Can representation in foreign policy deliberations – in particular, increased female representation – impact deliberators’ support for interstate conflict resolution? While existing work on gender representation in IR suggests that increased female representation should moderate intragroup hawkishness, making conflict resolution more viable, I offer empirical evidence that qualifies this idea, based on a survey experiment on 149 male and 55 female elite Pakistani legislators. Politicians of both sexes were randomly assigned to ‘listen in’ on a hypothetical national security deliberation that was either all-male or gender-mixed. I find that politicians’ decisionmaking in these hypothetical committees was informed simultaneously by notions of committee competence and by inferences about the social desirability of hawkish outcomes in deliberative settings. Specifically, respondents assigned to gender-mixed committees became less supportive of external conflict resolution. I show how different mechanisms accounted for this increased hawkishness for men and women. Female politicians assigned to gender-mixed committees became more conscious and wary of how their participation, the result of increased representation, would be perceived, compelling them to opt for more hawkish policies. Male politicians, in contrast, attempted to overcompensate for the increased visibility of female representation by resorting to greater levels of aggression.

中文翻译：

---

作战室中的性别鹰派：来自巴基斯坦政界人士的证据

外交政策审议中的代表性——特别是女性代表性的增加——是否会影响审议者对解决国家间冲突的支持？虽然国际关系中性别代表性的现有研究表明，增加女性代表性应该缓和群体内的鹰派态度，使冲突解决更加可行，但我根据对 149 名男性和 55 名女性精英巴基斯坦立法者的调查实验，提供了验证这一想法的经验证据。男女政治家被随机分配“监听”假设的国家安全审议，该审议要么是全男性，要么是男女混合。我发现政治家在这些假设的委员会中的决策同时受到委员会能力概念和对审议环境中鹰派结果的社会期望的推论的影响。具体来说，分配到性别混合委员会的受访者不太支持外部冲突解决。我展示了不同的机制是如何解释男性和女性鹰派态度增强的。分配到性别混合委员会的女性政治家变得更加意识到和警惕自己的参与（代表人数增加的结果）将如何被看待，迫使她们选择更加鹰派的政策。相比之下，男性政治家试图通过采取更大程度的侵略性来过度补偿女性代表性的提高。