Civility isn’t gender equality’s friend in televised political discussions, where women typically speak less and are shown less respect than men, according to a new study of gendered conversational norms co-authored by a University of Massachusetts Amherst researcher.

The research, published in The Journal of Politics, shows that debate-style programs broadcast on major U.S. networks—where pundits clash over issues in often adversarial exchanges—paradoxically create the best conditions for women to speak up. On male-dominated panels, women are often treated as intruders in a “boys’ club.” They’re interrupted more and speak less. But when women make up a larger share of these panels—especially in combative settings—they talk more and get interrupted less.

“Our study shows that even ‘professional talkers’ with strong incentives to maximize their airtime experience gendered conversational norms,” says Kelsey Shoub, assistant professor of public policy at UMass Amherst.

But there’s a twist. On more “cooperative” shows—programs that aim for consensus and civil discourse—the dynamics shift. While there is no difference in how much men and women talk regardless of who is in the majority, there are actually more interruptions with more women on the panel. Further, it appears to be male guests driving this pattern, which is also seen on majoritarian shows. In other words, in polite conversations—and as men become the minority—some men hijack the mic.

The study analyzed over 6,000 panel discussions aired on ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and Fox News between 2000 and 2017. Researchers coded relative speaking time and interruptions for more than 226,000 individual speech turns. They measured participation parity by calculating the ratio of words spoken by women to those spoken by men in each discussion. Respect was gauged by the rate at which individuals were interrupted.

The dataset’s size also strengthens the findings, allowing researchers to control for personal characteristics—including studying the same guests in different contexts—and isolate the effects of gender dynamics and show format.

The authors note that these shows model political behavior for the public. Viewers aren’t just learning about policy—they’re learning who deserves to speak. And if women are routinely cut off or talked over, that message reverberates far beyond the studio.

“Our findings imply that women are particularly disadvantaged when they appear on debate-driven, rather than consensus-oriented, shows and when most of their co-contributors are men, a common occurrence in today’s media environment,” Shoub notes.

In turn, the study suggests better moderation, more balanced representation and reassessing what “good TV” looks like could go a long way toward promoting gender equality in front of the camera and more broadly.