Exploring the Variance in Sexism by Magnitude of Office in Executive Offices

• In Event: Gender Stereotypes in Context: When is there a Masculine Advantage?

Abstract

Hillary Clinton’s presidential loss in 2016 has been attributed to many factors including racial resentment, economic anxiety, and anti-elite sentiment. Recent research has found that, sexism has explanatory power in the 2016 Presidential election. While prior research has focused on the role of sexism in voting at the Presidential level, female candidates have successfully win executive office at lower levels of government. 30 states and over 1300 cities have elected female governors or mayors. What explains the variation in observable levels of sexism across different levels of government? In this study, we explore the role of sexism in voting at three levels: mayoral, gubnatorial, and presidential. We argue that female candidates at the local and state level are seen as less threatening to voters than female candidates at the presidential level. To test this argument, we present a survey and embedded experiment administered at these three different levels as well as an experiment to explore why sexism varies by the level of office. Our findings contribute add to a limited body of research on the role of sexism in non-federal executive office and further contributes to gender inclusive voting behavior models that become important as more women vie for executive office.

Author

• Tara Riggs, Binghamton University