Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 227 votes. Following the largely unanticipated outcome of the election, several narratives predominated the media as explanations for the election results. Some proposed that Clinton’s defeat was due to sexism toward women (e.g., [1][2]). Others argued that the election demonstrated underlying racist sentiments in the U.S. (e.g., [3][4]). A third explanation was that growing nationalistic attitudes in the U.S. contributed to Trump’s win (e.g., [5][6]). Although scholars have found evidence to support each of these accounts (e.g., [7][8][9]), most studies did not consider all three factors in conjunction. This is important as sexism toward women, racism, and nationalism are generally correlated with one another (e.g., [10]), so it is unclear to what extent each factor was uniquely related to the election outcome. Furthermore, many of the studies did not prospectively test the association between these factors and voting behavior. Thus, the goal of this study was to determine the extent to which sexism toward women, racism, and nationalism independently accounted for attitudes toward the presidential candidates and voting intentions pre-election, as well as predicted actual voting behavior.
Sexism
Despite advances in gender equality in the workforce in the last few decades, gender gaps still remain in hiring, promotion, and salaries (e.g., [11][12]). For example, only 23.7% of the 2019 U.S. congress are women [13]. This inequality is in part due to gender stereotypes and sexist beliefs about women (e.g., [14]). In particular, gender inequality in leadership positions is related to match/mismatch in societal stereotypes regarding gender and leader roles (see [15], for a review). According to role congruity theory, female leaders are evaluated more negatively because there is inconsistency in the traits associated with their gender (e.g., dependent, emotional) and those of a leader (e.g., strength, rational; [16]). Male leaders, on the other hand, are evaluated more positively because they are perceived as possessing more leadership qualities, due to overlap in societal stereotypes. This bias applies to evaluations of presidential candidates. In an experimental study, a hypothetical female presidential candidate was evaluated more negatively than a hypothetical male presidential candidate with the exact same qualifications [17]. However, it should be noted that this study had a small sample size and thus low statistical power. In another study, actual female presidential candidates (i.e., Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole) were similarly evaluated as less qualified than male candidates (i.e., John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain), and participants were more likely to vote for male candidates than female candidates [18].
Women who are perceived as more agentic when seeking a leadership position often face backlash in the form of hostile sexism [19]. According to ambivalent sexism theory, sexism toward women consists of two components: hostile and benevolent sexism [20][21]. Hostile sexism refers to more traditional prejudice and hostility toward women, and it is based on beliefs that women are threatening men’s position and power. Benevolent sexism includes attitudes of appreciation for women, but is based on beliefs that women are weaker than men and traditional gender roles should remain in society. As such, men should protect women. These seemingly contradictory aspects of sexism toward women help to maintain men’s greater status in society while simultaneously recognizing the necessity for men and women to have favorable relations for reproductive purposes. In order to maintain the status quo, women are overtly criticized and evaluated negatively when they do not prescribe to traditional gender roles (i.e., hostile sexism), and they are viewed positively as caring and in need of protection from men when in traditional gender roles (i.e., benevolent sexism; [22]). In general, Hillary Clinton is viewed as less stereotypically feminine, and greater hostile sexism toward women has previously been associated with lower likelihood of voting for Hillary Clinton [23].
- ↑ Burleigh, N. (2016, November 14). The presidential election was a referendum on gender and women lost. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/18/hillary-clinton-presidentialelection-voter-gender-gap-520579.html
- ↑ Merelli, A. (2016, November 9). America was never ready for a woman president. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/832024/2016-presidential-election-results-hillary-clintons-loss-is-a-sign-thatamerica-was-never-ready-for-a-woman-president/
- ↑ Bacon, P. (2016, November 11). How the 2016 election exposed America’s racial and cultural divides. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/how-2016-election-exposedamerica-s-racial-cultural-divides-n682306
- ↑ Gabriel, D. (2016) Belonging, racism and white backlash in the 2016 US presidential election. US Election Analysis 2016. Retrieved from http://www.electionanalysis2016.us/us-election-analysis-2016/section-4-diversity-and-division/belonging-racism-and-white-backlash-in-the-2016-us-presidentialelection/
- ↑ Feffer, J. (2017, January 24). Witnessing the birth of a new nationalist world order. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/the-birth-of-a-new-nation_b_14361104.html
- ↑ Schindler, J. R. (2016, November 14). America’s emerging nationalism crisis: Progressives managed not to see the nose on their face. Observer. Retrieved from http://observer.com/2016/11/americasemerging-nationalism-crisis/
- ↑ Bock J., Byrd-Craven J., & Burkley M. (2017). The role of sexism in voting in the 2016 presidential election. Personality and Individual Differences, 199, 189–193.
- ↑ Schaffner B. F., MacWilliams M., & Nteta T. (2018). Understanding white polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133, 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12737
- ↑ Whitehead A. L., Perry S. L., & Baker J. O. (2018). Make America Christian again: Christian nationalism and voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Sociology of Religion, 79, 147–171.
- ↑ De Figueiredo R. J. P., & Elkins Z. (2003). Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00012
- ↑ Deane, C., Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., Wang, W., Brown, A., Morin, R. Women and leadership: Public says women are equally qualified, but barriers persist. (2015). Retrieved from Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/
- ↑ National Partnership for Women and Families (2019). America’s women and the wage gap [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpartnership.org
- ↑ Center for American Women & Politics (2019). Women in the U.S. Congress 2019. Rutgers, Eagleton Institute of Politics. Retrieved from https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2019
- ↑ Dolan K. (2005). How the public views women candidates. In Thomas S& Wilcox C(Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, present, and future (pp. 41–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.
- ↑ Eagly A. H., Makhijani M., & Klonsky B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3
- ↑ Eagly A. H., & Karau S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573 PMID: 12088246
- ↑ Smith J. L., Paul D., & Paul R. (2007). No place for a woman: Evidence for gender bias in evaluations of presidential candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503069
- ↑ Paul D., & Smith J. L. (2008). Subtle sexism? Examining vote preferences when women run against men for presidency. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 29, 451–476.
- ↑ Rudman L. & Glick P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toeard agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.
- ↑ Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
- ↑ Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
- ↑ Glick P., Diebold J., Bailey-Werner B., & Zhu L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009
- ↑ Gervais S. J., & Hillard A. L. (2011). A role congruity perspective on prejudice toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Analyses on Social Issues and Public Policy, 11, 221–240.
