Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

Abstract

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.

Relationship (in)security is central to the sources and outcomes of sexist attitudes

“…Moreover, people endorse hostile sexism more strongly in countries with greater gender inequality (Glick et al, ). Men's endorsement of hostile sexism reinforces this hierarchy, by derogating women who contest men's power (e.g., feminists and career women; Glick, Diebold, Bailey‐Werner, & Zhu, ) and favoring men over women in career, leadership, and political contexts (Masser & Abrams, ; Ratliff, Redford, Conway, & Smith, ). Thus, a perspective focusing on societal roles stipulates that hostile sexism promotes discrimination against women in nontraditional gender roles in order to maintain men's societal dominance.…”

Women experience more serious relationship problems when male partners endorse hostile sexism

“…These attitudes help protect men's privileged social status and dominance by derogating, intimidating, and punishing women who threaten men's societal power or challenge traditional gender roles (Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997;Sibley & Wilson, 2004). For instance, hostile sexism predicts negative attitudes toward women in leadership positions (Good & Rudman, 2010;Masser & Abrams, 2004;Sakalli-U gurlu & Beydogan, 2002), perceptions that career women are aggressive, cold, and greedy (Glick et al, 1997), and discriminatory preferences for male leaders and political candidates over equally or more qualified female leaders and candidates (Gervais & Hillard, 2011;Ratliff, Redford, Conway, & Smith, 2017;Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). Such aggressive and discriminatory perceptions and preferences should undermine women's success and create hostile and dissatisfying environments for women.…”

“…For example, work-related contexts are useful to examine how men's hostile sexism is associated with aggressive and discriminatory perceptions and preferences (Good & Rudman, 2010;Masser & Abrams, 2004;Rudman & Kilianski, 2000;Ratliff et al, 2017), but are difficult contexts to assess how a particular man's endorsement of hostile sexism impacts a particular women's experiences. Examining the direct effects of men's sexist attitudes on women's experiences outside of relationship contexts is challenging.…”

“…Examining the direct effects of men's sexist attitudes on women's experiences outside of relationship contexts is challenging. For example, work-related contexts are useful to examine how men's hostile sexism is associated with aggressive and discriminatory perceptions and preferences (Good & Rudman, 2010;Masser & Abrams, 2004;Rudman & Kilianski, 2000;Ratliff et al, 2017), but are difficult contexts to assess how a particular man's endorsement of hostile sexism impacts a particular women's experiences. Similarly, vignettes are a useful method to test how sexist attitudes impact cross-gender perceptions (see Bohner, Ahlborn, & Steiner, 2010;Kilianski & Rudman, 1998), but such methods are uninformative regarding how sexist attitudes influence real-life interpersonal judgements and dynamics.…”

An Exploratory Investigation of Americans’ Expression of Gender Bias Before and After the 2016 Presidential Election

“…The modern sexism scale is well-suited to detecting subtle shifts in gender bias because people are more willing to express it than hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996), which assesses overtly prejudiced negative attitudes toward women (Swim, Mallett, Russo-Devosa, & Stangor, 2005). Moreover, modern sexism assesses perceptions of women and gender in society, and could thus more plausibly be influenced by society-level events (like elections) than measures capturing sexism in intimate relationships (but see Ratliff, Redford, Conway, & Smith, 2017).…”