Role Congruence Meets Feminist Identity: Disaggregating Causes of the Double Bind on Women Political Candidates

Studies in social psychology and political science have noted the negative impact of the "double bind" facing women leaders and candidates, which suggest that women must demonstrate both masculine and feminine attributes in order to achieve the same success men can achieve by demonstrating only masculine attributes. Less attention has focused on how feminist identity conditions these evaluations. We focus on whether individuals’ evaluations of men and women are affected by: 1) the gendered attributes associated with a candidate; and 2) feminist identity. Using data from an original survey experiment in the US, we investigate the relationship between respondent feminist self-identification and their evaluation of a candidate’s electability. We find that respondents who identify as feminists evaluate women, feminine, and role incongruent men candidates more positively than non-feminists. Our results suggest that feminism can neutralize some aspects of role incongruity and provide a potential boost to non-traditional leadership candidates.