What Do Women in Politics Represent? The Moderating Role of Sexism in the Relationship Between Ideological Positioning and Normativity in Support of a Female Candidate

Abstract

Increasing women’s political representation is key to advancing gender equality worldwide. This article addresses challenges related to this issue and investigates the impact of ideological positioning and normativity on support for a candidate, analysing the moderating role of sexism in this relationship in Brazil and Spain. The study was conducted using an experimental design. In Brazil, the 185 participants had a mean age of 27.34 years (SD = 9.06), and 52.5% were female. In Spain, the 185 participants were also mostly female (49.7%) with a mean age of 21.22 years (SD = 6.3). The results indicate that ideological positioning is the main determinant of support, in Brazil, F(1,181) = 25, p < .001, ηp² = .12, with more support to the left-wing candidate (M = 3.78, SD = 0.122) compared to the right-wing candidate (M = 2.91, SD = 0.123) and in Spain, F(1,181) = 98.83, p < .001, ηp² = .353, with the left-wing candidate (M = 3.80, SD = 0.093) also receiving more support than the right-wing candidate (M = 2.49, SD = 0.094). Unlike in Spain, the Brazilian sample shows that participants’ ideology is also related to normativity in determining support. Additionally, the results indicate a moderating role of sexism in this relationship, particularly in Brazil. This raises the question of what women in politics actually represent, given the impact of these variables, which, as factors underlying discrimination, may also be related to Brazil’s slower progress towards gender equality in politics.

Keywords

women

politics

gender roles

ideology

benevolent sexism

female

gender equality

References

Bailon Garcia, L. H. (2011). Izquierdas y derechas, modelo ideológico y teoría del votante medio. Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales, 12, 1–5. https://www.eumed.net/rev/cccss/16/lhbc.html

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Batista Pereira, F. (2023). Electoral rules and voter bias against female candidates in Brazilian congressional elections. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 33(1), 22–40.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1806287

Bellido-Pérez, E., & Gordillo-Rodríguez, M. T. (2022). Elementos para la construcción del escenario del candidato político en Instagram. El caso de las elecciones generales del 28 de abril de 2019 en España. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 28(1), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.5209/esmp.75870

Borges, A., & Vidigal, R. (2018). Do lulismo ao antipetismo? Polarização, partidarismo e voto nas eleições presidenciais brasileiras. Opinião Pública, 24(1), 53–89. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-0191201824153

Brescoll, V. L., Okimoto, T. G., & Vial, A. C. (2018). You’ve come a long way… maybe: How moral emotions trigger backlash against women leaders. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12261

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2016). Women face a labyrinth: An examination of metaphors for women leaders. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(8), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2015-0007

Cassese, E. C., & Holman, M. R. (2019). Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 US presidential race. Political Psychology, 40(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12492

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and G. Lindzy (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill. Connor, R. A., Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Ambivalent sexism in the twenty-first century. In C. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 295–320). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.013

Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2012). Resolução nº 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012: Diretrizes e normas regulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Ministério da Saúde.

https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/cns/2013/res0466_12_12_2012.html

Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2016). Resolução nº 510, de 7 de abril de 2016: Normas aplicáveis a pesquisas em Ciências Humanas e Sociais. Ministério da Saúde.

https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/cns/2016/res0510_07_04_2016.html

Costa, L. L. A., Diniz, F. C. O. R., Torres, A. R. R., & Estramiana, J. L. Á. (2022). Representações sociais da mulher na literatura científica: uma reviso sistemática. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 22(3), 998–1020. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2022.69799

Eagly, A. H. (2018). Some leaders come from nowhere: Their success is uneven. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12263

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000002

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.125

Expósito, F., Moya, M. C., & Glick, P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: medición y correlatos. Revista de Psicología Social, 13(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641

Fontenelle, A., Tostes, A. L., & Barbosa, A. K. (2025). Mães de Instagram: mobilizações da maternidade por candidatas às eleições de 2022. Revista Anômalas, 5(1), 227–250.

Formiga, N. S., Gouveia, V. V., & Santos, M. N. D. (2002). Inventário de sexismo ambivalente: sua adaptação e relação com o gênero. Psicologia em Estudo, 7(1), 103–111.

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-73722002000100013

García-Blanco, I., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2012). discursive construction of women politicians in the European press. Feminist Media Studies, 12(3), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2011.615636

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56(7), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3

Hessami, Z., & da Fonseca, M. L. (2020). Female political representation and substantive effects on policies: A literature review. European Journal of Political Economy, 63, 101896.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101896

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038

Koch, L., Ghawi, R., Pfeffer, J., & Steinert, J. I. (2025). Online misogyny against female candidates in the 2022 Brazilian elections: a threat to women’s political representation? Information, Communication & Society, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2551604

Pérez, L. C., de Oger, S. A. S., & Fortes, B. G. (2023). Ideology and party positions on gender issues in Spain: Evidence from a novel data set. Politics & Gender, 19(4), 1204–1230.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000338

Piazza, J. A., & O’Rourke, L. (2025). Hostile sexism, social dominance orientation, political illiberalism, and support for political violence in the United States. Politics & Gender, 21(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X24000400

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629

Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 167–227.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00004-4

Santana, A., & Aguilar, S. (2019). Bringing Party Ideology Back In: Do Left-Wing Parties Enhance the Share of Women MPs? Politics & Gender, 15(3), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X1800048X

Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040

Suppes, A. (2020). Do women need to have children in order to be fulfilled? A system justification account of the motherhood norm. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 999–1010.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620909728

Szekeres, H., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T. (2023). The mother of violations: Motherhood as the primary expectation of women. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(4), 1875–1896. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12661

Viana, H. A., Torres, A. R. R., & Estramiana, J. L. A. (2020). Egalitarian men: Stereotypes and discrimination. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 23(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2020.23.2.6

World Economic Forum (WEF). (2025). Global Gender Gap - Insight Report.

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025/digest/

Citations

Citations in Crossref

Citations in Scopus

Google Sholar Citation

Citations in Europe PMC