It’s well-known that women are underrepresented in political leadership. Now, a new study highlights how we frame this problem can impact public attitudes. The research reveals that framing the gender disparity as “men’s overrepresentation” rather than “women’s underrepresentation” can provoke stronger emotional reactions and motivate action—at least among women.
The research, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and conducted by researchers at New York University, involved a series of experiments that included over 10,000 participants. Participants read mock news articles based on real-world data on the gender gap in leadership in politics and business. Half of the participants read articles that framed the gap as women’s underrepresentation, and half read the same article framed as men’s overrepresentation. Both versions presented the same underlying facts.
The researchers determined that framing the gender gap in political leadership as an outcome of men’s overrepresentation—such as emphasizing that 71% of Congress is male rather than noting that 29% is female—elicited greater anger among women and heightened perceptions of injustice. In turn, this anger made women more likely to take action, from writing letters to lawmakers to supporting initiatives aimed at reducing gender bias.
In particular, participants were given the opportunity to write their representatives regarding the Women’s Global Empowerment, Development and Prosperity Act of 2020, which was under consideration in Congress at the time of the study. Women who became angry after reading about men’s overrepresentation wrote longer letters to their Congressional representatives. These women also showed greater interest in reading about strategies to reduce gender inequality and expressed stronger intentions to donate to related programs.
Why did women feel more motivated to take action after reading about men’s overrepresentation in politics? While the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer, the researchers suggest two intriguing possibilities. First, women may have become desensitized to the frequent narratives about their underrepresentation. Reframing the problem may have shifted attention back to it, prompting women to notice the imbalance with fresh eyes. In other words, the reframing may have made the issue feel urgent and actionable again, inspiring them to take steps toward change.
Another possibility is that people often attribute the cause of a situation to the most obvious factor, even if it isn’t wholly accurate. “Thus, framing the gender gap in leadership as men’ s overrepresentation rather than women’s underrepresentation may shift focus onto men and hence change judgments of culpability,” the authors write in their research paper.
Indeed, prior research has found that framing gender inequality in leadership as “women’s underrepresentation” increases the likelihood that the problem is attributed to women’s lack of effort or interest. However, when it’s framed as “men’s overrepresentation,” men and gender biases favoring men are more likely to be seen as causing the disparity.
The research also revealed some limitations to the men’s overrepresentation framing. While it increased women’s anger at political disparities, it had no impact on men’s reactions. Men “did not seem to show a change in anger at the gender gap across framing conditions, perhaps because they defensively downplayed the existence of bias and discrimination when reminded that their group was overrepresented in leadership,” the researchers write in the paper.
The reframing also had no significant effect in the context of business leadership. When participants read articles about gender disparities in the leadership of Fortune 500 companies, they reacted the same regardless of how the problem was framed. The researchers proposed a few possible reasons for this outcome. First, the gender gap in Fortune 500 leadership might not feel relevant to those outside the business world. People may also believe it’s more important for political leadership to reflect the demographic makeup of society. Finally, the researchers note that gender gaps in political leadership may seem more changeable, explaining in the paper, “Political leadership is elected by constituents, whereas business leadership is typically appointed by boards of a select few individuals.”
Despite ongoing concerns about women’s underrepresentation in political leadership, the problem persists. There are still 16 states that have never been represented by a female U.S. senator, and 18 states still have yet to elect a woman as governor. The new research is significant because its reframing approach motivates women to take action, potentially driving meaningful change.
As a result, we should say there is a men’s overrepresentation problem in politics. There are still 16 states that have only been represented by male U.S. senators and 18 that have had exclusively male governors. “Framing the gender gap in politics as due to men’s advantages—in this case, men’s overrepresentation—as opposed to women’s disadvantages—their underrepresentation—not only affects how women view this concern but also prompts action to combat it,” concludes lead author Usman Liaquat, currently a postdoctoral associate at Cornell University, in a press release.