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.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.
2.
BlairK. L. (n.d.). A “basket of deplorables”? A new study finds that Trump supporters are more likely to be Islamophobic, racist, transphobic and homophobic [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2dWA6JT
3.
BosL.SheetsP.BoomgaardenH. G. (2017). The role of implicit attitudes in populist radical-right support. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/pops.12401
4.
BrighamJ. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1933–1967. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01074.x
5.
BurgessD.BorgidaE. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665
6.
ByrneD.BondM. H.DiamondM. J. (1969). Response to political candidates as a function of attitude similarity–dissimilarity. Human Relations, 22, 251–262. doi:10.1177/001872676902200305
7.
CarlinD. B.WinfreyK. L. (2009). Have you come a long way baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies, 60, 326–343. doi:10.1080/10510970903109904
8.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. GilbertD. TFiskeS. T.GardnerL. (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vols. 1–2, pp. 151–192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
ConnersJ. L. (2010). Barack versus Hillary: Race, gender, and political cartoon imagery of the 2008 presidential primaries. American Behavioral Scientist, 54, 298–312. doi:10.1177/0002764210381703
11.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2003). A justification–suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. doi:10.1037/00332909.129.3.414
12.
DolanK. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates: What really matters?Political Research Quarterly, 67, 96–107. doi:10.1177/1065912913487949
13.
DolanK. (2016). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
DolanK.LynchT. (2016). The impact of gender stereotypes on voting for women candidates by level and type of office. Politics & Gender, 12, 573–595. doi:10.1017/S1743923X16000246
15.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033295X.109.3.573
16.
FalkE. (2010). Women for president: Media bias in nine campaigns. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
17.
FalkE.KenskiK. (2006). Sexism versus partisanship: A new look at the question of whether America is ready for a woman president. Sex Roles, 54, 413–428. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9025-z
GervaisS. J.HillardA. L. (2011). A role congruity perspective on prejudice toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11, 221–240. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01263.x
20.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/00223514.70.3.491
21.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
22.
GreenwaldA. G.SmithC. T.SriramN.Bar-AnanY.NosekB. A. (2009). Race attitude measures predicted vote in the 2008 presidential election. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 241–253. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01195.x
23.
HettingerV. E.HutchinsonD. M.BossonJ. K. (2014). Influence of professional status on perceptions of romantic relationship dynamics. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 470–480. doi:10.1037/a0034034
24.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038
25.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707. doi:10.1111/ajps.12152
JostJ. T.NosekB. A.GoslingS. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x
28.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. doi:10.1037/a0023557
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S. (2012). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity–attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64–94. doi:10.1177/0265407512452989
31.
Moss-RacusinC.PhelanJ.RudmanL. (2010). “I’m not prejudiced, but. . .”: Compensatory egalitarianism in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Political Psychology, 31, 543–561. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00773.x
32.
NosekB. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565–584. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.565
33.
OkimotoT. G.BrescollV. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936. doi:10.1177/0146167210371949
34.
PaulD.SmithJ. L. (2008). Subtle sexism? Examining vote preferences when women run against men for the presidency. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 29, 451–476. doi:10.1080/15544770802092576
35.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. doi:10.1111/00224537.00239
36.
RudmanL. A.KilianskiS. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328. doi:10.1177/0146167200263001
37.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.GlickP.PhelanJ. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 167–349. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00004-4
38.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
39.
SchaffnerB.MacWilliamsM.NtetaT. (2017, January). Explaining White polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Paper presented at the Conference on the U.S. elections of 2016: Domestic and International Aspects, IDC Herzliya, Israel.
40.
TemplinC. (1999). Hillary Clinton as a threat to gender norms: Cartoon images of the first lady. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23, 20–36. doi:10.1177/0196859999023001002
41.
UscinskiJ. E.GorenL. J. (2011). What’s in a name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 884–896. doi:10.1177/1065912910382302
YoonE.AdamsK.HoggeI.BrunerJ. P.SuryaS.BryantF. B. (2015). Development and validation of the Patriarchal Beliefs Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 264–279. doi:10.1037/cou0000056
