Which ingroup, when? Effects of gender, partisanship, veteran status, and evaluator identities on candidate evaluations

Abstract

Military service is acknowledged as one of many elements voters use to evaluate candidates, but it has primarily been studied as a univariate element of a candidate’s biography. This project experimentally manipulates veteran status, gender, and partisanship as potentially interactive heuristics for evaluation of a hypothetical candidate specifically regarding military issues. We found an almost universal benefit enjoyed by veterans over civilians regardless of whether the candidate was a member of the participant’s partisan ingroup or outgroup. We also found little evidence of a gender penalty, and even a benefit for women candidates who were veterans, though this benefit was restricted to evaluations from Republican women. We also found that Democratic respondents assigned a penalty to outgroup veteran men candidates. We explain these nuanced findings in the context of moderation by gender mis/alignment between participant and candidate. Implications of the study are offered.