Psychology
Gender, Candidate Selection, and the Gender Gap in Political Ambition
Quick fact
In a landmark 2001 study, Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox found that women are less likely than men to even consider running for office, driven partly by lower self-perceived qualifications—women often wait until they feel highly qualified, while men run when they feel merely encouraged.
Why this is interesting
Why do so few women run for office—even when they have similar credentials to men? The answer lies not just in who is chosen, but in who even decides to step forward.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Gender, Candidate Selection, and the Gender Gap in Political Ambition
Think of political office as a multi-stage funnel. First, a person must have the ambition to consider running—this is the 'nascent' stage. Then they must decide to actually run. Finally, they must be selected by a party or primary voters. The gender gap in political ambition appears at the very first stage: fewer women than men express or even consider interest in candidacy. This gap is not due to lack of ability or credentials; rather, it stems from how women and men perceive their own qualifications and future success. For example, in a study of 'potential candidates', women were less likely to believe they were qualified to run, and they were more hesitant to fundraise or throw their hat into the ring. This is the 'self-perception' mechanism: women apply higher standards to themselves. Meanwhile, the 'recruitment' mechanism matters too—men in that study were more likely to be asked to run by party elites or friends. So the funnel narrows early: fewer women enter the pool, and those who do are often not invited as often.
A deeper explanation
The gender gap in political ambition is a layered mechanism with three interacting parts. First, socialized self-perception: because of gendered socialization, women are less likely to exhibit 'assertiveness' and 'risk-taking' in political settings, and they underestimate their own qualifications. Research shows that even when women and men have identical resumes, women are more likely to say they are not qualified. Second, recruitment and selection: party gatekeepers—often male-dominated—tend to recruit from networks and in ways that overlook women. When parties use closed, informal selection processes, they rely on existing connections, which disadvantages women. In contrast, more formalized, open selection processes reduce gendered gatekeeping. Third, the ambition feedback loop: when few women run, role models are scarce, which further diminishes other women's sense of 'possible selves' in politics. This feedback loop sustains the gap even when structural barriers are removed. Understanding this mechanism matters because it shows that simply 'making politics available' is not enough; the psychological and institutional filters must be addressed. Policies such as recruitment drives, mentorship, and transparent selection criteria can widen the funnel, but only if they confront the unconscious biases that shape who is seen as a serious candidate.