We examine variation in levels of affective polarization for men and women. Using the 1980 to 2016 American National Election Studies, we find that women are more affectively polarized than men. The effect of sex partially works indirectly through political identities and issue positions. Moreover, sex acts as a moderator, with political identities and issues positions have different effects on men’s and women’s level of affective polarization. Three factors create women’s higher levels of affective polarization: women are more likely to be partisans, strength in abortion attitudes, and partisanship has a more substantial influence on women’s attitudes compared to men’s attitudes. Breaking the analysis apart into three time periods: (1) gender gap emergence 1980 to 1988, (2) elite polarization 1990 to 1998, and (3) hyper-partisanship 2000 to 2016 reinforces that partisan strength is central to understanding affective polarization. Additionally, during the 1990s when elite polarization is intensifying the strength of issue attitudes and ideology.
BarnesT. D.CasseseE. C. (2017). American party women: A look at the gender gap within parties. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 127–141.
2.
BauerN. M. (2020). Shifting standards: How voters evaluate the qualifications of female and male candidates. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 1–12.
3.
BemS. (1974). The psychological measurement of androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
4.
BittnerA.Goodyear-GrantE. (2017). Sex isn’t gender: Reforming concepts and measurements in the study of public opinion. Political Behavior, 39(4), 1019–1041.
5.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D. (2019). Reconciling sexism and women’s support for Republican candidates: A look at gender, class, and whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 presidential races. Political Behavior, 41(3), 677–700.
6.
CondonM.WichowskyA. (2005). Same blueprint, different bricks: Reexamining the sources of the gender gap in political ideology. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3(1), 4–20.
7.
DeckmanM.CasseseE. (2019). Gendered nationalism and the 2016 U.S. presidential election: How party, class, and beliefs about masculinity shaped voting behavior. Politics & Gender, 1–24. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000485
8.
DickersonB. T.OndercinH. L. (2017). Conditional motivated reasoning: How the local economy moderates partisan motivations in economic perceptions. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 194–208.
9.
DonovanK.KellstedtP. M.KeyE. M.LeboM. J. (2019). Motivated reasoning, public opinion, and presidential approval. Political Behavior, 42, 1201–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09539-8
10.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.
11.
FairchildA. J.McDanielH. L. (2017). Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: Mediation analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 105(6), 1259–1271.
12.
GarrettK. N.BankertA. (2020). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political, 50(2), 621–640.
13.
GarrettR. K.GvirsmanS. D.JohnsonB. K.TsfatiY.NeoR.DalA. (2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332.
14.
GillionD. Q.LaddJ. M.MeredithM. (2020). Party polarization, ideological sorting and the emergence of the U.S. partisan gender gap. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1217–1243.
15.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
16.
HicksR.TingleyD. (2011). Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal, 11(4), 605–619.
17.
HuddyL.CasseseE.LizotteM.-K. (2008). Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. In Political women and American democracy (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.
18.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.
19.
HoutM. (1999). Abortion politics in the United States, 1972–1994: From single issue to ideology. Gender Issues, 17(1), 3–34.
20.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.
21.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
22.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.
23.
JunnJ.MasuokaN. (2020). The gender gap is a race gap: Women voters in U.S. presidential elections. Perspectives on Politics, 18(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719003876
24.
KlarS. (2018). When common identities decrease trust: An experimental study of Partisan women. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 610–622.
25.
KlarS.KrupnikovY.RyanJ. B. (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 379–390.
26.
KaufmannK. M. (2002). Culture wars, secular realignment, and the gender gap in party identification. Political Behavior, 24, 283–307.
27.
KaufmannK. M.PetrocikJ. R. (1999). The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864–887.
28.
LaddE. C.BowmanK. (1997). Public opinion about abortion. The AEI Press.
29.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.
30.
LelkesY. (2019). Policy over party: Comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization. Political Science Research and Methods, 9 (1), 1–8. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.18
31.
LizotteM.-K. (2015). The abortion attitudes paradox: Model specification and gender differences. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 36(1), 22–42.
32.
LizotteM.-K. (2016). Investigating women’s greater support of the Affordable Care Act. The Social Science Journal, 53(2), 209–217.
33.
LizotteM.-K. (2017a). Gender, partisanship, and issue gaps. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17(1), 379–405.
34.
LizotteM.-K. (2017b). The gender gap in public opinion. In BosA. L.SchneiderM. C. (Eds.), The political psychology of women in U.S. politics (pp. 51–69). Routledge.
35.
LizotteM.-K. (2019) Investigating the origins of the gender gap in support for war. Political Studies Review, 17(2), 124–135.
36.
LizotteM.-K. (2020). Gender differences in public opinion values and political consequences. Temple University Press.
37.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
38.
NorranderB. (1997). The independence gap and the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(3), 464–476.
39.
NorranderB. (1999). The evolution of the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 566–576.
40.
NorranderB.WilcoxC. (2008). The gender gap in ideology. Political Behavior, 30(4), 503–523.
41.
OndercinH. L. (2017). Who is responsible for the gender gap? The dynamics of men’s and women’s democratic macropartisanship, 1950–2012. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 749–761.
42.
OndercinH. L. (2018a). Is it a chasm? Is it a canyon? No, it is the gender gap. The Forum, 16(4), 611–629.
43.
OndercinH. L. (2018b). The evolution of women’s (and men’s) partisan attachments. In McCammonH.BanaszakL. A. (Eds.), 100 years of the nineteenth amendment: An appraisal of women’s political activism. Oxford University Press.
44.
OndercinH. L.FultonS. A. (2020). Bargain shopping: How candidate sex lowers the cost of voting. Politics & Gender, 16(3), 711–737.
45.
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34.
46.
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.
47.
ScottJ.SchumanH. (1988). Attitude strength and social action in the abortion dispute. American Sociological Review, 53(5), 785–793.
48.
ShorB.McCartyN. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 530–551.
49.
TheriaultS. M. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. Cambridge University Press.
50.
Van LangeP. A. M.De BruinE.OttenW.JoiremanJ. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746.
51.
WebsterS. W.AbramowitzA. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45, 621–647.
52.
WolbrechtC. (2010). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton University Press.
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.
