Abstract
Over the past few decades, a gender gap has emerged in the mass public in ideological self-placement. While most men and women moved in the conservative direction, another segment of women retained their liberal self-identifications. A gender gap also exists in how men and women define their ideology. Which issues are linked to ideological identities is conditioned by gender and time period. Finally, ideological identities are structure by nonpolitical values as well as political issues. Religiosity and religious beliefs have come to increasingly shape Americans’ ideological identities, with some differences across the two sexes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For men the percentage of “don’t know” responses to the ANES ideology question has dropped from 23% to 16%, and for women from 32% to 24%.
NES has a second follow-up question on ideological self-identification: “If you had to choose, would you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative?” However, who was asked this second question varied over the years with no follow-up for the 1980 survey, in other surveys the question is asked of those responding “don’t know” or “haven’t thought much,” and in still other surveys moderates are also asked the second question. The follow-up question limits the number of response categories to three: liberal, moderate, and conservative. More importantly, the centrality of a self-identification that arises only on a second round of questioning is more suspect. Thus, we use responses only to the first ideology question.
The increased liberal identities among women come mathematically from the sum of three insignificant interactions—that women are becoming conservative slightly less quickly than men, that they are becoming moderate slightly less frequently, and that they are slightly more likely than men to adopt an ideological identity over time. None of these interactions are in themselves significant.
The income variable was not asked in the 2002 survey and the urban/rural distinction is not included in the 2002 or 2004 surveys, so the time series covers only 1972 to 2000. The following variables and codings were used: age cohort (VCF0103);dummy variable for white (code 1 in VCF0105); education (VCF0110); rural (VCF0111); coast (VCF0112) recoded with Northeast and West as coast (1) and Midwest and South (0); income (VCF0114); union (VCF0127) recoded with (1) as someone in household belong to union and (0) no member; married or widowed (VCF0147) recoded with married or widowed combined for code (1) and all others as (0); employed (VCF0116) separating code (1) “working now” from all other categories coded to (0); church attendance (VCF0130) with the scale inverted and collapsed with the lowest category combining codes 5 “never” and 7 “no religious preference” and the highest code combining categories 1 “every week” with 2 “almost every week); and evangelical denomination indicated by a dummy coding from VCF0129 codes 123, 130 through 149 for cases from 1972 to 1988 and 2002 and VCF0152 codes 120 through 149, 180 through 199, 221, and 250 through 269 for cases from years 1990 through 2000 and 2004.
This may be an artifact of the way the union question is asked in ANES. The questions asks if the respondent is a member of a union household, so it maybe that a higher portion of women than men are actually merely married to a union member.
The Bible question was not asked in 1982, the equal role for women question was not asked in 1986 and the defense spending question were not asked in 1998. Most of the issue questions were not asked in the 2002 survey, so that year was eliminated from the analysis. All questions were recoded to vary between 0 and 1 and for 1 to indicate more conservative leanings. All questions other than abortion were asked on a seven-point scale. Abortion is a four-point scale. Questions used in the issue analysis were government guarantee of jobs (VCF0809), government aid to Blacks (VCF0830), equal role for women (VCF0834), when should abortion be allowed (VCF0838), and defense spending (VCF0843). The direction of the abortion question was reversed so that all issue questions would indicate conservatism with a higher value.
The Bible question format changed in 1990. The question used through 1990 had four categories (VCF0845), while the post 1990 question has three categories (VCF0850). The difference is that the 1990 format had two categories for the Bible being written by man: (3) “The Bible is a good book because it was written by wise men, but God had nothing to do with it” and (4) “The Bible was written by men who lived so long ago that it is worth very little today.” These two categories were collapsed as one to be equivalent to the post 1990 category “The Bible is a book written by men and is not the Word of God.” The other two categories for both question formats also have some wording changes but the most conservative always implies a literal interpretation while the second indicates that the Bible is the word of God but not everything should be interpreted literally. The direction of the Bible question was reverse, so that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the highest code, and the three categories were recoded to vary between 0 and 1.
All of the issue questions were recoded to range over a scale from 0 to 1. The median values for each of the issues are as follows: government jobs, aid to blacks and defense spending (0.51) which are the original category 4 on the 7-point scales; abortion (0.33) which is allowing abortion in cases other than rape and incest “after the need for the abortion has been clearly established”; women’s role (0.17) which is the second most liberal position on the 7-point scale, and the middle position on Biblical beliefs (0.5). The values for year run from 0 to 24, and these two extreme values are used to calculate the influence of each issue in 1980 and 2004.
No ideological change occurred for the remaining group of those allowing abortion for reasons other than rape and incest. Their ideological mean in both the 1980s and 1990s was 4.24.
References
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics, 60, 634–652.
Adams, G. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718–737.
Bardes, B. A., & Oldendick, R. W. (2007). Public opinion: Measuring the American mind (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth.
Bartels, L. M. (2006). What’s the matter with What’s the matter with Kansas? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 201–226.
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & De Boef, S. (2001). Macropartisanship and macroideology in the sophisticated electorate. Journal of Politics, 63, 232–248.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carmines, E. G., & Woods, J. (2002). The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Political Behavior, 24, 361–377.
Carroll, S. J. (1988). Women’s autonomy and the gender gap: 1980 and 1982. In C. Mueller (Ed.), The politics of the gender gap. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (1999). A dynamic model of political change among party activists. Political Behavior, 21, 17–41.
Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds: Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464–477.
Connelly, M. (2004). How Americans voted: A political portrait. New York Times, November 7, 2004.
Conover, P. (1988). Feminism and the gender gap. Journal of Politics, 50, 985–1010.
Conover, P., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
Cook, E. A., & Wilcox, C. (1991). Feminism and the gender gap: A second look. Journal of Politics, 53, 1111–1122.
Cook, E. A., & Wilcox, C. (1995). Gender in the 1992 elections. In H. Weisberg (Ed.), Democracy’s feast: The 1992 elections (pp. 195–219). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102, 690–755.
Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416–440.
Feldman, S., & Huddy, L. (2005). Racial resentment and white opposition to race conscious programs: Principles or prejudices? American Journal of Political Science, 49, 168–183.
Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268–307.
Fiorina, M. P., with Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture war?: The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson.
Fite, D., Genest, M., & Wilcox, C. (1990). Gender differences in foreign policy attitudes: A longitudinal analysis. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 492–512.
Frank, T. (2004). What’s the matter with Kansas? How conservatives won the heart of America. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Gerring, J. (1997). Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 957–994.
Gilens, M. (1988). Gender and support for Reagan: A comprehensive model of presidential approval. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 19–49.
Green, J. C., Guth, J. L., Smidt, C. E., & Kellstedt, L. A. (1996). Religion and the culture wars: Dispatches from the front. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hamill, R. C., Lodge, M., & Blake, F. (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 850–870.
Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619–631.
Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). The complexities of the gender gap. Journal of Politics, 62, 858–874.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. New York: Cambridge.
Jacoby, W. G. (1986). Levels of conceptualization and reliance on the liberal-conservative continuum. Journal of Politics, 48, 423–432.
Jacoby, W. G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 178–205.
Jarvis, S. (2005). The talk of the party: Political labels, symbolic capital, and American life. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jelen, T. G., Thomas, S., & Wilcox, C. (1994). The gender gap in comparative perspective: Gender differences in abstract ideology and concrete issues in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 25, 171–186.
Kanthak, K., & Norrander, B. (2004). The enduring gender gap. In H. F. Weisberg & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Models of voting in Presidential Elections: The 2000 U.S. election (pp. 141–160). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kaufmann, K. M. (2002). Culture wars, secular realignment, and the gender gap in party identification. Political Behavior, 24, 283–307.
Kaufmann, K. M., & Petrocik, J. R. (1999). The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864–887.
Killian, M., & Wilcox, C. (2008). Do abortion attitudes lead to party switching? Forthcoming, Political Research Quarterly.
Klein, E. (1984). Gender politics: From consciousness to mass politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Knight, K. (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: Ideological sophistication does matter. Journal of Politics, 47, 828–853.
Knight, K. (2006). Transformations of the concept of ideology in the Twentieth Century. American Political Science Review, 100, 619–626.
Kohut, A., Green, J. C., Keeter, S., & Toth, R. C. (2000). The diminishing divide: Religion’s changing role in American politics. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Layman, G. (2001). The great divide. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leege, D. C., Wald, K. D., Krueger, B. S., & Mueller, P. D. (2002). The politics of cultural differences: Social change and voter mobilization strategies in the post-new deal period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Levine, J., Carmines, E. G., & Huckfeldt, R. (1997). The rise of ideology in the post-New Deal party system, 1972–1992. American Politics Quarterly, 25, 19–34.
Levitin, T. E., & Miller, W. E. (1979). Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 73, 751–771.
Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter, enlarged edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Norrander, B. (1999a). Is the gender gap growing? In H. Weisberg & J. Box-Steffensmeier (Eds.), Reelection 1996: How Americans voted (pp. 145–161). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Norrander, B. (1999b). Evolution of the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 566–576.
Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sapiro, V. (2002). It’s the context, situation, and question, stupid: The gender basis of public opinion. In B. Norrander & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 21–42). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Sapiro, V., with Conover, P. J. (1997). The variable gender basis of electoral politics: Gender and context in the 1992 U.S. election. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 497–523.
Saunders, K. L., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research, 32, 285–309.
Schlesinger, M., & Heldman, C. (2001). Gender gap or gender gaps: New perspectives on support for government action and policies. Journal of Politics, 63, 59–92.
Schlesinger, M., & Lau, R. R. (2000). The meaning and measure of policy metaphors. American Political Science Review, 94, 611–626.
Schreckhise, W. D., & Shields, T. G. (2003). Ideological realignment in the contemporary U.S. electorate revisited. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 596–612.
Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M., Jr. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670–684.
Seltzer, R. A., Newman, J., & Leighton, M. V. (1997). Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates & voters in U.S. elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Sharp, C., & Lodge, M. (1985). Partisan and ideological belief systems: Do they differ? Political Behavior, 7, 147–166.
Shapiro, R., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1970s and 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 42–61.
Tate, K. (1994). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections, enlarged edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilcox, C., & Norrander, B. 2002. Of moods and morals: The dynamics of opinion on abortion and gay rights. In Barbara Norrander & Clyde Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 121–148). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Wirls, D. (1986). Reinterpreting the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 316–330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norrander, B., Wilcox, C. The Gender Gap in Ideology. Polit Behav 30, 503–523 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9061-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9061-1