Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-dtcmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-08T17:18:17.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gender Attitudes and Candidate Preferences in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary and General Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2021

Meri T. Long
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Ryan Dawe
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Elizabeth Suhay
Affiliation:
American University

Abstract

Scholars increasingly recognize that voters’ attitudes about gender shape their electoral preferences. Yet previous research has not captured important nuances of the relationship between gender attitudes and electoral choice. We argue that the effects of gender attitudes are not unidirectional and interact in complex ways with voters’ perceptions of candidates, depending not only on candidates’ sex but also on their gender-relevant characteristics and values. We draw on an original survey of Americans during the 2016 elections that measured three gender attitudes—hostile sexism, modern sexism, and traditional gender roles—and evaluations of primary and general election candidates. Our study design increases analytical leverage by examining actual and hypothetical candidate matchups. We find that among Democrats, hostile sexists were drawn to Bernie Sanders, but gender traditionalists preferred Hillary Clinton. Our results also suggest that if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, gender egalitarians would have strongly supported him over Donald Trump, as they did Clinton.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Women, Gender, and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

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

Supplementary material: PDF

Bjarnegård et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Bjarnegård et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 187 KB