The gender gap in support for political violence is one of the most consistent findings in foreign policy literature. Beyond gender, an individuals’ gender ideologies may also impact their reactions to terrorism and their support for torture. While support for masculine honor culture increases anger after terrorism as a perceived threat, neosexism dampens anger as violence is normalized. Yet both gender ideologies support the torture of suspected terrorists. A survey of US-based individuals finds support for these hypotheses. This study refines our understanding of the gender gap by underlining the importance of not only individual gender, but also gendered beliefs.
ANES (2008) American National Election Studies. The ANES 2008 Time Series Study [dataset]. https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2008-time-series-study/.
2.
AvdanNWebbC (2019) Not in my back yard: Public perceptions and terrorism.Political Research Quarterly72(1): 90–103.
3.
BarnesCDBrownRPOstermanLL (2012) Don’t tread on me: Masculine honor ideology in the U.S and militant responses to terrorism.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38: 1018–1029.
4.
BarnhartJTragerRF (2023) The Suffragist Peace: How Women Shape the Politics of War. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
Ben-DavidSCohen-LouckK (2010) Fear of terrorism: Coping paradox and gender. In: Transnational Terrorism, Organized Crime and Peace-Building. New York, NY: Springer, 66–80.
6.
BerkowitzL (1993) Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. Blacklick, OH: Mcgraw-Hill.
7.
BittnerAGoodyear-GrantE (2017) Sex isn’t gender: Reforming concepts and measurements in the study of public opinion. Political Behavior39(4): 1019–1041.
8.
BjarnegårdEBrounéusKMelanderE (2017) Honor and political violence: Micro-level findings from a survey in Thailand.Journal of Peace Research54(6): 748–761.
9.
BjarnegårdEMelanderE (2011) Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: The negative effects of militarized masculinity.Journal of Gender Studies20(2): 139–154.
10.
BjarnegårdEMelanderE (2017) Pacific men: How the feminist gap explains hostility.The Pacific Review30(4): 478–493.
11.
BrooksDJValentinoBA (2011) A war of one’s own: Understanding the gender gap in support for war.Public Opinion Quarterly75(2): 270–286.
12.
ButlerJ (2002) Gender Trouble. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
CampbellBSchellenbergEGSennCY (1997) Evaluating measures of contemporary sexism.Psychology of Women Quarterly21(1): 89–102.
14.
CaprioliM (2005) Primed for violence: The role of gender inequality in predicting internal conflict.International Studies Quarterly49(2): 161–178.
15.
CiftciSO’DonnellBJTannerA (2017) Who favors al-Qaeda? Anti- americanism, religious outlooks, and favorable attitudes toward terrorist organizations.Political Research Quarterly70: 480–494.
16.
CohenDKKarimSM (2022) Does more equality for women mean less war? Rethinking sex and gender inequality and political violence.International Organization76(2): 414–444.
17.
CohenDNisbettRE (1994) Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern violence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin20(5): 551–567.
18.
CohenDNisbettRE (1997) Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The role of institutions in perpetuating norms about violence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin23(11): 1188–1199.
19.
CohenDNisbettREBowdleBF, et al. (1996) Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An experimental ethnography.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70(5): 945.
20.
ConoverPJSapiroV (1993) Gender, feminist consciousness, and war. American Journal of Political Science37: 1079–1099.
21.
CoppockAMcClellanOA (2019) Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents.Research & Politics6(1): 2053168018822174.
22.
DavisSNGreensteinTN (2009) Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences.Annual Review of Sociology35: 87–105.
23.
DillonLHayesBEFreilichJD, et al. (2019) Gender differences in worry about a terrorist attack: A cross-national examination of individual- and national-level factors.Women & Criminal Justice29(4–5): 221–241.
24.
EaglyAH (1997) Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology.American Psychologist52(12): 1380–1383.
25.
EichenbergR (2003) Gender differences in public attitudes toward the use of force by the United States, 1990–2003.International Security28: 110–140.
26.
EichenbergR (2007) Gender difference or parallel publics? The dynamics of defense spending opinions in the United States, 1965–2007.Journal of Conflict Resolution56: 331–348.
27.
EichenbergRC (2014) When gender (sometimes) trumps party: Citizen attitudes toward torture in the War Against Terror. Working Paper, Tufts University. Available at SSRN 2480104.
28.
EichenbergRC (2016) Gender difference in American public opinion on the use of military force, 1982–2013.International Studies Quarterly60(1): 138–148.
29.
EichenbergRC (2019) Gender, War, and World Order: A Study of Public Opinion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
30.
EichenbergRCLizotteM-KStollRJ (2022) Socialized to safety? The origins of gender difference in personal security dispositions.Political Psychology43(2): 221–235.
31.
EngelhardtAMFeldmanSHetheringtonMJ (2023) Advancing the measurement of authoritarianism.Political Behavior45(2): 537–560.
32.
FontaineRG (2007) Disentangling the psychology and law of instrumental and reactive subtypes of aggression.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law13(2): 143.
33.
Haider-MarkelDPVieuxA (2008) Gender and conditional support for torture in the war on terror.Politics & Gender4(1): 5–33.
34.
HansenMAClemensJLDolanK (2022) Gender gaps, partisan gaps, and cross-pressures: An examination of American attitudes toward the use of force.Politics & Gender18(1): 273–295.
35.
HatzS (2021) What shapes public support for torture, and among whom?Human Rights Quarterly43(4): 683–698.
36.
HolmanMRMerollaJZechmeisterE (2021) The curious case of Theresa May and the public that did not rally: Gendered reactions to terrorist attacks can cause slumps not bumps.American Political Science Review116(1): 1–16.
37.
HuberL (2019) When civilians are attacked: Gender equality and terrorist targeting.Journal of Conflict Resolution63(10): 2289–2318.
38.
HuddyLCasseseELizotteM-K (2008) Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. In: WolbrechtCBeckwithKBaldezL (eds) Political Women and American Democracy. New York, NY, 31–49.
39.
HuddyLFeldmanSCapelosT, et al. (2002) The consequences of terrorism: Disentangling the effects of personal and national threat.Political Psychology23(3): 485–509.
40.
HuddyLFeldmanSCasseseE (2009) Terrorism, anxiety, and war. In: StritzkeWGKLewandowskySDenemarkD, et al. (eds) Terrorism and Torture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York, NY, 290.
41.
HuddyLFeldmanSTaberC, et al. (2005) Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. American Journal of Political Science49(3): 593–608.
42.
HudsonVMBallif-SpanvillBCaprioliM, et al. (2013) Sex and World Peace. New York, NY, Chichester, NY and West Sussex, UK: Columbia University Press.
43.
KunstJRFischerRSidaniusJ, et al. (2017) Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(21): 5407–5412.
44.
LemyreLTurnerMCLeeJE, et al. (2006) Public perception of terrorism threats and related information sources in Canada: Implications for the management of terrorism risks.Journal of Risk Research9(7): 755–774.
45.
LernerJSGonzalezRMSmallDA, et al. (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment.Psychological Science14(2): 144–150.
46.
LizotteM-K (2017) Gender differences in support for torture.Journal of Conflict Resolution61(4): 772–787.
MelanderE (2005b) Political gender equality and state human rights abuse.Journal of Peace Research42(2): 149–166.
49.
NellisAM (2009) Gender differences in fear of terrorism.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice25(3): 322–340.
50.
O’DeaCJChalmanSTBuenoAMC, et al. (2018) Conditional aggression: Perceptions of male violence in response to threat and provocation.Personality and Individual Differences131: 132–141.
ReidLWKonradM (2004) The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effects of gender and perceived risk on fear of crime.Sociological Spectrum24(4): 399–425.
SaucierDAWebsterRJMcManusJL, et al. (2018) Individual differences in masculine honor beliefs predict attitudes toward aggressive security measures, war, and peace.Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology24(1): 112.
55.
ScarpaARaineA (1997) Psychophysiology of anger and violent behavior.Psychiatric Clinics of North America20(2): 375–394.
56.
SeverISomerERubioA, et al. (2008) Gender, distress, and coping in response to terrorism.Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work23: 156–166.
57.
SilkeA (2010) The Psychology of Counter-Terrorism. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
58.
SolomonZGelkopfMBleichA (2005) Is terror gender-blind? Gender differences in reaction to terror events.Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology40(12): 947–954.
59.
StevensDBulmerSBanducciS, et al. (2021) Male warriors and worried women? Understanding gender and perceptions of security threats.European Journal of International Security6(1): 44–65.
60.
TougasFBrownRBeatonAM, et al. (1995) Neosexism: Plus ça change change, plus c’est pareil.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21(8): 842–849.
61.
TschantretJ (2020) Honor and terrorism: Cultural origins of the severity of terrorist attacks.Social Science Quarterly101(1): 325–345.
62.
WemlingerE (2014) The gender gap and torture: Opposition to torture among men and women in the USA.The Social Science Journal51(1): 113–119.
63.
WoodRRamirezMD (2018) Exploring the microfoundations of the gender equality peace hypothesis.International Studies Review20(3): 345–367.
64.
YounasJSandlerT (2017) Gender imbalance and terrorism in developing countries.Journal of Conflict Resolution61: 483–510.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
