In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Jack Wippell, covers the new article by Gregory Eady and Anne Rasmussen, “Gendered Perceptions and the Costs of Political Toxicity.”
Is political toxicity— such as online hostility, abuse and intimidation— just a cost of doing business in modern democracy, or does it weigh more heavily on some groups than others? In their new article, Gregory Eady and Anne Rasmussen examine the gendered nature of political toxicity. Their findings identify a troubling pattern: women politicians may not only face more frequent toxicity but also bear a greater burden in how this toxicity is perceived, understood, and endured.
Eady and Rasmussen’s research focuses on two aspects of toxicity: its frequency and its perceived severity. While earlier studies have documented that women politicians are disproportionately targeted by online toxicity, this study goes further by asking how these attacks are understood by both politicians and citizens. The researchers argue that toxicity aimed at women is perceived as more severe because it is often attributed to prejudice or efforts to delegitimize their place in politics.
To test this, the authors conducted large-scale experiments across four democracies: the United States, Denmark, Belgium, and Chile. In the first experiment, they presented participants with two fictitious Twitter exchanges, with posts from politicians and negative responses to these messages. Participants were then asked to rate which interaction was more toxic. Central to the experiment, they varied both the gender of the politician and responder account, and whether the message explicitly referenced gender.
The results were clear: respondents overwhelmingly perceived toxic messages targeting women as more severe than those directed at men, even if the toxic messages themselves are the same. This perception was consistent across countries, genders, and political ideologies. Moreover, the effect was stronger when the toxic messages explicitly referenced the politician’s gender or when the sender was a man.
Why, then, do people perceive toxicity aimed at women as more harmful? Eady and Rasmussen designed a second experiment to probe the motives attributed to those who send toxic messages. Respondents were asked whether they believed the toxicity stemmed from policy disagreements, personal dislike, or prejudice. The findings showed that attacks on women were far more likely to be seen as driven by prejudice or a desire to push women out of politics. In contrast, otherwise equivalent attacks on men were more often attributed to differences in opinions on policy between a perpetrator and a politician.
“Citizens who see women targeted with toxicity may further internalize the idea that politics is an unwelcoming space for women, perpetuating gender imbalances in representation.”This distinction has substantial implications. Perceptions of motive matter because they shape how we understand the harm caused by toxic behavior. When toxicity is seen as rooted in prejudice, its effects are not just personal but structural, reinforcing existing barriers for women in politics.
The study also highlights the far-reaching consequences of this double burden. For women already in office, the perception of toxicity as prejudice-driven can exacerbate the psychological toll, making them less likely to continue their political careers. For women considering entering politics, witnessing such toxicity—particularly when framed as an attempt to delegitimize women’s presence in public life— can act as a deterrent. Eady and Rasmussen also note that the broader public is affected. Citizens who see women targeted with toxicity may further internalize the idea that politics is an unwelcoming space for women, perpetuating gender imbalances in representation.
At its core, the study raises a pressing question for democracies worldwide: how can we ensure that politics remains an inclusive space for all? Toxicity, as the authors demonstrate, is not just a personal attack—it’s a structural barrier that undermines equality and representation. Addressing it requires not only recognizing its disproportionate effects on women but also taking concrete steps to create a more equitable political landscape.
- Jack Wippell is a PhD Student in the Department of Sociology at The Ohio State University. His research interests cover political sociology, social movements, and culture, and his current focus is on the emergence, spread and mobilization of far-right extremism across the United States and Europe. He also has interests at the intersection of computational and qualitative methodologies.
- BONILLA, TABITHA. 2024. “Gendered Perceptions and the Costs of Political Toxicity.” . American Political Science Review, 1–17.
- About the APSA Public Scholarship Program.