The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 · Cited by 5,202
Ekman, P. (1976) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,345
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146 · Cited by 3,325
Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.4.735 · Cited by 1,839
Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism
(2005) · Understanding Critical Social Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781446217566.n6 · Cited by 1,774
Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000) · Cited by 1,686
The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker
Cramer, K. J. (2016) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226349251.001.0001 · Cited by 1,555
Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199 · Cited by 1,486
Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111526 · Cited by 1,385
Metadata
- Authors
- Valentino, N. A., Wayne, C., & Oceno, M.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 799-821
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2796862326
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 146.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfy003
- The paper
- Valentino, N. A., Wayne, C., & Oceno, M. (2018). Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.