{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025223759153783564, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012205044751830757, 'mean_word_length': 5.275510204081633, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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.