A tough campaign
Not “With Her”: How Gendered Political Slogans Affect Conservative Women’s Perceptions of Female Leaders
Saaid Mendoza & Marissa DiMaria
Sex Roles, forthcoming
Abstract:
Past research has indicated that women who work in male-dominated fields, such as politics, face discrimination due to a stereotypically perceived poor fit between their gender and occupational expectations. Even when their potential for success is undeniable, these women are typically derogated and viewed as unlikeable for violating prescriptive gender norms. We examined whether conservative U.S. women would respond in this unfavorable manner toward Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Female undergraduates (n = 140) were randomly assigned to watch a set of three campaign ads that included either no slogan, a gender-neutral slogan (“Stronger Together”), or a gendered slogan (“I’m with Her”). Afterwards, they rated Clinton on dimensions related to interpersonal hostility, competency, and overall support. Given its adherence to traditional values and gender roles, we hypothesized that political conservatism would be predictive of critical responses to Clinton, especially when the campaign slogan made her gender-norm violation salient. Results revealed that conservative ideology was more strongly associated with increased ratings of perceived hostility and less support for Clinton within the “I’m with Her” condition than with the comparison groups. These findings point to the social maintenance of political inequality and suggest that female leaders may need to use gender-neutral platforms to diminish the negative effects of their perceived norm violation, at least among conservative voters.
Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election
Nicholas Valentino, Carly Wayne & Marzia Oceno
Public Opinion Quarterly, April 2018, Pages 213–235
Abstract:
The outcome of the 2016 US presidential election cycle generated a great deal of attention about the political psychology of the average American voter. A familiar narrative was that authoritarianism, perhaps triggered by fears of cultural and economic change, was the primary driver of support for Donald Trump. This article argues that sexism has been underestimated as a political force, especially given the angry emotional climate. The article first explores the electoral role of sexism early in the campaign, finding that sexism powerfully predicted vote choice even after controlling for authoritarianism, partisanship, and other predispositions. Second, the article analyzes American National Election Studies time-series data to examine the impact of sexism in recent presidential elections, demonstrating that 2016 was the only year in which it played a large and significant role. Finally, a survey experiment tests the theorized causal mechanism underlying sexism’s influence: the catalyzing power of anger versus fear. Fear sharply reduced sexism’s impact on support for Trump relative to those who experienced anger. Further, anger powerfully mobilized sexists, a group that would normally be likely to stay home. These results illuminate the role that emotional undercurrents play in catalyzing group-based predispositions into politics.
Is Sexism for White People? Gender Stereotypes, Race, and the 2016 Presidential Election
Ana Bracic, Mackenzie Israel-Trummel & Allyson Shortle
Political Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
On November 8, 2016 Donald Trump, a man with no office-holding experience, won the Electoral College, defeating the first woman to receive the presidential nomination from a major party. This paper offers the first observational test of how sexism affects presidential vote choice in the general election, adding to the rich literature on gender and candidate success for lower-level offices. We argue that the 2016 election implicated gender through Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and Donald Trump’s sexist rhetoric, and activated gender attitudes such that sexism is associated with vote choice. Using an Election Day exit poll survey of over 1300 voters conducted at 12 precincts in a mid-size city and a national survey of over 10,000 White and Black Americans, we find that a politically defined measure of sexism — the belief that men are better suited emotionally for politics than women — predicts support for Trump both in terms of vote choice and favorability. We find the effect is strongest and most consistent among White voters. However, a domestically defined measure of sexism — whether men should be in control of their wives — offers little explanatory power over the vote. In total, our results demonstrate the importance of gender in the 2016 election, beyond mere demographic differences in vote choice: beliefs about gender and fitness for office shape both White men and women’s preferences.
Explaining the Trump Vote: The Effect of Racist Resentment and Anti-Immigrant Sentiments
Marc Hooghe & Ruth Dassonneville
PS: Political Science & Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
The campaign leading to the 2016 US presidential election included a number of unconventional forms of campaign rhetoric. In earlier analyses, it was claimed that the Trump victory could be seen as a form of protest voting. This article analyzes the determinants of voters’ choices to investigate the validity of this claim. Based on a sample of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, our analyses suggest that a Trump vote cannot be explained by a lack of trust in politics or low levels of satisfaction with democracy, as would be assumed given the extant literature on protest voting. However, indicators of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments proved to be important determinants of a Trump vote — even when controlling for more traditional vote-choice determinants. Despite ongoing discussion about the empirical validity of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments, both concepts proved to be roughly equally powerful in explaining a Trump vote.
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Diana Mutz
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 8 May 2018, Pages E4330-E4339
Abstract:
This study evaluates evidence pertaining to popular narratives explaining the American public’s support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election. First, using unique representative probability samples of the American public, tracking the same individuals from 2012 to 2016, I examine the “left behind” thesis (that is, the theory that those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages due to the loss of manufacturing jobs punished the incumbent party for their economic misfortunes). Second, I consider the possibility that status threat felt by the dwindling proportion of traditionally high-status Americans (i.e., whites, Christians, and men) as well as by those who perceive America’s global dominance as threatened combined to increase support for the candidate who emphasized reestablishing status hierarchies of the past. Results do not support an interpretation of the election based on pocketbook economic concerns. Instead, the shorter relative distance of people’s own views from the Republican candidate on trade and China corresponded to greater mass support for Trump in 2016 relative to Mitt Romney in 2012. Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.
Mass–Elite Divides in Aversion to Social Change and Support for Donald Trump
Matt Grossmann & Daniel Thaler
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Donald Trump won the American presidency in 2016 by overperforming expectations in upper Midwest states, surprising even Republican political elites. We argue that attitudes toward social change were an underappreciated dividing line between supporters of Trump and Hillary Clinton as well as between Republicans at the mass and elite levels. We introduce a concept and measure of aversion to (or acceptance of) social diversification and value change, assess the prevalence of these attitudes in the mass public and among political elites, and demonstrate its effects on support for Trump. Our research uses paired surveys of Michigan’s adult population and community of political elites in the Fall of 2016. Aversion to social change is strongly predictive of support for Trump at the mass level, even among racial minorities. But attitudes are far more accepting of social change among elites than the public and aversion to social change is not a factor explaining elite Trump support. If elites were as averse to social change as the electorate — and if that attitude mattered to their vote choice — they might have been as supportive of Trump. Views of social change were not as strongly related to congressional voting choices.
The change we believe in: The role of socioeconomic conditions in evaluations of black political candidates
Jarrod Kelly et al.
Electoral Studies, forthcoming
Abstract:
This research explores how poor socioeconomic conditions affect trait evaluations and support for Black political candidates compared to White candidates. Previous research finds that female leaders are perceived as more likely to bring change, which is desired under declining conditions, and typical preferences for male leaders is diminished during these periods (Brown et al., 2011). Extending this research, we examined how Black candidates, another politically underrepresented group, may also be linked with change and preferred under declining socioeconomic conditions. Specifically, stereotypes aligned Black candidates with change and White candidates with stability (Experiment 1). In a declining economy condition, a Black, as opposed to a White candidate, was preferred, with support mediated by change associations. In a stable socioeconomic condition, there were no differences in candidate support (Experiment 2). These results speak to the possibility that non-traditional candidates more generally trigger trait associations that advantage them under declining socioeconomic conditions.
The impact of gender and quality opposition on the relative assessment of candidate competency
Regina Branton et al.
Electoral Studies, August 2018, Pages 35-43
Abstract:
Extant women & politics literature suggests males are perceived to be better leaders than females. Men are more likely than women to be perceived as competent, decisive, and capable of handling crises--all important qualities for elected officials. This research suggests, on average, female elected officials are viewed as less competent than their male colleagues. Yet, extant literature typically examines perceived competency of elected officials in a vacuum. Notably, the research does not take in to account how the gender and quality of opposing candidates may influence the perceived competency of an elected official. In this research note, we address this limitation by examining evaluations of members of the U.S. House (henceforth MC) relative to the evaluations of their challenger. We find gender differences are larger and more pronounced when we compare male and female MCs competing against quality challengers.
Campaign spending and the top-two primary: How challengers earn more votes per dollar in one-party contests
Steven Sparks
Electoral Studies, August 2018, Pages 56-65
Abstract:
The top-two primary system changes the typical two-stage electoral process by creating scenarios in which two candidates from the same party may face each other in the general election. In two-party contests, voters receive information from candidate party labels and from campaign outreach, which is facilitated by campaign expenditures. Combined, this information helps voters make decisions on Election Day. In the absence of differentiating party labels in one-party contests, the information provided by candidate spending should matter more. Specifically, I argue that expenditures made by challengers facing same-party opponents should be more effective for increasing vote share than expenditures made by those facing opposite-party opponents. This study examines state legislative elections in California and Washington to investigate how the effectiveness of challenger campaign expenditures is conditioned by the presence of either a one-party or two-party contest. Results find that as challengers in one-party contests spend more, they are able to increase their vote share at more than double the pace per dollar spent when compared to challengers in two-party contests. Findings complement a broad literature investigating the role of electoral institutions in shaping voter and candidate behavior.
Why is New Hampshire More Competitive than Pennsylvania? Historical Electoral Competitiveness and Swing State Selection
Zachary Markovich & Dean Lacy
MIT Working Paper, April 2018
Abstract:
The electoral competitiveness of a geographic area, such as a US state, is usually measured as the deviation of the ex post election outcome from a tie, which assumes campaigns have perfect foresight expectations about the outcome, ignores prior election results, and does not account for over-time variation within a state. This paper introduces a measure of historical estimated electoral competitiveness that incorporates past election results and over-time volatility. The measure explains presidential campaigns’ advertising spending in 2008 and 2012 better than other frequently-used measures. Results from elections four decades past exert a significant effect on campaign expenditures in the 2008 and 2012 elections. The 1976 election appears particularly influential in recent campaign spending patterns. Historical estimated competitiveness shows that Romney’s campaign overspent in New Hampshire and Wisconsin in 2012, and both campaigns underspent in Ohio in 2008 and 2012.
What I Like About You: Legislator Personality and Legislator Approval
Jonathan Klingler, Gary Hollibaugh & Adam Ramey
Political Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
Recent work in the study of legislative politics has uncovered associations between the Big Five personality traits and myriad phenomena in the United States Congress. This literature raises new questions about political representation in terms of the Big Five, specifically, whether voters are more likely to support legislators with similar personality traits to their own, who would presumably have similar process preferences, or legislators with valence personality traits, regardless of congruence, which are associated with better leadership. We first revisit the measurement validity of voter assessments of legislator personality in the 2014 and 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies to demonstrate that such survey items are meaningful. Subsequently, we use these data to construct measures of personality congruence and valence and apply them to predict voters’ job approval of legislators. Our results support the claim that voters evaluate legislators’ job performance on the basis of perceived valence traits rather than legislators’ congruence to voters’ own personality dispositions.
Running Local: Gender Stereotyping and Female Candidates in Local Elections
Nichole Bauer
Urban Affairs Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
An implicit assumption underlying the gender stereotyping literature is that female candidates have an advantage in local elections. Two factors motivate this assumption. First, some local issues, such as the provision of social services, fit into the stereotypic strengths of female politicians. Second, as the level of office increases, so too does the perceived masculinity of the office. Research on local policymaking, however, indicates that the tasks associated with local political offices, such as economic competition with other cites, require masculine rather than feminine qualities. I integrate research on local policymaking with the gender stereotyping literature to clarify the role of gender stereotypes in local elections. Using two national survey experiments, I find that female candidates, especially Republican female candidates, benefit from emphasizing masculine stereotypes and not feminine stereotypes.
A Border Strategy Analysis of Ad Source and Message Tone in Senatorial Campaigns
Yanwen Wang, Michael Lewis & David Schweidel
Marketing Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Political advertising is controversial, as there is widespread concern about money from political action committees (PACs and super PACs) distorting the democratic process. Studying advertising effectiveness is, however, a challenging topic for several reasons, including the endogenous nature of fundraising and ad spending rates. However, the extensive use of targeting based on designated marketing areas (DMAs) creates a setting in which neighboring counties with comparable demographics receive different levels of advertising exposure. In this paper, we leverage these advertising discontinuities along DMA borders to study the relative effectiveness of political advertising on vote shares and turnout rates in 2010 and 2012 senatorial elections. We find that negative advertising sponsored by PACs is significantly less effective than that sponsored by candidates in affecting two-party vote shares and voter turnout. A 1% increase in negative advertising by the candidate produces a significant 0.015% lift in the candidate’s unconditional vote shares. By contrast, negative advertising from PACs is ineffective in increasing its supported candidate’s unconditional vote share. Further analysis reveals that the competitiveness of races moderates the effectiveness of political advertising, providing implications for those managing candidates’ campaigns, PACs, and super PACs.
Election Timing, Electorate Composition, and Policy Outcomes: Evidence from School Districts
Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu & Zachary Peskowitz
American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
There is considerable debate about how election timing shapes who votes, election outcomes, and, ultimately, public policy. We examine these matters by combining information on more than 10,000 school tax referenda with detailed micro‐targeting data on voters participating in each election. The analysis confirms that timing influences voter composition in terms of partisanship, ideology, and the numerical strength of powerful interest groups. But, in contrast to prominent theories of election timing, these effects are modest in terms of their likely impact on election outcomes. Instead, timing has the most significant impact on voter age, with the elderly being the most overrepresented group in low‐turnout special elections. The electoral (and policy) implications of this effect vary between states, and we offer one explanation for this variation.
The Comparative Effectiveness on Turnout of Positively Versus Negatively Framed Descriptive Norms in Mobilization Campaigns
Alan Gerber et al.
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Are mobilization appeals that include information about descriptive voting norms more effective at increasing turnout when the descriptive norm is framed positively (by highlighting a referent’s desirable behavior and encouraging consistent behavior) instead of negatively (by highlighting a referent’s lack of desirable behavior as problematic but also encouraging that behavior)? Few published studies have experimentally assessed this question and yield mixed results. We address the need for additional replication by designing and analyzing data from two field experiments conducted across four states in the 2014 primary and general elections. We find no differential effects on turnout of framing descriptive voting norms positively or negatively. The results are not sensitive to election context, the mode of treatment delivery, or whether the descriptive norm appeals involve a group or self-referent. Additional research is needed to understand the conditions under which positive versus negative descriptive norm framing has distinguishable effects on turnout.
The Effectiveness of a Hyper-Localized Get-Out-The-Vote Program: Evidence from the 2017 Virginia State Elections
Alison Morantz et al.
Stanford Working Paper, April 2018
Abstract:
We analyze the results of a hyper-localized, grassroots get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drive in Virginia called Plus3, in which unpaid volunteers were encouraged to contact at least three nearby registered voters that were likely co-partisans yet relatively unlikely to vote in the 2017 gubernatorial election. To measure the campaign’s effectiveness, we used a pairwise randomization design whereby each volunteer was assigned to one randomly-selected member of a pair of highly geographically-proximate voters that met the inclusion criteria. The timing and method(s) of voter contact were left to the discretion of the volunteers. Comparing turnout between the treatment and control groups suggests that the efficacy of the GOTV intervention was highly dependent on the method(s) of contact used by volunteers. Face-to-face contact was the only form of contact that showed any positive and statistically significant effect on turnout. Our estimates suggest that among the targeted group of voters, face-to-face contact from a Plus3 volunteer increased voters' likelihood of casting a ballot by roughly 10 percentage points.