Theoretical work predicts symbolic benefits when institutions are gender-inclusive, yet empirical findings are inconsistent. This article argues that a key reason for mixed results is that many Americans misperceive how well women are represented. By focusing on variation in citizens' beliefs about women's inclusion, the analysis links those perceptions to feelings about legislative institutions.

🔍 What Was Measured and How:

• Survey questions capturing respondents' beliefs about women's representation.
• Attitudinal outcomes focused on external political efficacy toward Congress and state legislatures.
• Panel data used to observe how changes in beliefs relate to changes in efficacy over time.

📊 Key Findings:

• Believing that women are included in representative institutions is associated with higher external efficacy for both men and women.
• When panel respondents' underestimations of women's inclusion are corrected, their external efficacy increases.
• When respondents' overestimations are corrected, their external efficacy decreases.
• These patterns appear for evaluations of both Congress and state legislatures.

🔁 Evidence From Changes Over Time:

Panel analyses track respondents before and after belief corrections, showing that shifts in perceived inclusion correspond to shifts in external efficacy. This temporal evidence helps clarify the link between descriptive representation perceptions and institutional evaluations.

💡 Why It Matters:

• Misperceptions about women's representation help explain prior mixed empirical results on the symbolic benefits of descriptive representation.
• The findings refine understanding of when and how Americans use descriptive representation as a cue in evaluating the institutions that represent them, with implications for research on representation and for how institutions communicate about inclusiveness.