Comments on Cassese and Holman 2019 “Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race”

Lawrence James Zigerell

doi:10.15626/MP.2021.2916

Downloads

PDF

Authors

Lawrence James Zigerell Illinois State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2916

Keywords:

hostile sexism, ambivalent sexism, sexism, woman card, gender, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton

Abstract

During his campaign for the Republican Party nomination and for U.S. president, Donald Trump suggested that Hillary Clinton benefited from playing a “woman card”. The effect of exposure to Trump’s woman-card attack was investigated in the Cassese and Holman (2019) Political Psychology article “Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race”. However, neither Cassese and Holman (2019) nor a reanalysis of data analyzed in the article provided sufficient evidence for key claims in the article. Moreover, Cassese and Holman (2019) is unclear whether its Study 2 experimental data could be used to test claims made based on its Study 1 non-experimental data, providing an example of how journal policy requiring access to survey questionnaires could help peer reviewers and readers better assess reported research.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Cassese, E. C., & Holman, M. R. (2019). Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Political Psychology, 40(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12492

Gass, N. (2016). Trump: I guess I’ll have to get used to Clinton’s ‘shouting’. Politico. https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-hillary-clinton-woman-card-222519

Gearan, A., & Zezima, K. (2016). Trump’s ‘woman’s card’ comment escalates the campaign’s gender wars. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-womans-card-comment-escalates-gender-wars-of-2016-campaign/2016/04/27/fbe4c67a-0c2b-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html

Gelman, A., & Stern, H. (2006). The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, 60, 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006X152649

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

Holman, M., & Cassese, E. (2019). Replication data for: Playing the women card, v1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KYQIB5

Payton, M. E., Greenstone, M. H., & Schenker, N. (2003). Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: What do they mean in terms of statistical significance? Journal of Insect Science, 3(34), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/3.1.34

Pfannenstiel, B. (2015). Trump in his own words: Highlights of a 95-minute rant. Des Moines Register. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/11/13/trump-his-own-words-highlights-95-minute-rant/75729070/

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/

StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15. College Station, TX.

Utych, S. M. (2020). Sexism predicts favorability of women in the 2020 democratic primary...and men? Electoral Studies. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.electstud.2020.102184

Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., D’Agostino McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn,

M., Lin Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Milton Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., . . . Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome

to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686