IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v52y2022i4p1564-1583_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Ambivalent Sexism and its Relationship with Electoral Choice in Britain

Author

Listed:
  • de Geus, Roosmarijn
  • Ralph-Morrow, Elizabeth
  • Shorrocks, Rosalind

Abstract

We investigate the prevalence and correlates of sexism in the British political context, using a measure of ambivalent sexism that distinguishes between hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes. Drawing on original data from two nationally representative online surveys, we find that more than half of the population hold some sexist attitudes and that these are predicted by gender, education, religiosity and authoritarian values. We demonstrate that the most significant division in sexist attitudes within the British electorate falls along political rather than gender lines, with men and women expressing more similar views about sexism than either Conservative and Labour voters, or Leave and Remain supporters. We also find that endorsing hostile sexism is associated with voting Conservative in the 2019 general election, even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and political values. Our findings reveal that sexism is important for political competition in contexts where gender is not obviously salient.

Suggested Citation

  • de Geus, Roosmarijn & Ralph-Morrow, Elizabeth & Shorrocks, Rosalind, 2022. "Understanding Ambivalent Sexism and its Relationship with Electoral Choice in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 1564-1583, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:4:p:1564-1583_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123421000612/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:52:y:2022:i:4:p:1564-1583_4. 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.