{"title":"不是我的问题,而是你的问题:对2020年新罕布什尔州民主党初选中女性候选人的看法和态度","authors":"Jennifer C. Lucas, Elizabeth P. Ossoff","doi":"10.1080/21565503.2021.1980406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While the 2020 Democratic field was touted as one of the most diverse in presidential nomination history, a white, male, heterosexual candidate ultimately won the nomination. This is, on its face, surprising, as we might expect less sexism and more enthusiasm for diverse candidates among Democratic voters. To help explain this outcome, we refocus attention on the “third-person effect” and the anticipated reactions of others to a female candidate, rather than voters own individual beliefs in two ways. First, we demonstrate that attitudes about female presidential candidates still follow third-person effect predictions; individuals attribute socially desirable attitudes to themselves and less so more distant others (i.e. “Americans”). Second, we analyze how voters take into account perceived potential gender bias by others, which in turn influences female candidates’ perceived electability (likely support from other voters). Gendered electability then has measurable impacts on preference for female candidates, as they strategically choose the more electable candidate. Overall, these results demonstrate looking at the anticipated gender bias of others, rather than just an individual’s attitudes, can be helpful in explaining the continued perception of female presidential candidates as less electable and, ultimately, why women have not yet broken the highest glass ceiling.","PeriodicalId":46590,"journal":{"name":"Politics Groups and Identities","volume":"48 1","pages":"425 - 443"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"It’s not me, it’s you: perceptions of others and attitudes toward a female nominee in the 2020 New Hampshire democratic primary\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer C. Lucas, Elizabeth P. Ossoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21565503.2021.1980406\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT While the 2020 Democratic field was touted as one of the most diverse in presidential nomination history, a white, male, heterosexual candidate ultimately won the nomination. This is, on its face, surprising, as we might expect less sexism and more enthusiasm for diverse candidates among Democratic voters. To help explain this outcome, we refocus attention on the “third-person effect” and the anticipated reactions of others to a female candidate, rather than voters own individual beliefs in two ways. First, we demonstrate that attitudes about female presidential candidates still follow third-person effect predictions; individuals attribute socially desirable attitudes to themselves and less so more distant others (i.e. “Americans”). Second, we analyze how voters take into account perceived potential gender bias by others, which in turn influences female candidates’ perceived electability (likely support from other voters). Gendered electability then has measurable impacts on preference for female candidates, as they strategically choose the more electable candidate. Overall, these results demonstrate looking at the anticipated gender bias of others, rather than just an individual’s attitudes, can be helpful in explaining the continued perception of female presidential candidates as less electable and, ultimately, why women have not yet broken the highest glass ceiling.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46590,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics Groups and Identities\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"425 - 443\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics Groups and Identities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.1980406\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Groups and Identities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.1980406","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
It’s not me, it’s you: perceptions of others and attitudes toward a female nominee in the 2020 New Hampshire democratic primary
ABSTRACT While the 2020 Democratic field was touted as one of the most diverse in presidential nomination history, a white, male, heterosexual candidate ultimately won the nomination. This is, on its face, surprising, as we might expect less sexism and more enthusiasm for diverse candidates among Democratic voters. To help explain this outcome, we refocus attention on the “third-person effect” and the anticipated reactions of others to a female candidate, rather than voters own individual beliefs in two ways. First, we demonstrate that attitudes about female presidential candidates still follow third-person effect predictions; individuals attribute socially desirable attitudes to themselves and less so more distant others (i.e. “Americans”). Second, we analyze how voters take into account perceived potential gender bias by others, which in turn influences female candidates’ perceived electability (likely support from other voters). Gendered electability then has measurable impacts on preference for female candidates, as they strategically choose the more electable candidate. Overall, these results demonstrate looking at the anticipated gender bias of others, rather than just an individual’s attitudes, can be helpful in explaining the continued perception of female presidential candidates as less electable and, ultimately, why women have not yet broken the highest glass ceiling.