Gender Attitudes and Candidate Preferences in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary and General Elections

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Meri T. Long ◽  
Ryan Dawe ◽  
Elizabeth Suhay
Keyword(s):  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Traditional Gender Roles ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Electoral Choice ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Scholars increasingly recognize that voters’ attitudes about gender shape their electoral preferences. Yet previous research has not captured important nuances of the relationship between gender attitudes and electoral choice. We argue that the effects of gender attitudes are not unidirectional and interact in complex ways with voters’ perceptions of candidates, depending not only on candidates’ sex but also on their gender-relevant characteristics and values. We draw on an original survey of Americans during the 2016 elections that measured three gender attitudes—hostile sexism, modern sexism, and traditional gender roles—and evaluations of primary and general election candidates. Our study design increases analytical leverage by examining actual and hypothetical candidate matchups. We find that among Democrats, hostile sexists were drawn to Bernie Sanders, but gender traditionalists preferred Hillary Clinton. Our results also suggest that if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, gender egalitarians would have strongly supported him over Donald Trump, as they did Clinton.

Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Willingness To Engage

In three studies conducted over the course of 2016 US presidential campaign we examined the relationship between radicalism of a political candidate and willingness to engage in actions for that candidate. Drawing on significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al., 2018), we predicted that people would be more willing to make large sacrifices for radical (vs. moderate) candidates because the cause of radical candidates would be more personally important and engagement on behalf it would be more psychologically rewarding. We tested these predictions among supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. Our findings were in line with these predictions, as the more followers perceived their candidates as radical, the more they viewed leaders’ ideas as personally important, gained more personal significance from those ideas, and intended to sacrifice more for the leader.

scholarly journals Candidate Ideology and Vote Choice in the 2020 US Presidential Election

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Broockman ◽  
Joshua Kalla
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
General Election ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Voter Information ◽  
Us Presidential Election

Canonical theories predict that moderate candidates perform better in general elections, but research emphasizing voters’ partisan loyalties challenges these predictions. The 2020 Democratic Presidential primary represented a unique opportunity to speak to these debates due to relatively high voter information about multiple moderate and extreme candidates running in the same election. We conducted a national survey (n = 40,153) that asked how respondents would choose in a general election between one of the Democratic candidates and Republican Donald Trump. Our evidence is consistent with canonical predictions: respondents are more likely to select Trump when he is against an extreme Democrat than against a moderate Democrat. Republican partisans contribute to moderate candidates’ advantage: ≈2% select Trump against a more extreme Democrat but would not against a more moderate Democrat. One of the extreme candidates, Bernie Sanders, ostensibly challenges canonical predictions by receiving as much support as moderate candidates – but only when assuming (1) young people vote at abnormally high rates and (2) young Democrats who claim they will only vote if Sanders is nominated are answering accurately. These patterns are robust to showing attacks against the candidates and in competitive states. Our findings lend further support to canonical predictions about moderate candidates’ electoral advantages.

scholarly journals The Impact of Sexism on Leadership in Female-Male Climbing Dyads

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Kulich ◽  
Soledad de Lemus ◽  
Pilar Montañés Muro
Keyword(s):  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Gender Ideology ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Women's Leadership ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Traditional Gender Roles ◽  
Leadership Context ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mixed Gender

We investigated how sexism affected leadership in mixed-gender alpine climbing-dyads. We asked whether benevolent sexism would impair, and hostile sexism would increase (as a form of resistance) women’s leadership; and whether benevolent sexism would increase men’s leadership (as a form of paternalism). A correlational study assessed reported leading behaviour of alpine climbers. Then a vignette-based experiment presented climbers with cross-gender targets of which three were sexist (non-feminist), and one feminist (non-sexist) and assessed leading intentions depending on targets’ and participants’ gender attitudes. Findings showed that women endorsing benevolent sexism indicated lower leading intentions with targets expressing benevolent sexism (i.e., benevolent and ambivalent men) as compared to hostile sexist men. Moreover, women’s benevolent sexism negatively affected their leading intentions with men endorsing the same gender ideology. Unexpectedly, women with low endorsement of hostile sexism reported higher leading intentions with a hostile sexist man than an ambivalent one, and with an ambivalent than a benevolent man. Conversely, men intended to lead more with female targets who expressed benevolent sexism, accommodating these women’s expectations. Further, men intended to lead more with ambivalent women, than with women deviating from gender stereotypes (i.e., feminist women, or hostile sexist women - who lack benevolence expected based on gender stereotypes). We conclude that benevolent sexism likely reinforces traditional gender roles in a leadership context when men face women who fit the gender stereotype; and when women are benevolent sexist, themselves. Moreover, low hostile sexist women, confront men’s hostility with higher leading intentions, as a form of resistance.

Rigged-Election Rhetoric: Coverage and Consequences

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby Goidel ◽  
Keith Gaddie ◽  
Spencer Goidel
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Media Bias ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Voter Fraud

ABSTRACTUsing content analysis and original survey data, we investigated the news coverage and consequences of Donald Trump’s “rigged-election” claims during the 2016 presidential election. We added to previous literature by showing that the effects of such claims were highly contingent on individual partisan affiliation. Republicans and Independents who believed that the elections were rigged via voter fraud or media bias were more likely to report that they intended to vote or had already voted. Democrats and Independents who believed that Hillary Clinton would benefit from voter fraud or media bias were more likely to vote for Donald Trump.

You seem like a great candidate, but…: race and gender attitudes and the 2020 democratic primary

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Kjersten Nelson
Keyword(s):  
White Male ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Race And Gender ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Evaluative Criteria ◽  
Racial Resentment ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Significant Attention ◽  
Male Candidate

Abstract The 2020 Democratic presidential primary unfolded in a context with significant attention to issues of racial and gender inequality and identity. The field began as an historically diverse one but a white male candidate received the party's endorsement. Did the race and gender attitudes of Democratic primary and caucus participants play a role in shaping the pool of candidates? Using a survey of self-identified Democrats, this study provides evidence that racial resentment, hostile sexism, and modern sexism enhanced the assessments on several evaluative criteria of the white male candidate, while depressing the assessment of the Black woman candidate. These relationships are driven primarily by white respondents. These findings add to our understanding of how race and gender attitudes affect the electoral process well before the general election, particularly by shaping the ultimate choice of candidates in that contest.

Even Supermoms Get the Blues: Employment, Gender Attitudes, and Depression

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-333
Author(s):  
Katrina Leupp
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Family Role ◽  
Symptoms Of Depression ◽  
Traditional Gender Roles ◽  
Childless Women ◽  
Work Family ◽  
Using Data ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Relationship

This study examines how gender attitudes moderate the relationship between employment and depressive symptoms using data from the 1987 to 2006 waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Cohort. Results indicate that at age 40, the association of employment with reduced symptoms of depression is greatest for mothers who had previously expressed support for traditional gender roles. This finding was robust to controls for prior depressive symptoms. In contrast, the association of employment and depressive symptoms at age 40 does not vary by earlier gender attitudes among childless women. Results suggest that in light of women’s disproportionate share of domestic responsibilities and limited employer supports for parents, skepticism over mothers’ ability to “do it all” may mitigate the stress of work-family role strain and allow mothers with more traditional gender attitudes to receive greater protection against depressive symptoms from employment.

In the Shadow of Trump

2019 ◽  
pp. 62-98
Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright ◽  
Valerie Sperling
Keyword(s):  
Gender Issues ◽  
Tea Party ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Candidate Emergence ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores the impact of presidential primary campaigns on House and Senate primary races, looking at the relationship between presidential and nonpresidential primaries, and evaluating the effect Donald Trump had on candidate emergence and strategy. Few candidates wished to associate themselves with Trump, yet the Republican presidential primary so dominated media and public attention that Republican primary candidates who might have flourished in any other year, such as conservative, Tea Party–style candidates, were unable to garner attention or raise as much money as they might otherwise have. Moreover, even in the handful of primary races featuring so-called “mini-Trumps,” there were few in which attention to gender issues or misogynist rhetoric played a role. The chapter documents these findings by comparing 2016 to prior election years with regard to primary competition, turnout, and spending, and examining congressional primaries in which Republican candidates were overtly compared to or endorsed Donald Trump.

Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election

The Forum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-313
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Barnello ◽  
Rachel Bitecofer ◽  
Quentin Kidd
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Major Party ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Traditional Norms

Abstract The 2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female major party nominee for president created an unprecedented opportunity to test for evidence of explicit sexism in the electorate. Presidential elections normally produce two equally matched nominees with impressive public service resumes who behave similarly on the campaign trail. However, while Democrats were making history nominating the first female nominee, the Republicans also made history by selecting a nominee with no public service experience, a controversial personal background, and conduct that conflicted sharply with traditional norms of presidential candidates. In survey after survey, voters recognized that Clinton held a significant qualification advantage over Donald Trump. Yet, despite the fact that both men and women were more likely to rate Clinton as more qualified than her opponent overall, using an innovative approach via an original survey, we find evidence of implicit sexism in the way that some males evaluated Clinton compared to their female counterparts.

Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 578-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate A. Ratliff ◽  
Liz Redford ◽  
John Conway ◽  
Colin Tucker Smith
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Positive Attitudes

This research investigated the role of gender attitudes in the United States 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The results of three studies (combined N = 2,816) showed that, as expected, Trump voters were higher in hostile and benevolent sexism than were Clinton voters. Even after controlling for political ideology and gender (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and minority group attitudes (Study 3), greater hostile sexism predicted more positive attitudes toward Trump, less positive attitudes toward Clinton, and retrospective reports of having voted for Trump over Clinton (Studies 2 and 3). Benevolent sexism did not predict additional variation in voting behavior beyond political ideology and hostile sexism. These results suggest that political behavior is based on more than political ideology; even among those with otherwise progressive views, overtly antagonistic views of women could be a liability to women—and an asset to men—running for office.

Linked oppression: Connecting animal and gender attitudes

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Allcorn ◽  
Shirley M Ogletree
Keyword(s):  
Gender Roles ◽  
Gender Role ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Traditional Gender Roles ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
Attitudes Toward Animals ◽  
And Gender

Ecofeminists and animal rights advocates have posited a connection between the oppression of women and the oppression of animals. Although male/female comparisons regarding attitudes toward animals have frequently been considered, only limited research has focused on gender roles and animal attitudes. We therefore examined the relation between gender roles and animal attitudes with undergraduate students (260 males, 484 females) at a public university in Texas. Participants responded to an online Qualtrics survey that assessed their attitudes toward animals, gender norms, and several forms of sexism. The survey also presented participants with questions about their justifications for meat consumption. As hypothesized, pro meat-eating justifications were positively related to sexist attitudes as well as traditional gender roles and negatively related to gender role transcendent attitudes. On the other hand, pro-animal attitudes were positively correlated with gender role transcendent attitudes and negatively correlated with benevolent/hostile sexism and traditional gender attitudes. Our results empirically supported “the linked oppression thesis,” that gender and animal attitudes are connected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document