The Effects of Militarized Interstate Disputes on Incumbent Voting Across Genders

Gender and politics research argues that men are more hawkish and supportive of militarized confrontations with foreign foes, while women ostensibly prefer more diplomatic approaches. This suggests that, after a militarized confrontation with a foreign power, women’s likelihood of voting for the inc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPolitical behavior Vol. 41; no. 4; pp. 975 - 999
Main Authors Singh, Shane P., Tir, Jaroslav
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Springer Science + Business Media 01.12.2019
Springer US
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Disputes
Elections
Hostility
International conflict
ORIGINAL PAPER
Political Science
Political Science and International Relations
Political Science and International Studies
Sociology
Voter behavior
Voting
Voting behavior
Gender
Rally
Conflict
Diversion
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Gender and politics research argues that men are more hawkish and supportive of militarized confrontations with foreign foes, while women ostensibly prefer more diplomatic approaches. This suggests that, after a militarized confrontation with a foreign power, women’s likelihood of voting for the incumbent will both decrease and be lower than that of men. Our individual-level, cross-national examinations cover 87 elections in 40 countries, 1996–2011, and show only some support for such notions. Women punish incumbents when their country is targeted in a low-hostility militarized interstate dispute (MID) or when their country is the initiator of a highhostility MID. The low-hostility MID initiation and high-hostility MID targeting scenarios, meanwhile, prompt women to be more likely to vote for the incumbent. Importantly, men’s reactions rarely differ from women’s, casting doubt on the existence of a gender gap in electoral responses to international conflict.
ISSN:0190-9320
1573-6687
DOI:10.1007/s11109-018-9479-z