Who is most likely to consider diverse representation desirable? Previous literature typically emphasizes the importance of partisanship and group identity congruence (i.e., women representing women) in influencing attitudes about descriptive representation. Alternatively, we test whether the racialized politics that emerged in 2016 might now shape views about representation by members of underrepresented groups. Using data from the 2016 ANES, we examine attitudes toward increasing the number of women and Hispanic representatives. Rather than partisanship or identity congruence, our results point to the primacy of racial attitudes, linked fate, and feminism in shaping views about diverse representation. Indeed, even when examining attitudes about increased representation by women, we find strong evidence that opinions are now racialized. We argue for a more expansive understanding of support for descriptive representation, which may reflect an individual’s opinions of marginalized groups and structural inequities more broadly.
AbrajanoM.HajnalZ. L. (2017). White backlash: immigration, race, and American politics. Princeton University Press.
2.
AdidaC. L.DavenportL. D.McClendonJ. (2016). Ethnic Cueing across Minorities: A Survey Experiment of Candidate Evaluation in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(4), 815–836.
3.
AlvarezR. M.García BedollaL. (2003). The foundations of Latino voter partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 election. The Journal of Politics, 65(1), 31–49.
4.
American National Election Studies, University of Michigan, and Stanford University. (2017). ANES 2016 time series study. Inter-university consortium for political and social research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36824.v2
5.
AtkesonL. R.CarilloN. (2007). More is better: The influence of collective female descriptive representation on external efficacy. Politics and Gender, 3(1), 79–101.
6.
BarnesT. D.BeallV. D.HolmanM. R. (2021). Pink-collar representation and budgetary outcomes in U.S. states. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 46(1), 119–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12286
7.
BarnesT. D.CasseseE. C. (2017). American party women: A look at the gender gap within parties. Political Research Quarterly, 80(1), 127–141.
8.
BarretoM. (2010). Ethnic cues: The role of shared ethnicity in Latino political participation. University of Michigan Press.
9.
BejaranoC.BrownN. E.GershonS. A.MontoyaC. (2020). Shared identities: Intersectionality, linked fate, and perceptions of political candidates. Political Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920951640
10.
BenokraitisN. V.FeaginJ. R. (1986). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and cover discrimination. Prentice Hall.
BittnerA.Goodyear-GrantE. (2017). Digging deeper into the gender gap: Gender salience as a moderating factor in political attitudes. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 559–578.
13.
BoatrightR.SperlingV. (2019). Trumping politics as usual masculinity, misogyny, and the 2016 elections. Oxford University Press.
14.
CampiA.JunnJ. (2019). Racial linked fate and gender in U.S. politics. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(3), 654–662.
15.
CarminesE. G.SnidermanP. M.EasterB. C. (2010). On the meaning, measurement, and implications of racial resentment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634(1), 98–116.
16.
CasellasJ. P. (2010). Latino representation in state house and congress. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CasellasJ. P.WallaceS. J. (2015). The role of race, ethnicity, and party on attitudes toward descriptive representation. American Politics Research, 43(1), 144–169.
18.
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, 677–700.
ChudyJ. (2020). Racial sympathy and its political consequences. The Journal of Politics, 83(1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1086/708953.
21.
ChudyJPistonSShipperJ. (2019). Guilt by association: White collective guilt in American politics. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 968–981.
22.
ClaytonAO’BrienD. Z.PiscopoJ. M. (2019). All male panels? Representation and democratic legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 113–129.
23.
CollinsP. H. (1996). “What’s in a name? Womanism, Black feminism, and beyond.”The Black Scholar, 26(1), 9–17.
24.
ConoverP. J. (1988). Feminists and the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 50(4), 985–1010.
25.
CookE. A. (1989). Measuring feminist consciousness. Women & Politics, 9(3), 71–88.
26.
CookE. A.WilcoxC. (1991). Feminism and the gender gap: a second look. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1111–1122.
27.
Crowder-MeyerM. (2013). Gendered recruitment without trying: How local party recruiters affect women’s representation. Politics &Gender, 9(4), 390–413.
28.
Crowder-MeyerM.CoopermanR. (2018). Can’t buy them love: How party culture among donors contributes to the party gap in women’s representation. Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1211–1224.
29.
DawsonM. C. (1994). Behind the mule: race and class in African-American politics. Princeton University Press.
30.
DeSanteC. D. (2013). Working twice as hard to get half as far: Race, work ethic, and America’s deserving poor. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 342–356.
31.
DeSanteC. D.SmithC. W. (2020). Racial stasis: The millennial generation and the stagnation of racial attitudes in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
32.
DolanK. (2004). Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Westview Press.
33.
DolanK. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32, 69–88.
34.
DolanK.SanbonmatsuK. (2009). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward gender balance in government. American Politics Research, 37(3), 409–428.
35.
DovidioJ. F.MannJ.GaertnerS. L. (1989). Resistance to affirmative action: The implications of aversive racism. In BlanchardF. A.CrosbyF. J. (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 83–102). Springer New York.
36.
ElderL. (2008). Whither republican women: the growing partisan gap among women in congress. The Forum, 6(1), 1540–1884.
37.
EndersA. M.ScottJ. S. (2019). The increasing racialization of American electoral politics, 1988-2016. American Politics Research, 47(2), 275–303.
38.
EnglishA.PearsonK.StrolovitchD. Z. (2019). Who represents me? Race, gender, partisan congruence, and representational alternatives in a polarized America. Political Research Quarterly, 72(4): 785–804.
39.
FairdosiA. S.RogowskiJ. C. (2015). Candidate race, partisanship, and political participation: when do black candidates increase black turnout?Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 337–349.
40.
Frasure-YokleyL. (2018). Choosing the velvet glove: Women voters, ambivalent sexism, and vote choice in 2016. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 3(1), 3–25.
41.
FrederickB. (2009). Are female house members still more liberal in a polarized era? The conditional nature of the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation. Congress & the Presidency, 36(2), 181–202.
García BedollaL. (2020). On the ballot in 2020: Will the United States (finally) embrace civil rights?Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 6(1), 71–81.
44.
García BedollaL.Lavariega MonfortiJ. L.PantojaA. D. (2007). A second look: Is there a Latina/o gender gap?. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28(3–4), 147–171.
45.
GayC. (2001). The effect of black congressional representation on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589–602.
46.
GayC. (2002). Spirals of trust: The effect of descriptive representation on the relationship between citizens and their government. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 717–732.
47.
GayC.HochschildJ.WhiteA. (2016). Americans’ belief in linked fate: Does the measure capture the concept?Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 1(1), 117–144.
48.
GershonS.MontoyaC.BejaranoC.BrownN. (2019). Intersectional linked fate and political representation. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(3), 643–653.
49.
HajnalZ. (2020). Dangerously divided: how race and class shape winning and losing in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
50.
HarbinB. B.MargolisM. F. (2020). Nobody’s free until everybody’s free: How feminist identification influences white americans’ willingness to recognize and respond to racial discrimination. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1–25https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2020.1846132.
51.
Henderson-KingD. H.StewartA. J. (1994). Women or feminists? Assessing women’s group consciousness. Sex Roles, 31(9/10), 505–516.
JardinaA. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge University Press.
54.
JardinaA. (2020). In‑group love and out‑group hate: White racial attitudes in contemporary U.S. elections. Political Behavior. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09600-x.
55.
KamC. D.BurgeC. D. (2018). Uncovering reactions to the racial resentment scale across the racial divide. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 314–320.
56.
KamC. D.BurgeC. D. (2019). Racial resentment and public opinion across the racial divide. Political Research Quarterly, 72(4), 767–784.
57.
KarpowitzC. F.MonsonJ. Q.PreeceJ. R. (2017). How to elect more women: Gender and candidate success in a field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 61(4), 927–943.
58.
KinderD. R.Dale-RiddleA. (2012) The end of race? Obama, 2008, and racial politics in America. Yale University Press.
59.
KinderD. R.SandersL. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. University of Chicago Press.
60.
Lavariega MonfortiJ.MichelsonM.FrancoA. (2013). ¿Por Quién Votará? Experimental evidence about language, ethnicity, and vote choice (among Republicans). Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(4), 475–487.
61.
LeeF. (2020). Populism and the American party system: Opportunities and constraints. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 370–388.
62.
ManzanoS.SanchezG. R. (2010). Take one for the team? Limits of shared ethnicity and candidate preferences. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 568–580.
63.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
64.
MatosY.GreeneS.SanbonmatsuK. (2020). Do women seek “Women of Color” for public office? Exploring women’s support for electing women of color. Political Research Quarterly, 74(2), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920971793
65.
McConnaughyC. M.WhiteI. K.LealD. L.CasellasJ. P. (2010). A Latino on the ballot: explaining coethnic voting among Latinos and the response of white Americans. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1199–1211.
66.
MendezJ. M.HerrickR. (2016). Descriptive elections: Empowering the American electorate. Lexington Books.
67.
MichelsonM. R. (2005). Does ethnicity trump party? Competing vote cues and latino voting behavior. Journal of Political Marketing, 4(4), 1–25.
68.
MichelsonM.Lavariega MonfortiJ. (2018). Back in the shadows, back in the streets. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(2), 282–287.
69.
MintaM. (2011). Legislative oversight and the substantive representation of black and Latino interests in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(2), 193–218.
70.
PhilpotT. S.WaltonH.Jr. (2007). One of our own: Black female candidates and the voters who support them. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 49–62.
71.
PantojaA.SeguraG. (2003). Does ethnicity matter? Descriptive representation in legislatures and political alienation among Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 441–460.
72.
PhillipsC. (2018). Wanting, and weighting: White women and descriptive representation in the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 3(1), 29–51.
73.
PitkinH. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
74.
ReingoldB. (2009). Women as office holders: Linking descriptive and substantive representation. In WolbrechtC. K.BaldezL. (Eds.), Political women and American democracy (pp. 128–147). Cambridge University Press.
75.
RosenthalC. S. (1995). The role of gender in descriptive representation. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 599–611.
76.
RouseS. (2013). Latinos in the legislative process: Interests and influence. Cambridge University Press.
77.
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Democrats, republicans, and the politics of women’s place. University of Michigan.
78.
SanbonmatsuK. (2003). Gender-related political knowledge and the descriptive representation of women. Political Behavior, 25(4), 367–388.
SanchezG. R.MasuokaN. (2010). Brown-utility heuristic? The presence and contributing factors of Latino linked fate. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(4), 519–531.
81.
SanchezG. R.MorinJ. L. (2011). The effect of descriptive representation on Latinos’ views of government and of themselves. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 483–508.
82.
SchaffnerB.MacWilliamsM.NtetaT. (2018). Understanding white polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 9–34.
83.
SchildkrautD. (2013). When birds of a feather flock together? Assessing attitudes about descriptive representation among Latinos and Asian Americans. American Politics Research, 41(4), 699–729.
84.
SchildkrautD. (2016). Latino attitudes about surrogate representation in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 97(3), 714–728.
85.
SchildkrautD. (2017). White attitudes about descriptive representation in the U.S.: The roles of identity, discrimination, and linked fate. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(1), 84–106.
86.
SchneiderM.BosA. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.
87.
SearsD. O.KinderD. R. (1971). Racial tension and voting in Los Angeles, (156). Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of California.
88.
SidesJ.TeslerM.VavreckL. (2018). Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton University Press.
89.
Silber MohamedH. (2017a). The new Americans?: Immigration, protest, and the politics of Latino identity. University Press of Kansas.
90.
Silber MohamedH. (2017b). Immigration reform and the 2014 midterms: The politics of executive action. In GaldieriC.SiscoT.LucasJ. (Eds.), Races, reforms, & policy: Implications of the 2014 midterm election (pp. 138–149). University of Akron Press.
91.
SimienE. (2005). Race, gender, and linked fate. Journal of Black Studies, 35(5), 529–550.
92.
SimienE. M.ClawsonR. A. (2004). The intersection of race and gender: An examination of black feminist consciousness, race consciousness, and policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 793–810.
93.
SmithC. W.KreitzerR. J.SuoF. (2020). The dynamics of racial resentment across the 50 US states. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 537–538.
94.
SnidermanP. M.PiazzaT. (1993). The scar of race. Harvard University Press.
95.
Stokes-BrownA.DolanK. (2010). Race, gender, and symbolic representation: African-American female candidates as mobilizing agents. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, & Parties, 20(4), 473–494.
96.
StoutC. T.KretschmerK.RuppannerL. (2017). Gender linked fate, race/ethnicity, and the marriage gap in American politics. Political Research Quarterly, 70(3), 509–522.
97.
StrolovitchD. Z.WongJ. S.ProctorA. (2017). A possessive investment in white heteropatriarchy? The 2016 election and the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 353–363.
98.
SwersM. L. (2013). Women in the club: Gender and policymaking in the senate. University of Chicago Press.
99.
SwimJ. K.AikinK. J.HallW. S.HunterB. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214.
100.
TateK. (1993). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections. Harvard University Press.
101.
TateK. (2003). Black faces in the mirror: African Americans and their representatives in the U.S. congress. Princeton University Press.
102.
Taylor-RobinsonM. M.HeathR. M. (2008). Do women legislators have different policy priorities than their male colleagues? A critical case test. Women & Politics, 24(3), 77–101.
103.
TeslerM. (2012). The spillover of racialization into health care: How president Obama polarized public opinion by attitudes and race. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 690–704.
104.
TeslerM. (2015). The conditions ripe for racial spillover effects. Political Psychology, 36(1), 101–117.
105.
TeslerM. (2016). Post-racial or most-racial?: Race and politics in the Obama era. University of Chicago Press.
106.
TeslerM.SearsD. O. (2010). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America. University of Chicago Press.
107.
TienC. (2017). The racial gap in voting among women: White women, racial resentment, and support for Trump. New Political Science, 39(4), 651–669.
108.
WhitbyK. J. (1997). The color of representation: Congressional behavior and black constituents. University of Michigan Press.
109.
WilkinsonB. (2018). Symposium: Stepping back or stepping out? Latinos, immigration, and the 2016 presidential election - an introduction and commentary. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(2), 277–281.
WilsonW. (2017). From inclusion to influence: Latino representation in congress and Latino political incorporation. University of Michigan Press.
112.
WinterN. J. G. (2008). Dangerous frames: How ideas about race and gender shape public opinion. University of Chicago Press.
113.
YadonN.PistonS. (2019). Examining whites’ anti-black attitudes after Obama’s presidency. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(4), 794–814.
114.
ZuckerA. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, ‘I’m not a feminist, but. . .’Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423–435.
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.
