Seemingly, gender, language, and partisanship are intertwined concepts. We believe that the use of gendered language in political settings may be used strategically by political elites. The purpose of this paper is to craft a tool for scholars to test the interconnection between politics, gender, and language—what we refer to as being the gendered language and partisanship nexus. We test our prediction using original word rating data. From our test, we find significant variation across seven hundred words in ratings as masculine and feminine and discover that words rated as masculine are more likely to be rated as dominant and negatively valenced. We additionally find that Republican men are most likely to rate words as more masculine. Using this dictionary, we find that Republican presidents are more likely to use masculine language than Democratic presidents in their State of the Union addresses and that the Republican Party uses more masculine language than the Democratic Party in their official party platform.
AtkesonL. R.KrebsT. B.2008. “Press Coverage of Mayoral Candidates: The Role of Gender in News Reporting and Campaign Issue Speech.” Political Research Quarterly61 (2): 239–52.
2.
BawnK.CohenM.KarolD.MasketS.NoelH.ZallerJ.2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics10 (3): 571–97.
3.
BoroditskyL.SchmidtL. A.PhilipsW.2003. “Sex, Syntax, and Semantics.” In Language in Mind: Advocates in the Study of Language and Cognition, edited by GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS., 61–79. Cambridge: MIT Press.
4.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J.1999. “Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings.” Technical Report C-1, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
5.
CliffordS.2019. “Compassionate Democrats and Tough Republicans: How Ideology Shapes Partisan Stereotypes.” Political Behavior. Published electronically March 6. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09542-z.
6.
ConstantinopleA.2005. “Masculinity-Femininity: An Exception to a Famous Dictum?”Feminism & Psychology15 (4): 385–407.
FitzpatrickM. A.MulacA.DindiaK.1995. “Gender-Preferential Language Use in Spouse and Stranger Interaction.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology14 (1–2): 18–39.
9.
GastilJ.1990. “Generic Pronouns and Sexist Language: The Oxymoronic Character of Masculine Generics.” Sex Roles23 (11–12): 629–43.
10.
GilensM.1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
HetheringtonM. J.RudolphT.2015. Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
HolmanM. R.MerollaJ. L.ZechmeisterE. J.2016. “Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes and Candidate Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly69 (1): 134–47.
14.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN.1993a. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37 (1): 119–47.
15.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN.1993b. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly46 (3): 503–25.
16.
HughesC.2019. “The God Card: Strategic Employment of Religious Language in U.S. Presidential Discourse.” International Journal of Communication13 (2019): 528–49.
17.
JonesJ. J.2016. “Talk ‘Like a Man’: The Linguistic Styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013.” Perspectives on Politics14 (3): 625–42.
18.
KahnemanD.2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19.
KernellS.1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
20.
KieslingS.2007. “Men, Masculinities, and Language.” Language and Linguistics Compass1 (6): 653–73.
21.
LakoffG. (2004) 2014. Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. New York: Chelsea Green.
22.
LaustsenL.BorA.2017. “The Relative Weight of Character Traits in Political Candidate Evaluations: Warmth Is More Important than Competence, Leadership and Integrity.” Electoral Studies49:96–107.
23.
LaustsenL.PetersenM. B.2016. “Winning Faces Vary by Ideology: How Nonverbal Source Cues Influence Election and Communication Success in Politics.” Political Communication33:188–211.
24.
LeaperC.2014. “Gender Similarities and Differences in Language.” In Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, edited by HoltgravesT., 62–81. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
LentonA. P.SedikidesC.BruderM.2008. “A Latent Semantic Analysis of Gender Stereotype-Consistency and Narrowness in American English.” Sex Roles60 (3–4): 269–78.
26.
LibenL. S.HilliardL. J.2010. “Preschooler’s Gender Vigilance: Effects of Classroom Organization.” Poster presented at the Gender Development Research Conference, San Francisco, October 18.
27.
McDermottM. L.2016. Masculinity, Femininity, and American Political Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
MorrisJ. P.SquiresN. K.TaberC. S.LodgeM.2013. “Activation of Political Attitudes: A Psychophysiological Examination of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.” Political Psychology24 (4): 727–45.
29.
MuddimanA.McGregorS. C.StroudN. J.2019. “(Re)Claiming Our Expertise: Parsing Large Text Corpora with Manually Validated and Organic Dictionaries.” Political Communication36 (2): 214–26.
30.
NeimanJ. L.GonzalezF. J.WilkinsonK.SmithK. B.HibbingJ. R.2016. “Speaking Different Languages or Reading from the Same Script? Word Usage of Democratic and Republican Politicians.” Political Communication33 (2): 212–40.
31.
PérezE. O.TavitsM. J.2019. “Language Influences Public Attitudes toward Gender Equality.” Journal of Politics81:81–93.
32.
PetrocikJ. R.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science40 (3): 825–50.
33.
RozellM. J.WilcoxC.FranzM. M.2012. Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
RozinP.BermanL.RoyzmanE.2010. “Biases in Use of Positive and Negative Words across Twenty Natural Languages.” Cognition and Emotion24 (3): 536–48.
35.
RymphC.2006. Republican Women. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
36.
SanbonmatsuK.DolanK.2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?” Political Research Quarterly62 (3): 485–94.
37.
SharrowE. A.StrolovitchD. Z.HeaneyM. T.MasketS. E.MillerJ. M.2016. “Gender Attitudes, Gendered Partisanship: Feminism and Support for Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton among Party Activists.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy37 (4): 394–416.
38.
SpisakB. R.2012. “The General Age of Leadership: Older-Looking Presidential Candidates Win Elections during War.” PLoS ONE7 (5): e36945.
39.
SuitnerC.MaassA.2008. “The Role of Valence in the Perception of Agency and Communion.” European Journal of Social Psychology38:1073–82.
40.
TetenR. L.2003. “Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: Presidential Presentation and Development of the State of the Union Address.” Presidential Studies Quarterly33 (2): 333–46.
41.
TulisJ. K.1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42.
UtychS. M.2018. “Negative Affective Language in Politics.” American Politics Research46 (1): 77–102.
43.
UtychS. M.2019. “Speaking Style and Candidate Evaluations.” Politics, Groups, and Identities. Published electronically June 17. doi:10.1080/21565503.2019.1629317.
44.
VictorJ. N.ReinhardtG. Y.2018. “Competing for the Platform: How Organized Interests Affect Party Positioning in the United States.” Party Politics24 (3): 265–77.
45.
WinterN. J. G.2000. “Gendered and Re-gendered: Public Opinion and Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April28.
46.
WinterN. J. G.2007. “Cowboys and ‘Girlie-men’: Gender Imagery and the Evaluation of Political Leaders.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April12–15.
47.
WinterN. J. G.2010. “Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans’ Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties.” Political Behavior32 (4): 587–618.
48.
WinterN. J. G.2013. Dangerous Frames: How Ideas about Race & Gender Shape Public Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
49.
WolbrechtC.2000. The Politics of Women’s Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
