Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-m744c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-12T21:46:40.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing the Measurement of Sexism in Political Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2021

Brian F. Schaffner Open the ORCID record for Brian F. Schaffner [Opens in a new window]
Brian F. Schaffner*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Tisch College, Tufts. University, Medford, MA 02155, USA
*
Email: brian.schaffner@tufts.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists are paying increasing attention to understanding the role of sexist attitudes on predicting vote choices and opinions on issues. However, the research in this area measures sexist attitudes with a variety of different items and scales. In this paper, I evaluate some of the most prominent contemporary measures of sexism and develop an approach for identifying optimal items based on (1) convergent validity, (2) predictive validity, and (3) distance from politics. I find that a subset of items from the hostile sexism scale exhibit the most desirable measurement properties and I conclude by recommending a simple two- to five-item reduced hostile sexism battery that will allow scholars to efficiently, validly, and consistently measure sexism.

Keywords

scale usagemeasurementsexism

Information

Type
Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 364 - 380
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Corresponding author Brian F. Schaffner

Edited by Jeff Gill

References

Adcock, R., and Collier, D.. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95(3):529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracic, A., Israel-Trummel, M., and Shortle, A. F.. 2019. “Is Sexism for White People? Gender Stereotypes, Race, and the 2016 Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 41(2):281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, E. C., and Barnes, T. D.. 2019. “Reconciling Sexism and Women’s Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender, Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races.” Political Behavior 41:677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, E. C., and Holman, M. R.. 2019. “Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 US Presidential Race.” Political Psychology 40(1):55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A., and McClellan, O. A.. 2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 6(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, M., Briggs, T., Chahal, A., Fried, J., Garg, R., Kriz, S., Lei, L., Milne, A., and Slayton, J.. 2020. “How Partisanship and Sexism Influence Voters’ Reactions to Political# Metoo Scandals.” Research & Politics 7(3):2053168020941727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S. and Stenner, K.. 1997. “Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 18(4):741–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P. 2019. “Gender, Sexism, and the Election: Did Sexism Help Trump More than it Hurt Clinton?” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7:713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T.. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3):491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T.. 1997. “Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: Measuring Ambivalent Sexist Attitudes Toward Women.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 21(1):119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T.. 2011. “Ambivalent Sexism Revisited.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(3):530–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J., and Xu, Y.. 2018. “How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice.” Political Analysis 27:163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, M. J., and Weiler, J. D.. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. 2008. “Measurement.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Brady, H. E., and Collier, D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knuckey, J. 2019. ““I Just Don’t Think She Has a Presidential Look”: Sexism and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election.” Social Science Quarterly 100(1):342–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWilliams, M. C. 2016. The Rise of Trump: America’s Authoritarian Spring. Amherst: Amherst College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, B. F. 2020b. “The Heightened Importance of Racism and Sexism in the 2018 U.S. Midterm Elections.” British Journal of Political Science, forthcomingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, B. 2020a. “Replication Data for: Optimizing the Measurement of Sexism in Political Surveys.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WVP5LE, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, B. F., MacWilliams, M., and Nteta, T.. 2018. “Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Political Science Quarterly 133(1):9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, S., Hunt, W., and Coppock, A.. 2018. “What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of 30 Factorial Survey Experiments.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Setzler, M., and Yanus, A. B.. 2018. “Why Did Women Vote for Donald Trump.” PS Political Science & Politics 51(3):523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, M. C., Clarke, H. D., and Borges, W.. 2019. “Hillary’s Hypothesis about Attitudes Towards Women and Voting in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Electoral Studies 61:102034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., and Hunter, B. A.. 1995. “Sexism and Racism: Old-Fashioned and Modern Prejudices.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(2):199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, N. A., Wayne, C., and Oceno, M.. 2018. “Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(suppl_1):213–235.Google Scholar
Van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., and Coyne, J. C.. 2013. “Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain.” PloS one 8(7):e68967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X., Noor, R., and Savalei, V.. 2016. “Examining the Effect of Reverse Worded Items on the Factor Structure of the Need for Cognition Scale.” PloS one 11(6):e0157795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Schaffner supplementary material

Schaffner supplementary material

Download Schaffner supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 282.5 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Schaffner Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WVP5LE
Link