The Persistence of Prejudice: Voters Strongly Penalize Candidates with HIV

Magni, Gabriele; Reynolds, Andrew

doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09687-w

Cited by 3 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2020, voters slightly penalized Buttigieg for being in a same-sex relationship. Our results reveal smaller penalties than the ones observed for gay politicians in earlier work (Golebiowska 2001;Haider-Markel 2010) and in studies considering hypothetical candidates (Magni and Reynolds 2021a). However, while other recent findings have suggested that sexual orientation is no longer penalizing when partisanship is taken into account (Haider-Markel et al 2020;Loepp and Redman 2020), our study cautions that the level of outness influences the discrimination experienced by sexual minority candidates.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

“…18 In addition to socio-demographic characteristics, we consider voter characteristics that previous work has identified as factors influencing support for LGBTQ candidates. These include partisanship, ideology, religiosity, familiarity with LGBTQ people, and voters' sexual orientation (Haider-Markel 2010;Flores 2015;Garretson 2015;Flores, Brown, and Park 2016;Ayoub and Garretson 2017;Haider-Markel et al 2017;Reynolds 2018;Jones et al 2018;Jones and Brewer 2019;Turnbull-Dugarte 2020;Magni and Reynolds 2021a;2021b). Support for Buttigieg does not vary substantially across treatments among Democrats and Republicans.…”

Section: Subgroup Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When these judgements about the electorate are amplified, they lead to strategic discrimination (Bateson 2020). The decision of some voters not to support an LGBTQ candidate because they believe such a candidate has limited support in other sectors of the electorate (Magni and Reynolds 2021a) creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that may prevent the election of LGBTQ candidates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The disconfirmation of expectations can suppress ingroup cue taking and support, leading voters to be more critical in processing political information (Johnston et al 2015). In the specific case, voters may expect a gay candidate to be Democratic, progressive, and non-religious, given that LGBTQ candidates are often perceived as more liberal and less religious (Magni and Reynolds 2021a). A gay religious candidate, therefore, would violate voter expectations.…”

Section: The Impact Of Buttigieg's Religiositymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our study builds on the literature that explores voter reactions to LGBTQ candidates (Golebiowska 2001; Haider-Markel 2010; Haider-Markel et al 2017; 2020; Jones et al 2018; Magni and Reynolds 2018; 2021a; Magni 2020). We advance previous work in several ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Candidate Identity and Campaign Priming: Analyzing Voter Support for Pete Buttigieg’s Presidential Run as an Openly Gay Man

Magni,

Reynolds

2023

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy in the 2020 Democratic primaries caught fire more than most predicted. An openly gay man, Buttigieg is also a veteran and a Christian. Did voters penalize Buttigieg for being gay and in a same-sex relationship? Did his other traits offset voter negative bias? We conducted a survey with over 6000 likely voters during the primaries. We included a priming experiment that manipulated the salience of Buttigieg’s identity traits. We then asked respondents how much they liked Buttigieg and who they would support in a match-up between Buttigieg and Trump. Overall, voters penalized Buttigieg for being in a same-sex relationship. The penalty surprisingly increased when his religiosity was highlighted. In contrast, Buttigieg’s military background mitigated voter discrimination when he was presented as a veteran married to a man. This article reveals how double standards and heterosexism penalize gay candidates, and contributes to discussions on minority candidates and electability.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Section: Subgroup Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Impact Of Buttigieg's Religiositymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Candidate Identity and Campaign Priming: Analyzing Voter Support for Pete Buttigieg’s Presidential Run as an Openly Gay Man

Magni,

Reynolds

2023

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Voter attitudes and politicians with health conditions and disabilities

Magni,

Reynolds

2024

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMillions of Americans live with chronic health conditions and disabilities. While disability and disabling conditions are common in the United States, the number of politicians and candidates with disclosed disabilities or chronic health conditions remains extremely low.ObjectivesThis study examines what drives the lack of descriptive representation of individuals with disabilities or chronic health conditions. In particular, it examines whether disability bias, or more specifically ableism, drives voter bias against politicians with health challenges and disabilities.MethodsThe analysis relies on two original surveys with samples of American respondents that match Census quotas on key indicators. The first survey was administered to more than 1800 U.S. respondents in 2018. The second survey was administered to 6345 U.S. respondents in 2020. The approach combines observational and experimental data, as well as quantitative and qualitative analysis.ResultsThe findings reveal that voters are significantly less likely to support candidates with disclosed disabilities or health conditions. Mental illness and HIV face the strongest discrimination, while physical challenges due to birth conditions like wheelchair usage and dwarfism are the least penalized. A combination of prejudice, negative character assessment, and electability concerns drive voter bias.ConclusionUnderstanding the barriers to the election of politicians with disabilities and chronic health conditions is crucial to improve the representation of marginalized communities, as descriptive representation improves public policy outcomes for marginalized communities.

show abstract