Gender, Modern Sexism, and the 2016 election

ABSTRACT

In the summer and fall of 2016, we examined how gender norms relate to perceptions of the ideal president as well as favorability toward Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Participants listed living examples of the “ideal” president and rated how typical masculine and feminine traits were of the ideal president (Studies 1a and 1b). Male exemplars and masculine traits were seen as more typical of the ideal president. Participants also rated the average man or woman, Trump, or Clinton on the same traits, completed the Modern Sexism scale, and rated how favorably they viewed each candidate (Study 2). Although Clinton matched the ideal better than Trump did, she did not represent her gender as well as Trump represented his. Our data suggest that Clinton’s “likability problem” stemmed from her lacking sufficient feminine traits rather than possessing masculine traits. Modern Sexism predicted lower favorability for Clinton and higher favorability for Trump above and beyond demographic variables, including political affiliation. Gender stereotypes and beliefs about gender equity (e.g., Modern Sexism) influenced attitudes toward the candidates in the 2016 election.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College for its support of this research. M. Chajewski, M. Chodorow, and J. Rendina provided helpful discussions about data analysis. We are grateful to helpful comments on earlier drafts and presentations from P. Rozin and from audience members at the University of Pennsylvania, Eastern Psychological Association, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Questionnaire items and additional data analyses are in supplemental information available online.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.