Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Two experiments tested whether male and female political speakers in the United States are judged differently when they use verbal attacks. Participants read eight short excerpts of political speeches, half of which contained character and competence attacks (the other half without such attacks), and half of which were attributed to a female speaker (the other half a male speaker), and rated these in terms of agreement with the message, and perceptions of credibility, appropriateness, and aggressiveness. In both experiments, messages containing verbally aggressive attacks resulted in less perceived credibility and appropriateness, and these negative effects were consistent regardless of the speaker’s gender. In Experiment 1, women tended to penalize aggressive speakers more so than did men, suggesting the men are less sensitive to verbal aggression in their evaluations of political speakers. However, women tended to perceive non-aggressive female speakers as more aggressive than male speakers. Most of these interaction effects were not replicated in Experiment 2.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aalberg, Toril, and Anders Todal Jenssen
    2007 “Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates: An Experimental Study of Political Communication.” Nordicom Review28: 17–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson, and D. M. Bates
    2008 “Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items.” Journal of Memory and Language59: 390–412.10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandwart, Mary C.
    2010 “Gender and Candidate Communication: Effects of Stereotypes in the 2008 Election.” American Behavioral Scientist54: 265–283.10.1177/0002764210381702
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210381702 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benoit, William L., and William T. Wells
    1996Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz
    2012 “Evaluating Online Labor markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20: 351–368.10.1093/pan/mpr057
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057 [Google Scholar]
  6. Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling
    2011 “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science6: 3–5.10.1177/1745691610393980
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells
    2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology31: 30–48.10.1177/0261927X11425034
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425034 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burgoon, Michael, and R. S. Klingle
    1998 “Gender Differences in Being Influential and/or Influenced: A Challenge to Prior Explanations.” InSex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interactionedited byDaniel J. Canary and Kathryn Dindia, 257–285. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cameron, Deborah
    2003 “Gender and Language Ideologies.” InThe Handbook of Language and Gender, edited byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 447–467. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756942.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carli, Linda L.
    2001 “Gender and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues57: 725–741.10.1111/0022‑4537.00238
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00238 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carraro, Luciana, and Luigi Castelli
    2010 “The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed?” Political Psychology31: 617–645.10.1111/j.1467‑9221.2010.00771.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00771.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Carraro, Luciana, Bertram Gawronski, and Luigi Castelli
    2010 “Losing on All Fronts: The Effects of Negative versus Positive Person-based Campaigns on Implicit and Explicit Evaluations of Political Candidates.” The British Journal of Social Psychology49: 453–470.10.1348/014466609X468042
    https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X468042 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlin, Diana B., and Kelly L. Winfrey
    2009 “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies60: 326–343.10.1080/10510970903109904
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903109904 [Google Scholar]
  14. Center for American Women and Politics
    Center for American Women and Politics 2016 “Women in Elective Office 2016.” AccessedJanuary 24, 2017. www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2016.
  15. Chang, Chingching, and Jacqueline C. Bush Hitchon
    2004 “When Does Gender Count? Further Insights into Gender Schematic Processing of Female Candidates’ Political Advertisements.” Sex Roles51: 197–208.10.1023/B:SERS.0000037763.47986.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000037763.47986.c2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dinzes, Deborah, Michael D. Cozzens, and George G. Manross
    1994 “The Role of Gender in ‘Attack Ads’: Revisiting Negative Political Advertising.” Communication Research Reports11: 67–75.10.1080/08824099409359942
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359942 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dolan, Kathleen
    2014When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates & Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199968275.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199968275.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Downs, Valerie C., Linda L. Kaid, and Sandra Ragan
    1990 “The Impact of Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression on Communicator Image: The Exchange between George Bush and Dan Rather.” Western Journal of Speech Communication54: 99–112.10.1080/10570319009374327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319009374327 [Google Scholar]
  19. Edwards, Chad, and Scott A. Myers
    2007 “Perceived Instructor Credibility as a Function of Instructor Aggressive Communication.” Communication Research Reports26: 47–53.10.1080/08824090601128141
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090601128141 [Google Scholar]
  20. Georgalidou, Marianthi
    2017 “Addressing Women in the Greek Parliament: Institutionalized Confrontation or Sexist Aggression.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict5 (1): 30–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Joanna Everitt
    2003 “Talking Tough: Gender and Reported Speech in Campaign News Coverage.” Political Communication20: 209–232.10.1080/10584600390218869
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390218869 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodwin-Harness, Marjorie
    2006The Hidden Life of Girls. Games of Stance, Status and Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9780470773567
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773567 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gordon, Ann, and Jerry L. Miller
    2005When Stereotypes Collide: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Videostyle in Congressional Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gordon, Ann, David M. Shafie, and Ann N. Crigler
    2003 “Is Negative Advertising Effective for Female Candidates? An Experiment in Voters’ Use of Gender Stereotypes.” Press/Politics8: 35–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Herrnson, Paul S., and Jennifer C. Lucas
    2006 “The Fairer Sex? Gender and Negative Campaigning in U.S. Elections.” American Politics Research34: 69–94.10.1177/1532673X05278038
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05278038 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hitchon, Jacqueline C., and Chingching Chang
    1995 “Effects of Gender Schematic Processing on the Reception of Political Commercials for Men and Women Candidates.” Communication Research22: 430–458.10.1177/009365095022004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365095022004003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hitchon, Jacqueline C., Chingching Chang, and Rhonda Harris
    1997 “Should Women Emote? Perceptual Bias and Opinion Change in Response to Political Ads for Candidates of Different Genders.” Political Communication14: 49–69.10.1080/105846097199533
    https://doi.org/10.1080/105846097199533 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyde, Janet S.
    2005 “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis.” American Psychologist60: 581–592.10.1037/0003‑066X.60.6.581
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007 “New Directions in the Study of Gender Similarities and Differences.” Current Directions in Psychological Science16: 259–263.10.1111/j.1467‑8721.2007.00516.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00516.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Infante, Dominic A.
    1987 “Aggression.” InPersonality and interpersonal communication, edited byJames C. McCroskey and John A. Daly, 157–192. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Infante, Dominic A., Karen C. Hartley, Matthew M. Martin, Mary Anne Higgins, Stephen D. Bruning, and Gyeongho Hur
    1992 “Initiating and Reciprocating Verbal Aggression: Effects on Credibility and Credited Valid Arguments.” Communication Studies43: 182–190.10.1080/10510979209368370
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979209368370 [Google Scholar]
  33. Infante, Dominic A., and Andrew S. Rancer
    1996 “Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness: A Review of Theory and Research.” InCommunication Yearbook, Vol.19, edited byD. Burleson, 319–351. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Infante, Dominic A., and Charles J. Wigley III
    1986 “Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure.” Communication Monographs53: 61–69.10.1080/03637758609376126
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376126 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
    1983 “Generalizing About Messages: Suggestions for Design and Analysis of Experiments.” Human Communication Research9: 169–191.10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1983.tb00691.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00691.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Jordan-Jackson, Felicia F., Yang Lin, Andrew S. Rancer, and Dominic A. Infante
    2008 “Perceptions of Males’ and Females’ Use of Affirming and Nonaffirming Messages in an Interpersonal Dispute: You’ve Come a Long Way Baby?” Western Journal of Communication72: 239–258.10.1080/10570310802210122
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310802210122 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kathlene, Lyn
    1994 “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” The American Political Science Review88: 560–576.10.2307/2944795
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2944795 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper
    2004Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, and Ivy B. Rovner
    2007 “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics69: 1176–1209.10.1111/j.1468‑2508.2007.00618.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Mason, Winter, and Siddharth Suri
    2012 “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods44: 1–23.10.3758/s13428‑011‑0124‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. McElhinny, Bonnie
    1998 “‘I Don’t Smile Much Any More’: Affect, Gender and the Discourse of Pittsburgh Police Officers.” InLanguage and Gender: A Reader, edited byJennifer Coates, 309–327. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McCroskey, James C., and Jason J. Teven
    1999 “Goodwill: A Reexamination of the Construct and Its Measurement.” Communication Monographs66: 90–103.10.1080/03637759909376464
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nau, Charlotte, and Craig O. Stewart
    2014 “Effects of Verbal Aggression and Party Identification Bias on Perceptions of Political Speakers.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology33: 526–536.10.1177/0261927X13512486
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13512486 [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Keefe, Daniel
    2002Persuasion: Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Paxton, Pamela, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes
    2007 “Gender in Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology33: 263–284.10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651 [Google Scholar]
  46. Seiter, John S., and Robert H. Gass
    2010 “Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts.” InArguments, Aggression, and Conflict: New Directions in Theory and Research, edited byTheodore A. Avtgis and Andrew S. Rancer, 217–240. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Shaw, Sylvia
    2006 “Governed by Rules?: The Female Voice in Parliamentary Debates.” InSpeaking Out: The Female Voice in Public Contexts, edited byJudith Baxter, 81–102. New York, NY: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Talbot, Mary
    2003 “Gender Stereotypes: Reproduction and Challenge.” InThe Handbook of Language and Gender, edited byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 468–486. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756942.ch20
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  49. Weiner, Rachel
    2012 “Todd Akin: Claire McCaskill Was More ‘Ladylike’ in 2006.” The Washington Post, September27. AccessedJanuary 24, 2017. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/09/27/akin-mccaskill-was-more-ladylike-in-2006/
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): experiment; gender; language; politics; verbal aggression
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error