As the 2016 election season and the Me Too movement have powerfully demonstrated, sexism is a pervasive force not just in American politics but also, more generally, in women’s everyday lives. While political scientists have focused on the impact of sexism on voters’ evaluations of female candidates and their electoral chances, we know little about the effect of personally experienced sexism on American women’s political engagement. This manuscript tries to address this gap. Using data from the 2016 ANES Pilot Study as well as a survey experiment, I demonstrate that women who have experienced gender discrimination report higher levels of political participation and a higher chance of voting in the general election. However, among conservative women, personal experience with sexism is not associated with this participatory impetus. These findings have implications for the equal representation of women from both ends of the ideological spectrum.
BauerN. M. (2015). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office: Stereotype activation and support for female candidates. Political Psychology, 36(6), 691–708.
3.
BurnsN.SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS. (2001). The private roots of public action. Harvard University Press.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam.
6.
DardenneB.DumontM.BollierT. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764–779.
7.
DeSipioL. (2002). Immigrant Organizing, Civic Outcomes: Civic Engagement, Political Activity, National Attachment, and Identity in Latino Immigrant Communities. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4pf4c1tz
8.
DolanK. (1998). Voting for women in the “year of the woman”. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 272–293.
9.
DolanK. (2008). Women as candidates in American politics. In WolbrechtC.BeckwithK.BaldezL. (Eds.), Political women and American democracy (pp. 110–130). Cambridge University Press.
10.
DolanK. A. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. Oxford University Press, USA.
11.
DuncanL. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: Group consciousness as mediator of personality, life experiences, and women’s rights activism. Political Psychology, 20(3), 611–635.
12.
ErzeelS.CaluwaertsD. (2015). Is it gender, ideology or resources? Individual-level determinants of preferential voting for male or female candidates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(3), 265–283.
13.
FitzgeraldL. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1070–1076.
14.
FriedmanD.McAdamD. (1992). Collective identity and activism: Networks, choices and the life of a social movement. In: A. Morries and C.M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, (pp. 156–173). Yale University Press.
15.
FuegenK.BiernatM. (2000). Defining discrimination in the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Sex Roles, 43(5–6), 285–310.
16.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.
17.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135.
18.
GroenendykE. W.BanksA. J. (2013). Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology, 35(3), 359–378.
19.
HuddyL. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In HuddyL.SearsD. O.LevyJ. S. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 737–773). Oxford University Press.
20.
HuddyL.CareyT. E. (2009). Group politics redux: Race and gender in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Politics & Gender, 5(1), 81–96.
21.
HuddyL.CasseseE.LizotteM-K. (2008). Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. In WolbrechtC.BeckwithK.BaldezL. (Eds.), Political women and American democracy (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.
22.
HuddyL.FeldmanS.TaberC.LahavG. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593–608.
23.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147.
24.
IzardC. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 68–90.
25.
JelenT. G.ThomasS.WilcoxC. (1994). The gender gap in comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 25(2), 171–186.
26.
JensenI. W.GutekB. A. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 121–136.
27.
KesslerT.MummendeyA.LeisseU-K. (2000). The personal–group discrepancy: Is there a common information basis for personal and group judgment?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 95–109.
28.
KrupnikovY.PistonS.BauerN. M. (2016). Saving face: Identifying voter responses to black and female candidates. Political Psychology, 37(2), 253–273.
29.
LawlessJ.FoxR. (2013). Girls just wanna not run the gender gap in young Americans’ political ambition. Women & Politics Institute.
30.
LernerJ. S.TiedensL. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 115–137.
31.
McThomasM.TeslerM. (2016). The growing influence of gender attitudes on public support for Hillary Clinton, 2008–2012. Politics & Gender, 12(1), 28–49.
32.
OperarioD.FiskeS. T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 550–561.
33.
PhoenixD. L. (2019). The anger gap: How race shapes emotion in politics. Cambridge University Press.
34.
RoosmalenE. V.McDanielS. A. (1999). Sexual harassment in academia: A hazard to women’s health. Women & Health, 28(2), 33–54.
35.
RozinP.LoweryL.ImadaS.HaidtJ. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574–586.
36.
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34.
37.
SchildkrautD. J. (2005). The rise and fall of political engagement among Latinos: The role of identity and perceptions of discrimination. Political Behavior, 27(3), 285–312.
38.
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.
39.
SchneiderM. C.HolmanM. R.DiekmanA. B.McAndrewT. (2016). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology, 37(4), 515–531.
40.
SchreiberR. (2008). Righting feminism: Conservative women and American politics. Oxford University Press, USA.
41.
ShepherdL. (2019). Responding to sexual objectification: The role of emotions in influencing willingness to undertake different types of action. Sex Roles, 80(1–2), 25–40.
42.
SmithC. A.LazarusR. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7(3–4), 233–269.
43.
SwiggerN. (2016). Sexual responsibility and the politics of abortion and contraception. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(3), 263–275.
44.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?! Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88.
45.
VerbaS.BurnsN.SchlozmanK. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051–1072.
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.
