Is Sexism for White People? Gender Stereotypes, Race, and the 2016 Presidential Election

Bracic, Ana; Israel-Trummel, Mackenzie; Shortle, Allyson F.

doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9446-8

Cited by 88 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 126 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results add to a growing body of literature that illustrates the important role that beliefs about gender played in the 2016 presidential contest (e.g., Junn 2017). Although other studies have tended to emphasize factors like traditional gender roles, stereotypes, and hostile sexism (e.g., Bracic, Israel-Trummel, and Shortle 2018;Cassese and Barnes 2018;Cassese and Holman 2019;Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Nteta, 2018;Valentino, Wayn and Oceno 2018), we find evidence that this related, but conceptually distinct belief about gender was also at play. Unfortunately, our dataset does not contain these other measures of beliefs about gender, so we are unable to determine how gendered nationalism relates to the broader constellation of gender attitudes.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 US Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior

Deckman

Cassese

2019

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine which Americans were likely to believe that American society has grown “too soft and feminine,” a concept we have characterized as gendered nationalism, and how such gendered nationalist attitudes influenced voting behavior in the 2016 presidential race. Our analysis shows that party, gender, education, and class shaped attitudes about gendered nationalism: Republicans, men, and members of the working class were more likely to support gendered nationalist views. We identify a strong, significant relationship between gendered nationalist attitudes and the probability of voting for Donald Trump, even after controlling for partisanship, ideology, race, religion, and other factors. Moreover, gender differences in candidate support were largely driven by gender differences in beliefs that the United States has grown too soft and feminine. Our research adds to the growing scholarly evidence indicating that gendered beliefs are likely to have a bigger impact on American political behavior than a voter's gender alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 US Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior

Deckman

Cassese

2019

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to the 2016 election, several studies have found that greater endorsement of sexist beliefs about women was related to voting for Trump (e.g., [25,26]). In particular, Bock et al [8] found that undergraduate students who endorsed greater hostile sexism toward women (post-election) were more likely to have voted for Trump instead of Clinton.…”

Section: Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the generally unexpected outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, many explanations were proposed to account for the results. Three narratives that received a considerable amount of media attention were that sexist, racist, and/or nationalist attitudes influenced voting decisions. Some empirical work has supported each of these accounts. However, sexism, racism, and nationalism are interrelated, and most studies about the 2016 election have not examined these three factors in conjunction to determine the unique contribution of each. Thus, we investigated the extent to which each factor (assessed as sexism toward women, Modern Racism, and U.S. nationalism) was uniquely related to evaluations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, voting intentions, and actual voting behavior. Participants completed online questionnaires before (N = 489) and after (N = 192) the 2016 U.S. election. More positive evaluation of Clinton and intentions to vote for Clinton were associated with lower levels of Modern Racism. More positive evaluation of Trump was associated with greater sexism toward women, Modern Racism, and U.S. nationalism. Intent to vote for Trump was associated with greater sexism toward women and Modern Racism. However, only Modern Racism significantly predicted voting behavior. Greater Modern Racism was associated with greater likelihood of voting for Trump and lower likelihood of voting for Clinton. When considered in conjunction, Modern Racism was the most consistent predictor across the different election outcome variables. Sexism toward women and U.S. nationalism were generally not significantly related to evaluations, intentions to vote, or voting behavior when accounting for Modern Racism. Thus, our data indicate that Modern Racism was correlated with vote choice in the 2016 election.The 2016 U.S. presidential election was historic, not only because Hillary Clinton was the first female presidential candidate for a major political party, but also because of the generally surprising results. Going into the 2016 U.S. presidential election, most polls projected Hillary Clinton to win the election over Donald Trump [1]. Instead, Trump won the election with 304 PLOS ONE PLOS ONE | https://doi.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it risks writing people of color out of the story of the 2016 election, instead telling that story on only white voters' terms (Coates 2017). Studies examining the intersection of race and gender in the 2016 election have found differential relationships between sexism and Trump support across different racial groups (Bracic, Israel-Trummel, and Shortle 2018;Frasure-Yokley 2018), with gender attitudes being more strongly associated with vote choice among white voters than their non-white counterparts. A similar approach could add similar nuance to our understanding of racial attitudes and economic distress in the 2016 contest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Differential Effects of Economic Conditions and Racial Attitudes in the Election of Donald Trump

Green¹,

McElwee²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates over the extent to which racial attitudes and economic distress explain voting behavior in the 2016 election have tended to be limited in scope, focusing on the extent to which each factor explains white voters' two-party vote choice. This limited scope obscures important ways in which these factors could have been related to voting behavior among other racial sub-groups of the electorate, as well as participation in the two-party contest in the first place. Using the vote-validated 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, merged with economic data at the ZIP code and county levels, we find that racial attitudes strongly explain two-party vote choice among white voters -in line with a growing body of literature. However, we also find that local economic distress was strongly associated with non-voting among people of color, complicating direct comparisons between racial and economic explanations of the 2016 election and cautioning against generalizations regarding causal emphasis.

show abstract

Is Sexism for White People? Gender Stereotypes, Race, and the 2016 Presidential Election

Cited by 88 publications

References 126 publications

Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 US Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior

Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 US Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior

Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?

The Differential Effects of Economic Conditions and Racial Attitudes in the Election of Donald Trump

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About