Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Reconciling Sexism and Women’s Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender, Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races

Abstract

Much of the gender gap literature focuses on women’s greater average liberalism relative to men. This approach masks considerable heterogeneity in political identity and behavior among women based on race, class, and other key socio-demographic characteristics. In the 2016 Presidential contest, political divisions among women were evident in exit polling, which demonstrated that a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump. This was not an anomaly but reflects a more long-standing distinction between white women and women of other racial and ethnic identifications. In this paper, we draw on intersectionality and system justification theory as frameworks for exploring the distinctive political behavior of white women. Using data from the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Studies, we evaluate the factors that attracted white women voters to the GOP and kept them in the fold in spite of expectations that sexism in the campaign would drive women away from the party during the 2016 Presidential race. Our analyses show that many white women endorse sexist beliefs, and that these beliefs were strong determinants of their vote choice in 2016, more so than in 2012. Our findings also point to important divisions among white women based on educational attainment and household income in terms of both the endorsement of sexism and vote choice. These results shed new light on white women’s political behavior and qualify the existing gender gap literature in important ways, offering new insights into the ways whiteness, gender, and class intersect to shape political behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Table A2 in the Online Appendix for complete descriptive data on voters in 2012 and 2016. No shifts were observed in vote choice among white Americans generally or among college-educated Americans. The primary change is the one depicted in Fig. 2.

  2. 2.

    We selected this significance level because adjusted Wald tests offer a conservative test of the change in coefficient size for logit models, see Williams (2009).

  3. 3.

    The measures for hostile sexism and perceived discrimination against women are correlated at − 0.15 (− 0.09 for women and − 0.20 for men) in 2012 and − 0.20 (− 0.17 for women and − 0.22 for men) in 2016.

  4. 4.

    We also used 101-point feeling thermometers for both Republican presidential candidates to determine whether candidate evaluations were more polarized for some groups of men and women. Tables A4 and A6 of the Online Appendix demonstrates that the results for vote choice reported in Table 3 are consistent with feelings towards Romney and Trump.

  5. 5.

    Replication materials are available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QHMXAQ.

  6. 6.

    We include these covariates based on work by Barnes and Cassese (2017), which demonstrates these factors are important sources of variation among women, in order to rule out competing explanations for our findings.

  7. 7.

    Income is only modestly correlated with hostile sexism at − 0.11 in 2012 and − 0.15 in 2016, and with perceived discrimination against women at − 0.13 in 2012 and − 0.07 in 2016. .

  8. 8.

    Table A6 in the Online Appendix demonstrates that our results are also robust when controlling for the urban/rural residency of respondents; rurality was only measured for the face-to-face subsample of the ANES.

References

  1. Barnes, T. D., Beaulieu, E., & Saxton, G. (2018). Sex and corruption: How sexism shapes voters’ responses to scandal. Politics, Groups & Identities.

  2. Barnes, T., & Cassese, E. (2017). American party women: A look at the gender gap within parties. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 127–141.

  3. Begany, J. J., & Milburn, M. A. (2002). Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: Authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 119–126.

  4. Bock, J., Byrd-Craven, J., & Burkley, M. (2017). The role of sexism in voting in the 2016 presidential election. Personality and Individual Differences, 119(1), 189–193.

  5. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., De Boef, S., & Lin, T.-M. (2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 515–528.

  6. Bracic, A., Israel-Trummel, M., & Shortle, A. (2018). Is sexism for white people? Gender stereotypes, race, and the 2016 presidential election. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9446-8.

  7. Brown, N. E., & Gershon, S. A. (2016). Introduction. In N. E. Brown & S. A. Gershon (Eds.), Distinct identities: Minority women in US politics (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.

  8. Carroll, S. (2006). Voting choices: Meet you at the gender gap. In S. J. Carroll & R. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics (pp. 74–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  9. Cassese, E., & Barnes, T. (2018). Intersectional motherhood: Investigating public support for child care subsidies. Politics, Groups & Identities.

  10. Cassese, E. C., Barnes, T. D., & Branton, R. P. (2015). Racializing gender: Public opinion at the intersection. Politics & Gender, 11(1), 1–26.

  11. Cassese, E., & Holman, M. R. (2016). Religious beliefs, gender consciousness, and women’s political participation. Sex Roles., 75(9), 514–527.

  12. Cassese, E., & Holman, M. R. (Forthcoming) Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Political Psychology.

  13. CAWP. (2017). The gender gap: Voting choices in presidential elections. Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. Retrieved May 7, 2018 from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/ggpresvote.pdf.

  14. Chaney, C. K., Michael Alvarez, R., & Nagler, J. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections, 1980-1992. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 311–339.

  15. Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149.

  16. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223–230.

  17. Clement, S., & Guskin, E. (2017). Exit poll results: How different groups voted in Alabama. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 7, 2018 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.3e476fa99e3a.

  18. CNN. (2016). Exit polls. Retrieved September 17, 2017 from http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls.

  19. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180.

  20. Collins, P. H. (1993). Toward a New Vision: Race, class, and gender as categories of analysis and connection. Race, Sex & Class, 1(1), 25–45.

  21. Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

  22. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Malden, MA: Wiley.

  23. Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 139–167.

  24. Deckman, M. (2016). Tea party women: Mama grizzlies, grassroots leaders, and the changing face of the American right. New York: NYU Press.

  25. Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. C. (2010). A social role theory perspective on gender gaps in political attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 486–497.

  26. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press.

  27. Fry, R., & Kochhar, R. (2016). Are you in the American middle class? Pew Research CenterFactTank. Retrieved . May 7, 2018 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/.

  28. Gillion, D. Q., Ladd, J. M., & Meredith, M. (Forthcoming). Party polarization, ideological sorting and the emergence of the partisan gender gap. British Journal of Political Science.

  29. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.

  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.

  31. Hancock, A.-M. (2016). Intersectionality: An intellectual history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  32. Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1499–1511.

  33. Huddy, L. (2003). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 511–558). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  34. Hurtado, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2004). Through the looking glass: Implications of studying whiteness for feminist methods. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. P. Pruitt, & A. Burns (Eds.), Off white: Readings on power, privilege, and resistance (pp. 315–330). New York: Routledge.

  35. Iverson, T., & Rosenbluth, F. (2010). Women, work & politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  36. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126–136.

  37. Junn, J. (2017). The Trump Majority: white womanhood and the making of female voters in the U.S. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 343–352.

  38. Katz, J. (2016). Man enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the politics of presidential masculinity. Northhampton, MA: Interlink Books.

  39. Kaufmann, K. M., & Petrocik, J. R. (1999). The changing politics of American Men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 864–887.

  40. Kellstadt, P. M., Peterson, D. A., & Ramirez, M. D. (2010). The macro politics of a gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 477–498.

  41. Levine-Rasky, C. (2011). Intersectionality theory applied to whiteness and middle-classness. Social Identities, 17(2), 239–253.

  42. Mansbridge, J. J. (1985). Myth and Reality: The ERA and the gender gap in the 1980 election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 164–178.

  43. Manza, J., & Brooks, C. (1998). The gender gap in US presidential elections: When? Why? Implications? American Journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1235–1266.

  44. Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9–10), 609–615.

  45. Masser, B., Tendayi Viki, G., & Power, C. (2006). Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles, 54(7/8), 565–574.

  46. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.

  47. Norrander, B. (2008). The history of the gender gaps. In L. D. Whittaker (Ed.), Voting the gender gap (pp. 9–32). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

  48. Norrander, B., & Wilcox, C. (2008). The gender gap in ideology. Political Behavior, 30(4), 503–523.

  49. Ondercin, H. L. (2013). What Scarlet O’Hara thinks: Political attitudes of Southern women. Political Science Quarterly, 128(2), 233–259.

  50. Ondercin, H. L. (2017). Who is responsible for the gender gap? The dynamics of men’s and women’s democratic macropartisanship, 1950–2012. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 749–761.

  51. Pew (2016). Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots. Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 7, 2018 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/.

  52. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.

  53. Sapiro, V., & Conover, P. J. (1997). The variable gender basis of electoral politics: Gender and context in the 1992 US election. British Journal of Political Science, 27(4), 497–523.

  54. Schaffner, B., MacWilliams, M., & Nteta, T. (2018). Explaining white polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Studies Quarterly, 133(1), 9–34.

  55. Schreiber, R. (2014). Understanding the future of feminism requires understanding conservative women. Politics & Gender, 10(2), 276–280.

  56. Seltzer, R., Newman, J., & Leighton, M. V. (1997). Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates and voters in US elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

  57. Sue, D. W. (2004). Whiteness and ethnocentric monoculturalism: Making the ‘invisible’ visible. American Psychologist, 59(8), 761–769.

  58. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214.

  59. Valentino, N. A., Wayne, C., & Oceno, M. (2018). Mobilizing sexism: The interaction of emotion and gender attitudes in the 2016 US presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 213–235.

  60. Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. (1992). Financial conditions, gender and voting in american national elections. Journal of Politics, 54(1), 197–213.

  61. Wellman, D. T. (1993). Portraits of white racism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  62. Williams, R. (2009). Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research, 37(4), 531–559.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Erin C. Cassese.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 197 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cassese, E.C., Barnes, T.D. Reconciling Sexism and Women’s Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender, Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races. Polit Behav 41, 677–700 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9468-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender gap
  • Intersectionality
  • System justification theory
  • Hostile sexism
  • Voting behavior
  • Class
  • Whiteness