Education is a field where several gender gaps exist or are likely to exist. But it’s not the only field. In politics, men can be overrepresented, and women can be underrepresented. Yes, both mean the same thing, but according to a new study, the effect on people can be very different.

From the press release:

To many, Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 presidential election was a sobering reminder of a larger and continuous gender gap across leadership positions in not only government, but also in business, higher education, and the military. A majority of Americans recognize the inadequacy of female representation in leadership, and the news media often portray women’s underrepresentation in these roles — but it nonetheless persists.

Recognizing that news coverage may have influence in forming attitudes and in driving action, a team of psychology researchers examined, through a series of experiments, whether reframing this gender gap in terms of “men’s overrepresentation” — rather than as “women’s underrepresentation” — would have an impact on perceptions of the issue and on motivations to address it.

Its findings showed that framing the gap as “men’s overrepresentation” — as opposed to “women’s underrepresentation” — in political leadership elicited more anger at the disparity among women and increased perceptions that the gap is unjust. Moreover, the results showed that anger at the disparity leads women to take action to address it.

“While most Americans acknowledge that gender diversity in leadership is important, framing the gender gap as women’s underrepresentation may desensitize the public,” says Emily Balcetis, an associate professor of psychology at New York University and an author of the paper, which appears in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. “For many, taking the same statistics, like that 29% of Congress is female, but reframing the issue as men’s overrepresentation, by saying instead that 71% of Congress is male, elicits stronger emotional responses and spurs people to do something to increase access to leadership for men and women.”

However, the researchers add that the men’s overrepresentation framing had some limitations. One, its impact did not apply to business leadership among both men and women and, two, among men, this messaging did not increase anger at the disparity.

Nonetheless, the study’s authors, who also included NYU Psychology Professor Madeline Heilman, see the overall findings as a way to address a long-standing issue.

“Our society benefits when we have women as well as men as leaders in politics and business,” observes Rachel Godsil, a professor at Rutgers Law School, co-founder of Perception Institute, and one of the paper’s authors. “It is crucial that we can all be confident that no one is shut out of leadership positions because of their gender.”

Method

In a series of experimental studies, participants read mock news articles that were based on real-world data on the gender gap in politics and in business. The articles were manipulated to adopt different frames: the gap was couched as either women’s underrepresentation or men’s overrepresentation, with the underlying facts remaining constant.

The experiments then measured the participants’ responses under each condition. These included expressed anger at the gender gap in business and politics as well as willingness to support a piece of federal legislation — Women’s Global Empowerment, Development, and Prosperity Act of 2020 — which was moving through congressional committees in the Senate at the time of the study. Participants also had the option of writing a letter to their congressional representative indicating their reaction to the bill, with the researchers tracking whether or not these letters supported or opposed the legislation.

The researchers also measured participants’ stated willingness to address this leadership gap more broadly — by writing social-media posts, by taking action despite material or relationship costs (e.g., taking action that could harm future job prospects), or by donating to programs aimed at confronting this discrepancy. In addition, participants had an opportunity to read an article reporting on strategies to reduce gender disparity in leadership — a methodological element designed to gauge interest in this issue.

Results

The mock stories that framed the gender gap as men’s overrepresentation in political leadership elicited more anger at the disparity among women — but not among men — than did those that framed the gap as women’s underrepresentation. However, this effect was not found among either women or men for business leadership stories.

In addition, women’s anger at the disparity — regardless of how the gap was framed in the mock news stories — was associated with several behaviors. These included participants spending more time reading stories on how to change the status quo, writing stronger letters to their congressional representative supporting proposed legislation addressing gender disparity, and a stronger expressed desire to donate to gender-bias reduction programs.

“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, an NYU doctoral student at the time of the study and now at Cornell University.

Abstract of the study:

Efforts to promote women in leadership have led to some high profile successes, yet unequal representation of women and men in such positions persists. The media often portrays the gap as women’s underrepresentation. We examine whether reframing this gap as men’s overrepresentation elicits greater anger and increases intentions and behaviors to remediate the disparity. In a meta-analysis of three pilot experiments (Studies 1a-1c), framing the gap as men’s overrepresentation in political (but not business) leadership elicits more anger at the disparity among women perceivers (but not men) and increases perceptions that the gap is unjust. Moreover, we find that anger at the disparity predicts stronger intentions and numerous behaviors to redress the inequality, such as reading more on how change the status quo (Study 1a), writing stronger letters supporting proposed legislation addressing gender disparity (Study 1b), and stronger desire to donate to gender bias reduction programs (Study 1a-1c). In a registered experiment (Study 2) we replicated these findings: men’s overrepresentation framing increases women’s anger at the gender gap in political leadership and mediates the association between framing and collective action supporting gender parity. We also find only weak evidence that a change in framing elicits a backlash anger response at the rhetorical framing itself. Moreover, making salient the ways in which the social climate is either hostile or sympathetic to women’s causes does not moderate the framing effect. Overall, this work suggests that demographic framing influences emotional and behavioral responses to the gender gap in political leadership.