Project Results

Compassionate female candidates are seen as equally electable compared to compassionate male candidates, meanwhile, aggressive female candidates are seen as less electable compared to aggressive male candidates. The Role Congruence Theory and gender microaggressions do have an impact on voters' decision-making process. 

About This Project

Microaggressions are small yet biased oppressive statements. Studies prior to 1994 demonstrated that candidates' gender strongly influenced their perceived electability. While no studies demonstrated similar effects in the 2016 election, microaggressions might have influenced electoral outcome. We hypothesize that if more microaggressions are in a candidate’s description, then the candidate would be perceived as less electable because of microaggression’s subtle influence on decision making.

Ask the Scientists

What is the context of this research?

Throughout the evolution of American politics, outright oppressive language and behavior has adopted a more concealed form in microaggressions. Microaggressions are subtle oppressive statements or actions, which are often unintentional. Because of their subtlety, people can unintentionally let microaggressions dictate their choices. This can become prevalent in the 2020 elections given that microaggressions were suggested to have been prominent in the 2016 elections. The Democratic primary process has been noted as an exampleof how microaggressions influenced public perception, as many female candidates were labeled as "too weak to beat Trump" despite being equally or more qualified than their male counterparts.

What is the significance of this project?

This research mimics a situation that many Americans may find themselves in in less than 100 days: forming an opinion about a candidate while being dictated by microaggressions.

A racial microaggression tested in my survey is the preemptive assumption that a candidate of color is less qualified than their white counterpart. A gender microaggression tested in my survey is the bias that female candidates can be irrational or overemotional.

The participant will read two descriptions without microaggressions (the control groups), and two with microaggressions (the experimental groups). If they deem the candidates from the microaggressive descriptions to be less electable, then microaggressions evidently influenced the perceived electability.

What are the goals of the project?

The experiment will show participants four descriptions in total. In the first section, the participant will read two descriptions: one of a male candidate and one of a female candidate. The candidates' genders will be stated in the description. After reading each description, the participant will rate how electable they find the candidate on a scale from 1-5. The second section tests race rather than gender. The participant will read two descriptions: one of a white candidate and one of a non-white candidate. Then, they will rate how electable they find each individual candidate. This will all be administered through a survey distributed through MTurk. Around 500 people will be tested to produce statistically significant results if a correlation exists.