IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v50y2020i4p1217-1243_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Party Polarization, Ideological Sorting and the Emergence of the US Partisan Gender Gap

Author

Listed:
  • Gillion, Daniel Q.
  • Ladd, Jonathan M.
  • Meredith, Marc

Abstract

This article argues that the modern American partisan gender gap – the tendency of men to identify more as Republicans and less as Democrats than women – emerged largely because of mass-level ideological party sorting. As the two major US political parties ideologically polarized at the elite level, the public gradually perceived this polarization and better sorted themselves into the parties that matched their policy preferences. Stable pre-existing policy differences between men and women caused this sorting to generate the modern US partisan gender gap. Because education is positively associated with awareness of elite party polarization, the partisan gender gap developed earlier and is consistently larger among those with college degrees. The study finds support for this argument from decades of American National Election Studies data and a new large dataset of decades of pooled individual-level Gallup survey responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillion, Daniel Q. & Ladd, Jonathan M. & Meredith, Marc, 2020. "Party Polarization, Ideological Sorting and the Emergence of the US Partisan Gender Gap," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1217-1243, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:50:y:2020:i:4:p:1217-1243_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123418000285/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Migheli, Matteo, 2022. "Lost in election. How different electoral systems translate the voting gender gap into gender representation bias," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:50:y:2020:i:4:p:1217-1243_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.