
to be more entered into the political sphere?

330
00:15:11.105 --> 00:15:13.365
And so for, for my co-author Carl

331
00:15:13.505 --> 00:15:17.445
and myself, we are just sort of pushing for more refined

332
00:15:17.445 --> 00:15:20.405
and granular measures to understand the complexity of gender

333
00:15:20.745 --> 00:15:24.205
and political behavior today without denying that

334
00:15:24.205 --> 00:15:28.125
that binary conception matters in our like everyday lives

335
00:15:28.225 --> 00:15:29.525
and in politics as well.

336
00:15:30.065 --> 00:15:32.485
Um, but that there's something for gendered personality

337
00:15:32.675 --> 00:15:34.045
that is an additive value.

Exploring Gender and Political Ambition

00:00:00 - I think there's, one of the major contexts of the work was, thinking about, personally, I've always been interested as a scholar in thinking about the variation in individuals and their psychology and their traits that lead them to think about running for office and be ambitious and those who are not. And then I also think for most, scholars and for most research, there's always something a little bit personal in it from their own experience to think about. And I think over, as I looked back on my, life as well,

00:00:34 - and femininity affected my peers and myself as we grew up. There is a vast amount of literature on, political ambition and on gender gaps broadly in American political behavior and political behavior abroad. I generally study, domestic American politics, and a lot of that research has studies that show variation between men and women on participation, on political knowledge, on voting habits, on the desire to run for office.

00:01:06 - exemplified by the researchers fox and law list that look at the differences in men and women actually running for office, and the gaps that are there. but what really motivated us was this ability to go beyond simply looking at gender or men and women using this measure, which is a classic measure, which has been used for decades by most of us gathering public opinion research. And by the American National Election study that turns into a dichotomous variable, a zero one,

Beyond Binary Gender in Research

00:01:39 - And we had my co-author and I had interacted with a scholar named Monica McDermott, who wrote a book in 2016 that brought in this idea. And to me, my eyes just opened. And I thought, wow, there is so much research that could benefit from exploring moving past and beyond this binary conception of gender. It's a, it's frequently, I think, a still developing delineation and distinction. And it's, sometimes a difficult

00:02:07 - There's a, a work of, current work, reviewing the literature in gender and psychology that starts the paper by saying gender slash sex. almost using it synonymously before then trying to disentangle it. I think generally most researchers would attach sex to more of a biological origin, and then gender being more, sociological more about personality, more about socialization and traits. we really used our definition drawing back from the work

00:02:42 - And their, her definition was the construct Society is built over time to reflect behaviors and beliefs, thought to be typical of though by no means unique to the sexes and their roles in society. But there are many definitions of it. And analytically what we tried to do was to look at masculine and femininity as primarily how we thought about gender, these traits that we all have. And then the zero one dichotomous measure, the classic measure in political science we term as sex,

Rethinking the Gender Continuum in Political Behavior

00:03:14 - but I generally think of it pretty broadly in in any number of areas in political behavior. And there's a, a wonderful article by Bittner and Goodyear grant in 2017 that makes this argument very crystallized, this argument that essentially we have been conflating sex and gender in political behavior. and they put forward some ways to potentially try to measure it without sort of settling on one. but the basic idea on some level is that you are simplifying the world

00:03:48 - and I, we want to think about it more as a continuum, as gender, being able to go on a continuous scale of masculinity and femininity, and also in really kind of a blunt research method sort of way. We wanted to dig down under this base division and see what's really driving, you know, the distinction between men and women when it comes to all kinds of say of questions, whether it's political knowledge, whether it's domestic ambition

00:04:18 - and whether you run for office, whether it's participation, whether it's voting, in an election, which candidate you prefer. we think that there's value to sort of digging below and thinking about gender in a more granular and more nuanced way. It's a fantastic, sort of discussion and fantastic lecture really to sort of think about because there's, just a ton of work where scholars are exploring all the ways that, socialization happens.

Early Socialization and Gender Bias in Political Ambition

00:04:48 - and I think one of the ways that, what I would say to start with is that we know it starts very early. And so there's a lot of research now that shows that the, the difference between men and women as we are socialized is happening across our lifespans and is happening frequently in all kinds of interactions. Whether they're formal interactions and things like school and work, whether it's conversations, whether it's coaches or mentors or friends. That socialization is happening currently for gender

00:05:21 - And so one of the great sort of recent research articles by Bose and our co-authors in 2022 uses a draw political leader test, which is pretty fascinating because it comes from the idea, from STEM fields of asking pe asking children to draw pictures of a scientist and looking at the gender sort of stereotypes around it, will they replicate this? But they do draw a political leader, and it's students who in US schools would be grade one to six and 66% of them draw a male leader

00:05:56 - And so it starts very early. And then when you look at even the candidate stage of where people would actually run for office, there's a lot of research that shows that, that, women need to be encouraged, need to be asked, and are less likely to be asked or told you should run for office someday. One of the most fascinating findings that comes out of, of the large scale research studies over time on this is

Gender Ambition and Self-Perception in Political Office

00:06:27 - who could run for office will rate themselves as less qualified than their male counterparts with the same qualifications, right? So there's already this sort of built in, lower level of ambition and views of qualification that translate into, expressed ambition. I think you're right that you're seeing progress in terms of what you might consider, academic qualification attainment, levels

00:06:56 - to most professors right, about this. but oftentimes it doesn't translate to that next step. And our concern is really about that next step of being politically running for political office. There's some great questions embedded in a as well. so, what we, use to, to measure masculine femininity is drawn from the work of Sandra Bam, a gender psychologist, originally conceived of in the 1970s, so 50 years ago, creating

00:07:30 - by looking at descriptors and traits that would be considered sort of typical or ideal for men and women in society. And so, it has been one answer is sort of, it has been widely, validated, used, over time in different contexts. When you go to a web of science or to a Google scholar, it's been cited over 6,000 times now. There has definitely been critique and pushback on her conception as well.

Revising Gender Measures: The Evolution of the BSRI

00:08:02 - for example, one of the, the, the battery that we use, the BIM sex Rules inventory, we use the Brief Battery, which is an inventory that asks you descriptors about yourself that are masculine and feminine descriptors. And, why, the reason why we use the brief one is that BIM actually revised her original BSRI and cut out some of the items that I think if we looked at today, we would say, this is doesn't age well for, aspects,

00:08:33 - as think more negative items. So for example, if you look at the original BSRI, one of the feminine traits is gullible and another one is childlike. and those traits are not in the revised brief BSRI, which is what we used for this research study. and so it's also the, the, the Instrument that is used in the Monica McDermott book that inspired a lot of our research. I've looked at political ambition in a number

00:09:04 - usually psychological ways I'm interested in how personality shapes it, whether that's your extroversion as a personality type, whether you might have some dark, traits like Machiavellianism. and so what we did was explore nascent ambition. And nascent ambition does, it does merit a a, a mini sort of capsule on it. Nascent ambition is usually studied, in the mass population and not among, elected leaders because the way that it's thought

Exploring Gender Traits and Political Ambition

00:09:36 - So you're sort of developing them over time. And that's really fascinating to us because it means we can study it in broad populations and see like what is determining who thinks about running for political office and who feels they're qualified to run for political office just at a base level. And so what we did is we used the BSRI to measure masculinity and femininity, and then we, we do have the binary measure that we consider for sex, the zero one, and we predict, whether you have thought about running

00:10:09 - to run for political office in our study. And what we find, I think what was sort of surprising about our findings on some level is just how robust and strong they were. that is masculinity in particular is positively related to nascent ambition on both of those, items that I, that I mentioned for both men and women, if you're scoring higher in masculinity, you're more likely to respond that you've thought about running for political office

00:10:41 - And then what we found also is that for femininity, it worked in the opposite direction. You are less likely to have thought about running for political office the higher you score on femininity, for both men and women. And it's sort of notable about the other surprising thing or for interesting thing to think about. One of the things that I think validates using these type of measures is that when you look at the distribution of masculinity and femininity in our sample, what you notice is there's a lot of heterogeneity, like men

Exploring Gender Diversity and Political Ambition

00:11:14 - and as women both have score and high score on femininity and masculinity, there's real diversity to it. And even though men score slightly higher on masculine traits, it is not that much higher. women score high as well. And in femini in feminine traits, women score a little bit higher than men, but there's a lot of diversity underneath that binary measure. And so for us, we found pretty clearly that even with sex in the model, there is added value

00:11:45 - phenomenon. I think it's, it's really interesting because, you know, I view, I don't wanna diminish our research, but I view it sort of as, you know, building on some of this excellent and wonderful gender research by a number of scholars. But the first thing for us was, you know, is there value added in doing this? And because you're looking back at 50 years of research books, articles, chapters about gender DAPs,

00:12:16 - what would happen if you could, if you were measuring masculinity, femininity as well as this? And it's important to note in our research that the sex, that sex, the sexual identity measure, the binary still matters. Women are more, are less likely to have nascent ambition, but it is much lower effect than masculinity is in our, in our estimates. And so the implications are that we hope that scholars will try to find ways to get more granular

Rethinking Gender Measurement in Political Studies

00:12:49 - I mean, a lot of the studies that use the simple binary measure have scholars that understand gender and socialization and you know, they're not like foolish about this. They sort of understand it, but it's difficult to find ways to measure it properly. One of the in things that inhibits it is that it's difficult in most large scale survey projects to have 20 to 40 questions to measure gender when they are used to just doing one. and there have been some scholars that have tried

00:13:20 - on this scale, how masculine are you? How feminine are you? But they don't seem to provide the leverage that something like the BSRI does. Now, in terms of society and broader and future studies and current studies, I mean, I see a, the, that bm, even though it was developed 50 years ago, society has changed and shifted. But I still feel a lot of these things intuitively for me, what my, my guess is, is this, what's happening

00:13:51 - as they've are socialized to be a little more caring and to think of others a little bit more, are gaining more femininity. Women are gaining more of the masculinity, they're becoming more socialized to being leaders, to being aggressive, to being, you know, forceful in their lives. And I think that's excellent. So I would imagine there's been a bit of a, of a merging of these things in a way. And then the other thing that's happening is that gender identity and roles are becoming more fluid and more politicized in the United States

Understanding Gender Dynamics in Political Campaigns

00:14:21 - And most, most democracies, presidential campaigns are in the United States context at least, are using masculine appeals. almost trying to out masculine other candidates. And we need to know what determines who receives those sort of appeals. And maybe it's about the masculinity and femininity that they have in their traits. And we can't measure that if we just use the binary. We also have prominent women running for political office of major

00:14:53 - that could be the first female president leaders around the world, right? And we sort of wanna know what drives this, like, is it, does it have to do partially with the masculine femininity that those individuals have that have helped guide them to be more entered into the political sphere? And so for, for my co-author Carl and myself, we are just sort of pushing for more refined and granular measures to understand the complexity of gender and political behavior today without denying that

00:15:32 - and in politics as well. but that there's something for gendered personality that is an additive value.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts