IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i4p1408-1427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sexism as a political force: The impact of gender‐based attitudes on the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Hanley

Abstract

Objective This article examines the effect of gender attitudes on the voting behavior of whites in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. Methods Logistic regression models are used to analyze data from the 2012 and 2016 waves of the American National Election Study. Results Sexist orientations had a greater impact on how Americans, and white Americans in particular, voted in 2016 than in 2012. Attitudes toward gender roles and feminism affected the voting behavior of white men and white women in a highly similar fashion in 2016 but had a greater effect on the voting behavior of college—as opposed to noncollege‐educated whites. Conclusion Many observers have argued that the mobilization of sexist voters over the course of the 2016 campaign helped carry Trump to victory. The results of this analysis indicate that, in regard to many key voting blocs, the activation of sexism cost Trump at least as many votes as he gained as due to the countermobilization of nonsexist white voters, particularly those with college degrees. The strength of the nonsexist backlash suggests a need to reassess the received wisdom that sexism among white voters played to Trump's advantage in the 2016 election.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Hanley, 2021. "Sexism as a political force: The impact of gender‐based attitudes on the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1408-1427, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1408-1427
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13049
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Knuckey, 2019. "“I Just Don't Think She Has a Presidential Look”: Sexism and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(1), pages 342-358, February.
    2. Michael Tesler, 2015. "Priming Predispositions and Changing Policy Positions: An Account of When Mass Opinion Is Primed or Changed," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(4), pages 806-824, October.
    3. Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    4. D. Sunshine Hillygus & Simon Jackman, 2003. "Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 583-596, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikoleta Yordanova & Mariyana Angelova & Roni Lehrer & Moritz Osnabrügge & Sander Renes, 2020. "Swaying citizen support for EU membership: Evidence from a survey experiment of German voters," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 429-450, September.
    2. Bang Quan Zheng, 2022. "Elite polarization and mass policy attitudes: A study of the 2010 senate election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1202-1220, September.
    3. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    4. Giovanni Facchini & Anna Maria Mayda & Riccardo Puglisi, 2017. "Illegal immigration and media exposure: evidence on individual attitudes," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-36, December.
    5. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    7. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    8. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    9. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Kai Jäger, 2020. "When Do Campaign Effects Persist for Years? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 836-851, October.
    11. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Priming Ideology: Why Presidential Elections Affect U.S. Judges," TSE Working Papers 16-681, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2016.
    12. Rogers, Todd T & Middleton, Joel A., 2012. "Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment," Scholarly Articles 9830357, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    14. Elena Costas-Pérez, 2014. "Political corruption and voter turnout: mobilization or disaffection?," Working Papers 2014/27, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    15. Philipp Lergetporer & Guido Schwerdt & Katharina Werner & Ludger Woessmann, 2016. "Information and Preferences for Public Spending: Evidence from Representative Survey Experiments," CESifo Working Paper Series 5938, CESifo.
    16. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Enriqueta Aragonès & Micael Castanheira & Marco Giani, 2015. "Electoral Competition through Issue Selection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 71-90, January.
    18. Horacio A Larreguy & John Marshall & James M SnyderJr, 2018. "Leveling the playing field: How campaign advertising can help non-dominant parties," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(6), pages 1812-1849.
    19. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    20. Brian F. Harrison & Melissa R. Michelson, 2015. "God and Marriage: The Impact of Religious Identity Priming on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1411-1423, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1408-1427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.