Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election
-
Michelle A. Barnello
Michelle A. Barnello is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Christopher Newport University. Her research interests include women and politics, and state politics. Her work has appeared in journals includingWomen & Politics ,State Politics and Policy Quarterly ,Legislative Studies Quarterly , andThe Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics .
,
Rachel Bitecofer
Rachel Bitecofer is Lecturer of Political Science and Assistant Director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. Her research interests include campaigns and elections, political behavior, political polarization, and public opinion. She is the author ofThe Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election (2017), published by Palgrave Macmillan.
und
Quentin Kidd
Quentin Kidd is Dean of the College of Social Sciences, Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. His research interests include citizenship/civic participation, American political behavior, Virginia politics, and southern U.S. politics. His work has appeared in journals includingSocial Science Quarterly, PS: Political Science & Politics, Political Analysis, and American Politics Research .
Abstract
The 2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female major party nominee for president created an unprecedented opportunity to test for evidence of explicit sexism in the electorate. Presidential elections normally produce two equally matched nominees with impressive public service resumes who behave similarly on the campaign trail. However, while Democrats were making history nominating the first female nominee, the Republicans also made history by selecting a nominee with no public service experience, a controversial personal background, and conduct that conflicted sharply with traditional norms of presidential candidates. In survey after survey, voters recognized that Clinton held a significant qualification advantage over Donald Trump. Yet, despite the fact that both men and women were more likely to rate Clinton as more qualified than her opponent overall, using an innovative approach via an original survey, we find evidence of implicit sexism in the way that some males evaluated Clinton compared to their female counterparts.
About the authors
Michelle A. Barnello is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Christopher Newport University. Her research interests include women and politics, and state politics. Her work has appeared in journals including Women & Politics, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, Legislative Studies Quarterly, and The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics.
Rachel Bitecofer is Lecturer of Political Science and Assistant Director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. Her research interests include campaigns and elections, political behavior, political polarization, and public opinion. She is the author of The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election (2017), published by Palgrave Macmillan.
Quentin Kidd is Dean of the College of Social Sciences, Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. His research interests include citizenship/civic participation, American political behavior, Virginia politics, and southern U.S. politics. His work has appeared in journals including Social Science Quarterly, PS: Political Science & Politics, Political Analysis, and American Politics Research.
Appendix 1: Demographics of survey
| EDUC | |
| High school or less | 2 |
| Some college | 16 |
| Vocational or technical training | 35 |
| College graduate | 26 |
| Graduate study or more | 21 |
| RACE | |
| White | 71 |
| Black or African American | 18 |
| Other | 11 |
| RELIG | |
| Christian | 65 |
| Jewish | 2 |
| Other | 14 |
| None (vol) | 16 |
| Dk/ref (vol) | 3 |
| PARTYID | |
| Republican | 32 |
| Democrat | 38 |
| Independent | 28 |
| No preference (vol) | <1 |
| Other party (vol) | <1 |
| Dk/ref (vol) | <1 |
| [IF OTHER THAN REP OR DEM ABOVE] | |
| PARTLEAN | |
| Republican | 47 |
| Democratic | 41 |
| Independent | 12 |
| IDEO | |
| Strong liberal | 11 |
| Liberal | 12 |
| Moderate | 38 |
| Conservative | 24 |
| Strong conservative | 14 |
| Dk/ref (vol) | 1 |
| AGE | |
| 18–24 | 9 |
| 25–34 | 11 |
| 35–44 | 15 |
| 45–54 | 25 |
| 55 & older | 40 |
| INCOME | |
| Under $25,000 | 5 |
| $25–$49,999 | 12 |
| $50–$74,999 | 24 |
| $75–$99,999 | 11 |
| $100,000–$149,999 | 19 |
| Over $150,000 | 19 |
| Dk/ref (vol) | 11 |
| SEX | |
| Male | 48 |
| Female | 52 |
Appendix 2: How the survey was conducted
The results of this poll are based on 743 online interviews of American conducted August 28–29, 2016. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. The margin of error for the whole survey is ±3.7% at the 95% level of confidence. This means that if 50% of respondents indicate a topline view on an issue, we can be 95% confident that the population’s view on that issue is somewhere between 46.3% and 53.7%. All error margins have been adjusted to account for the survey’s design effect, which is 1.2 in this survey. The design effect is a factor representing the survey’s deviation from a simple random sample, and takes into account decreases in precision due to sample design and weighting procedures. Sub-samples have a higher margin of error. In addition to sampling error, the other potential sources of error include non-response, question wording, and interviewee error. The response rate (AAPOR RRI Standard Definition) for the survey was 17%. The data reported here are weighted using an iterative weighting process on sex, age, and race to reflect as closely as possible the demographic composition of the American population.
References
Alkadry, Mohamad, and Leslie Tower. 2014. Women in Public Service: Barriers, Challenges, and Opportunities. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.10.4324/9781315698120Suche in Google Scholar
Bishu, Sebawit, and Mohamad Alkadry. 2017. “A Systematic Review of the Gender Pay Gap and Factors That Predict It.” Administration & Society 49 (1): 65–104.10.1177/0095399716636928Suche in Google Scholar
Bjerk, David. 2008. “Glass Ceilings or Sticky Floors? Statistical Discrimination in a Dynamic Model of Hiring and Promotion.” The Economic Journal 118 (530): 961–982.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02157.xSuche in Google Scholar
Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2013. He Runs, She Runs. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400846191Suche in Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara C. 1996. A Woman’s Place is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bygren, Magnus, and Michael Gähler. 2012. “Family Formation and Men’s and Women’s Attainment of Workplace.” Social Forces 90 (3): 795–816.10.1093/sf/sor008Suche in Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin, and Mirya Holman. 2018. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40 (3): 785–807.10.1007/s11109-017-9423-7Suche in Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2019a. “Women in the U.S. Congress 2019.” CAWP Fact Sheet. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Suche in Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2019b. “Women in State Legislatures 2019.” CAWP Fact Sheet. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Suche in Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2019c. “Women and Statewide Elective Executive Office 2019.” CAWP Fact Sheet. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Suche in Google Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L., and John Barry Ryan. 2016. “Social Desirability, Hidden Biases, and Support for Hillary Clinton.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (4): 730–735.10.1017/S1049096516001414Suche in Google Scholar
Cook, Elizabeth Adell. 1998. “Voter Reaction to Women Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections, & Representation. 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ditonto, Tessa M., Allison J. Hamilton, and David P. Redlawsk. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Information Search, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 335–358.10.1007/s11109-013-9232-6Suche in Google Scholar
Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 1997. “Gender Differences in Support for Women Candidates: Is There a Glass Ceiling in American Politics?” Women & Politics 17 (2): 27–41.10.1300/J014v17n02_02Suche in Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates & Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199968275.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L. 2011. “Studying Gender in U.S. Politics: Where Do We Go from Here?” Politics & Gender 7 (1): 94–99.10.1017/S1743923X10000589Suche in Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Eric R. A. N. Smith. 1998. “The Role of Candidate Sex in Voter Decision-Making.” Political Psychology 19 (2): 405–419.10.1111/0162-895X.00110Suche in Google Scholar
Fulton, Sarah A. 2012. “Running Backwards, and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 303–314.10.1177/1065912911401419Suche in Google Scholar
Fulton, Sarah A. 2014. “When Gender Matters: Macro-Dynamics and Micro-Mechanisms.” Political Behavior 36: 605–630.10.1007/s11109-013-9245-1Suche in Google Scholar
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 491–512.10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491Suche in Google Scholar
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1997. “Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: Measuring Ambivalent Sexist Attitudes Toward Women.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 21 (1): 119–135.10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.xSuche in Google Scholar
Glick, Peter, Jeffrey Diebold, Barbara Bailey-Werner, and Lin Zhu. 1997. The Two Faces of Adam: Ambivalent Sexism and Polarized Attitudes Toward Women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (12): 1323–1334.10.1177/01461672972312009Suche in Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2015. “A Non-Gendered Lens? Media, Voters, and Female Candidates in Contemporary Congressional Elections.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (1): 95–118.10.1017/S1537592714003156Suche in Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016a. “There’s Much Less Gender Bias in Politics Than You Think. Here’s Why.” The Washington Post/Monkey Cage, May 24. Accessed https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/24/how-much-does-gender- bias-affect-u-s-elections/?utm_term=.ada38bb8e246 (March 24, 2016).Suche in Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016b. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316336007Suche in Google Scholar
Heldman, Caroline, Meredith Conroy, and Alissa R. Ackerman. 2018. Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.10.5040/9798216013280Suche in Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. L., M. C. Green, and J.A. Krosnick. 2003. “Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125.10.1086/346010Suche in Google Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin, and Jonathon Woon. 2015. Women don’t Run: Election Aversion and Candidate Entry.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 595–612.10.1111/ajps.12158Suche in Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, Christopher R. Weber, and Yanna Krupnikov. 2016. “Social Desirability Bias in the 2016 Presidential election.” The Forum 14 (4): 433–443.10.1515/for-2016-0037Suche in Google Scholar
Kreuter, Frauke, Stanley Presser, and Roger Tourangeau. 2008. “Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (5): 847–865.10.1093/poq/nfn063Suche in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2012. Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511806001Suche in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511778797Suche in Google Scholar
McKay, Stephen. 2006. “Hard Drives and Glass Ceilings: Gender Stratification in Hightech Production.” Gender & Society 20: 207–235.10.1177/0891243205285371Suche in Google Scholar
Ratliff, Kate A., Liz Redford, and John Conway. 2017. “Engendering Support: Hostile Sexism Predicts Voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 22 (4): 578–593.10.1177/1368430217741203Suche in Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34.10.2307/3088412Suche in Google Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta. 2018. “Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Political Science Quarterly 133 (1): 9–34.10.1002/polq.12737Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, Jessi L., David Paul, and Rachel Paul. 2007. “No Place for a Woman: Evidence for Gender Bias in Evaluations of Presidential Candidates.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 29 (3): 225–233.10.1080/01973530701503069Suche in Google Scholar
Stanley, T. D., and Stephen B. Jarrell. 1998. “Gender Wage Discrimination Bias? A Meta-Regression Analysis.” Journal of Human Resources 33 (4): 947–973.10.2307/146404Suche in Google Scholar
Swim, Janet K., and Laurie L. Cohen. 1997. “Overt, Covert, and Subtle Sexism: A Comparison between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 21 (1): 103–118.10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.xSuche in Google Scholar
Swim, Janet K., Kathryn Aikin, Wayne Hall, and Barbara Hunter. 1995. “Sexism and Racism: Old-Fashioned and Modern Prejudices.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68: 199–214.10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199Suche in Google Scholar
Wilz, Kelly. 2016. “Bernie Bros and Woman Cards: Rhetorics of Sexism, Misogyny, and Constructed Masculinity in the 2016 Election.” Women’s Studies in Communication 39 (4): 357–360.10.1080/07491409.2016.1227178Suche in Google Scholar
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Articles
- Moral Foundations, System Justification, and Support for Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election
- Explaining and Predicting Midterm Congressional Election Outcomes: Factoring in Opposition Party Strategy
- Dumping Trump and Electoral Bumps: The Causes and Consequences of Republican Officeholders’ Endorsement Decisions
- Using Journal Impact Factor to Assess Scholarly Records: Overcorrecting for the Potter Stewart Approach to Promotion and Tenure
- Deconstructing Popular Mythologies about Millennials and Party Identification
- Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election
- “One Difficulty…of a Serious Nature”: The Overlooked Racial Dynamics of the Electoral College
- The Myth of the Bipartisan National Popular Vote Plan
- Book reviews
- Review of Choosing the Leader: Leadership Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives
- Review of Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Articles
- Moral Foundations, System Justification, and Support for Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election
- Explaining and Predicting Midterm Congressional Election Outcomes: Factoring in Opposition Party Strategy
- Dumping Trump and Electoral Bumps: The Causes and Consequences of Republican Officeholders’ Endorsement Decisions
- Using Journal Impact Factor to Assess Scholarly Records: Overcorrecting for the Potter Stewart Approach to Promotion and Tenure
- Deconstructing Popular Mythologies about Millennials and Party Identification
- Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election
- “One Difficulty…of a Serious Nature”: The Overlooked Racial Dynamics of the Electoral College
- The Myth of the Bipartisan National Popular Vote Plan
- Book reviews
- Review of Choosing the Leader: Leadership Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives
- Review of Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America
