Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election

Valentino, Nicholas A.; Wayne, Carly; Oceno, Marzia

doi:10.1093/poq/nfy003

Cited by 132 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, 32% of those in the representative sample agreed, as compared to 31% of our control group (see Table S1 in the online supporting information for demographic comparisons). Our distribution of hostile and benevolent sexists also closely mirrors other research on sexism in the 2017 election (Bäck et al, ; Valentino et al, ). Thus, although our data source is not a replacement for a probability sample, we can be reasonably confident that our sample resembles a nationally representative sample on gendered attitudes.…”

Section: Studysupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Alternatively, scholars, activists, and pundits may have simply overestimated our country’s commitments to equality. Research in other country contexts have noted the frequency of explicitly gendered attacks and media narratives, even in places that have successfully chosen women as key leaders (Johnson, ; Tobar, ; Williams, ). Future research might build on what we have presented here to understand the effects of explicit gendered attacks across campaigns and national contexts.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hostile sexists are also more likely to condone aggression and violence toward women, endorse rape myths (Begany & Milburn, 2002), and show a proclivity to engage in acquaintance rape and sexual aggression (Masser, Viki, & Power, 2006). New research also suggests that hostile sexists were more supportive of Trump in the 2016 U.S. election (Bäck, Carroll, Hansen, & Bäck, 2017;Valentino, Wayne, & Oceno, 2018).…”

Section: System Justification Theory and Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race

Cassese

Holman

2018

Political Psychology

164

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Late in the 2016 U.S. Presidential primary, Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton for playing the “woman’s card.” Theories of system justification suggest that attitudes about gender, particularly endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism, likely shaped reactions to this campaign attack. Using a set of two studies, we find that hostile sexists exposed to the attack showed increased support for Trump and decreased support for Clinton. Benevolent sexists, however, reacted to Trump’s statements with increased support for Clinton, consistent with benevolent sexism’s focus on protecting women (Study 1). We further found that the woman card attack produced distinct emotional reactions among those with low and high levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. The attack also increased political participation among hostile sexists (Study 2). Our results offer new insights into the role of sexism in the 2016 presidential contest and further the discipline’s understanding of the gendered dimension of negative campaigning.

show abstract

Section: Studysupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: System Justification Theory and Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race

Cassese

Holman

2018

Political Psychology

164

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In short, fear decreased, while anger increased the impact of dispositions on political attitudes. Finally, in a recent examination of support for candidate Donald Trump in early 2016, (Valentino, Wayne, & Oceno, ) discovered a very similar pattern, with anger boosting and fear suppressing the impact of predispositions like ethnocentrism and sexism.…”

Section: Fear Anger and Political Behaviormentioning

confidence: 95%

Fear, Anger, and Voting for the Far Right: Evidence From the November 13, 2015 Paris Terror Attacks

Vasilopoulos

Marcus

Valentino

et al. 2018

Political Psychology

157

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conjecture that negative emotions underpin support for far‐right politics is common among pundits and scholars. The conventional account holds that authoritarian populists catalyze public anxiety about the changing social order and/or deteriorating national economic conditions, and this anxiety subsequently drives up support for the far right. We propose that while emotions do indeed play an independent causal role in support for far‐right parties and policies, that support is more likely built upon the public’s anger rather than fear. This article explores the relative impact of fear and anger in reaction to the 2015 Paris terror attacks on the propensity to vote for the French far‐right party, the Front National, in the 2015 regional elections. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find that anger is associated with voting for the Front National, while fear is associated with voting against the Front National. Moreover, anger boosts the Front National vote most powerfully among far‐right and authoritarian voters. On the other hand, fear reduces support for the far right among those same groups.

show abstract

“…This political strategy appeared to garner substantial support for Trump when he was running for president, as White individuals who strongly identified with their Whiteness tended to express stronger support for him, especially if they perceived a threat to their group status (Major, Blodorn, & Blascovich, 2018). In addition, the activation of attitudes about race and gender were more strongly associated with support for candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton than for other candidates of several previous elections (Schaffner, MacWilliams, & Nteta, 2018;Sides, Tesler, & Vavreck, 2017;Valentino, Wayne, & Oceno, 2018). In spite of this, few studies have looked into relationships between perceived impact of contentious elections and the mental and physical health of United States citizens, as well as the ways that coping strategies may play a role in such relationships.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The perceived impact of the 2016 election: A mediation model predicting health outcomes

Koerten

Bogusch

Varga

et al. 2019

J. Soc. Polit. Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the relationship between the self-reported personal impact of the election of President Donald J. Trump, as measured by the Personal Impact of the Election Scale (PIES), and physical and mental health. A sample of 299 MTurk Amazon workers completed an online survey, including measures of the perceived personal impact of the 2016 presidential election, thought suppression, and mental and physical health. A mediation model was tested, with thought suppression included as a mediator of the relationship between the PIES and physical and mental health. Results indicated that thought suppression partially mediated the relationship between the PIES and physical and mental health. Specifically, the perceived impact of the election was positively associated with thought suppression (β = .51, SE = .01, p < .001), which was in turn negatively associated with physical health (β = -.25, SE = .44, p < .001) and mental health (β = -.50, SE = .47, p < .001). The results of this study suggest that perceptions of this sociopolitical event were related to the health of United States citizens and show a need for large-scale interventions to address this relationship, especially for those who feel threatened based on their ethnic or religious background.

show abstract

Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election

Cited by 132 publications

References 34 publications

Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race

Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race

Fear, Anger, and Voting for the Far Right: Evidence From the November 13, 2015 Paris Terror Attacks

The perceived impact of the 2016 election: A mediation model predicting health outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About