Minding the Black Gender Gap: Gender Differences in Public Opinion among Black Americans

Abstract

There is little research examining the gender gap in public opinion among Americans of African descent. Amid emerging evidence that Black men are more conservative than Black women, there is reason to believe there may be gender differences in their policy preferences. We use the 1980-2016 cumulative ANES data to observe when racial and gender considerations will be more salient for Black women in determining their policy preferences. We find no gender gap on race-based policies suggesting racial group interests may be driving similar support among Black men and women. We do find gender differences on women’s issues and social welfare policies. We attribute Black women’s support for women’s issues to their gendered interests and demonstrate the gap in social welfare attitudes is mediated by their lower economic status relative to Black men. Despite these differences, we discover that Black men and women support race-oriented and social welfare policies more than either white men or women.

Keywords

gender gap Black public opinion race gap

The conventional wisdom in the literature on Black public opinion has long been that racial group interests mobilize African Americans to share similar political attitudes, values, and policy preferences (Dawson, 1995, 2003). The underlying presumption is that shared experiences of racial discrimination in the United States encourage African Americans to employ racial concerns as a proxy for their own self interests. As a consequence, there tends to be strong agreement among Black citizens on a range of social issues including race-based social policies, fiscal policy, and the role of government. However, as has been revealed in recent studies, the appearance of uniformity overshadows a considerable amount of diversity within the African American community (Greer, 2013; Smith, 2014; White & Laird, 2020; White et al., 2014). Nevertheless, Black political and social movements in the United States have typically been dominated by cis-gendered Black men, forcing marginalized groups within the Black community to subordinate their interests to their broader racial concerns (Cohen, 1999).

Do Black women’s policy preferences differ from Black men as a function of their racial, gendered, and class interests? In this paper, we examine how different policy domains lead Black women to consider their respective racial or gendered interests. And if gender differences in social welfare policy positions exist, is this due to Black women’s relative economic vulnerability compared to Black men? Specifically, in the analysis, we explore whether differences in preferences for social welfare are facilitated by underlying economic disparities between Black men and women. Employing data from the American National Election Study (ANES) from 1980 to 2016, we examine the policies that are more likely to activate racial and gendered preferences among Black women. We discover that unlike affirmative action and government aid to Blacks, which activate Black women’s racial considerations, gender-oriented issues as well as social welfare policies provoke more gendered concerns. Nevertheless, the differences in preferences on social welfare policies and—to a lesser extent—women’s issues are mediated by income, suggesting disparities in the economic standing of Black women and men inform their varied support for each policy area. Lastly, we find that Black women’s support for racial and social welfare policies is significantly higher than that of white women, white men and, in some cases, Black men.

This study advances the previous literature in several ways. First, the existing literature on Black gender gaps in public opinion does not address the role of income in explaining preferences. We demonstrate that Black women’s economic standing relative to Black men has important consequences for their policy attitudes. Second, previous studies have typically relied upon smaller samples collected at a defined time point. Our analysis leverages a larger sample with a more comprehensive battery of policy questions than is reflected in most of the previous literature. Taken together, this study updates our understanding of how Black women employ their racial and gender identities to inform their policy preferences.

Differences in Public Opinion: Gender and Race

Gender differences in policy preferences have been well-established, but have largely failed to investigate how Black identity may intersect with gender, producing more complex variation in issue positions. Women are more likely than men to hold liberal positions on social welfare issues, environmental issues, and the use of force domestically and internationally (Norrander, 2008; Smith, 1984). Such disparities in policy preferences tend to be politically consequential as well, contributing to the gender gap in voting (Chaney et al., 1998; Clark & Clark, 2009). Women are more likely to identify as liberal and Democrats, and to vote for Democratic candidates (Huddy & Carey, 2009; Huddy et al., 2008a; Norrander & Wilcox, 2008).

Several theories have been offered to explain the source of these gender differences. Early work on the gender gap in policy preferences explore the role of socialization. These studies suggest that women are more supportive of “compassion issues” that address the needs of vulnerable populations because of prevailing social norms for women to be caretakers and nurturers (Stoper & Johnson, 1977). The presumption is that women simply expand their realm of concerns from narrow, primarily familial issues to society as a whole. Another proposed explanation for gender differences in policy attitudes is the heightened political consciousness among women due to the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s. Some evidence suggests that recent generations of women have decidedly different policy preferences than earlier generations, particularly on “compassion” issues (Brewster & Padavic, 2000). However, these explanations fail to take into account how race may intersect with gender.

Alternatively, scholars have begun to reconsider our conventional understanding of Black public opinion. Previous work suggests that Black public opinion coheres around a shared sense of group fate. The perceived common fate of Blacks Americans has been largely informed by their historic experiences of racial discrimination, which have typically informed their personal interests. Although often employed as a measure of group consciousness, linked fate involves a rational calculus among African Americans in which their group interests serve as a proxy for their personal interests since what was best for African Americans broadly was typically also best for the individual (Dawson, 1995).

However, the role of linked fate on Black public opinion should not imply a lack of variation in political preferences or behavior within the Black community. Instead, new evidence reveals considerable variation in policy preferences among Black citizens across class, ethnic origin, and gender (Greer, 2013; Smith, 2014; White & Laird, 2020; White et al., 2014). These recent studies should caution researchers from examining the political attitudes and behavior of Black citizens as if they are a monolith. This study explores the relationship of group attachment to the Black gender gap. Evidence suggests that women are more attentive and knowledgeable when considering gender-related issues or campaigns with female candidates (Dolan, 2011; Hooghe et al., 2007; Sanbonmatsu, 2003). These findings imply that women’s gender interests are effective in activating gender considerations in their policy attitudes. However, how does this play out among Black women, who, in some cases, must negotiate between their racial and gender interests. Unfortunately, there has been little work on the Black gender gap. Among the few studies that do focus on the black gender gap, the findings are mixed. For instance, Walton (1985) reveals few differences in policy preferences between Black men and women. These findings were credited to the salience of race on a range of political and social issues. However, other work demonstrates significant differences in policy attitudes between African American men and women on issues of national defense (Welch & Foster, 1987). Furthermore, there is suggestive evidence that both groups hold different preferences on women’s issues (Sigelman & Welch, 1984).

Most evidence implies that these differences are shaped by Black women’s respective racial and gender consciousness (Gay & Tate, 1998). Recent work reveals that darker-skinned Black women tend to report stronger feelings of linked fate than lighter-skinned Black women (Lemi & Brown, 2020). These findings suggest that darker skin may make Black women’s racial identity and, in turn, their racial group interests more salient, which increases their perceived common fate with other Black people. Previous studies demonstrate racial linked fate among Black women is positively related, although moderately, to women’s issues (Simien, 2005). Although some studies examine the influence of racial and gender consciousness independently; other work reveals the effect of racial linked fate on Black women’s policy attitudes is strengthened by their gender linked fate (Gay & Tate, 1998). Other researchers propose that Black women’s subjective identity as Black feminists better reflects how their racial and gender consciousness informs their policy preferences (Simien & Clawson, 2004). Overall, the evidence shows that Black women’s gender identity does not limit their support for their racial group interests. Black linked fate is a strong predictor of their preferences on race-based policy, which may, in fact become amplified by their gender consciousness. On the other hand, it is less clear how Black women’s respective racial and gender identities shape their preferences on non-racial issues. This study is an effort to further our understanding of the circumstances in which we are likely to observe differences in policy preferences between Black women and men.

Theoretical Framework

Intersectionality

There is a burgeoning body of work that explores the political implications of intersectionality. Intersectionality refers to the nexus of two or more identities and how the compounded effect of those identities shapes the life outcomes that individuals experience (Jordan-Zachery, 2008). Most studies rely on a single-axis framework in which only one dimension of identity (e.g., race or gender) is explored (Crenshaw, 1991). However, a single-axis framework is problematic because it often prioritizes the concerns of privileged members of the group, further marginalizing the interests of its more vulnerable members (Crenshaw, 1989). From a historical standpoint, this has led members of marginalized Black subgroups to subordinate their own group concerns for their racial interests.

In particular, intersectional analysis encourages an understanding of the lived experiences of Black women (Jordan-Zachery, 2008). Black women are marginalized and often excluded from anti-racist and feminist movements, which are typically driven by the concerns of Black men and white women (Crenshaw, 1989). Additionally, intersectional scholars argue that Black women are at times ignored, which causes the public to not be concerned with their needs and, therefore, continue to enact public policy that perpetuates their economic subjugation (Crenshaw, 1989; Jordan-Zachery, 2008). For example, the emergence of the welfare queen stereotype—the image of low-income, Black women who manipulate the welfare system by giving birth to illegitimate children in order to increase their monthly welfare benefit—encourages lawmakers to dismiss their input during policy deliberations surrounding welfare, thus, excluding black women who may be welfare beneficiaries from speaking on their own behalf (Hancock, 2004). In similar fashion, the stereotype of the crack mother—the poor, crack-addicted Black mother who abandons her children—resulted in political elites justifying punitive public policies that increased sentencing for possession of crack cocaine and subjected both poor Black mothers and their children to custodial supervision by the state (Jordan-Zachary, 2003). Both examples reveal a lack of attention to poor, Black women both as contributors and beneficiaries of the policymaking process. The inattention to Black women’s issues is particularly problematic given the seriousness of their substantive concerns. Black women are disproportionately likely to be single heads of households living below the poverty line (Pinkney, 1984; Simien, 2013) and have historically had the lowest incomes relative to white men, white women and Black men (Price, 2009).

Despite their beleaguered status in the Black community, some indicators suggest that Black women have increased their political standing in society. Recent research indicates that Black women are more likely to vote than other demographic subgroups (Carroll & Fox, 2009; Holman, 2016; Lopez & Taylor, 2009). Past research indicates that Black women are more politically engaged and knowledgeable than Black men (Verba et al., 1995). In 2008, Black women had the highest voter turnout rate relative to white men, white women and Black men (Carroll & Fox, 2009; Holman, 2016; Lopez & Taylor, 2009). Black women’s growing political influence necessitates further investigation into their unique policy preferences, and also suggests they may be less inclined to subordinate their gendered interests to their racial interests as they have done in the past.

The Role of Racial Attachment

Existing research demonstrates that, despite conventional wisdom, individual behavior is often motivated by concerns over group interests more than self-interests (Sears & Funk, 1991). While some group concerns center around a group’s access to resources, they may also relate to perceived threats to a group’s privileges and social status (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1983). Studies reveal that group attachments profoundly shape political attitudes and behavior (Berelson, et al., 1986; Bobo, 1983; Campbell et al., 1980; Dawson, 1995). Accordingly, several studies reveal that Blacks’ racial group solidarity—specifically their linked fate—predicts African Americans’ policy preferences, their support for Democratic candidates, and political participation (Brown, 2014; Dawson, 1995; Tate, 1994; Wilson, 2001).¹ Studies on the racial linked fate of Black women indicate perceived common fate drives more liberal positions on race-oriented issues and social programs (Gay & Tate, 1998). In addition, it tends to increase support for non-white candidates, but particularly Black female candidates (Gershon et al., 2019). Perceived linked fate has been shown to influence the political behavior of other racial and ethnic groups as well (Sanchez & Masuoka, 2010); although, the evidence suggests linked fate explains the social and political attitudes and behavior of African Americans better than other groups such as Latinos and Asian Americans (Brown, 2014; Sanchez & Vargas, 2016).

With respect to this study, we expect that racial group attachments should shape Black men and women’s preferences on race-based policies similarly. The implication of racial group attachment is that Black women may decide to subordinate their gendered interests for the sake of Black advancement. Previous work demonstrates there is no gender gap on race-based policies such as affirmative action (Lien, 1998; Mangum, 2008). Furthermore, gender has been shown to not be a significant predictor of support for improving the standard living of Blacks or government aid to Blacks (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Price, 2009). As such, our first hypothesis is as follows:

Intra-racial Convergence Hypothesis: Black women will not report significantly different preferences on race-based policies than Black men.

Furthermore, we expect that the shared preferences of Black women and men around racially-oriented issues explain the consistent and robust findings that demonstrate racial group differences on preferences for race-based policies. Consequently, the preferences of both Black women and men will be more supportive of race-based policies than white men and white women. Therefore, the second hypothesis is as follows:

Inter-racial Divergence Hypothesis: African American men and women will report stronger support for race-based policies than white men and women.

The Role of Gender Attachment

Research on support for equal gender roles has revealed consistent gender differences. According to analyses of pooled cross-sections from the 1972 to 1996 General Social Survey (GSS), women have more egalitarian gender attitudes than men and that changes over time are due to cohort succession rather than individual attitude change responsible for shifts over time (Brewster & Padavic, 2000). Using GSS data from 1974 to 2006, women have more liberal views than men of women’s familial responsibilities (Scott Carter et al., 2009). In addition, an analysis of the 1996 ANES, finds that women are 8 percentage points more likely than men to support equal rights for women (Clark & Clark, 2009). This gap may have reduced over time with a gap of 4 percentage points on equal rights for women in the 2004 ANES (Clark & Clark, 2009).² Although the gap between Black and white women appears to be slowly converging, Black women are the most liberal on gender role attitudes (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004).

On the issue of abortion legality, gender differences appear to be small but significant, particularly when controlling for religious identification and religiosity. Older research often failed to find significant gender differences on abortion attitudes (Clark & Clark, 1996; Cook et al., 1992; Cook & Wilcox, 1995; Scott, 1989; Strickler & Danigelis, 2002). Women were more supportive of abortion than men after controlling for religiosity (Jelen & Wilcox, 2003; Lizotte, 2015). With respect to African Americans, Black women are more likely to support abortion legality compared to Black men (Smith, 2013). Finally, gender identification or gender linked fate influences the political attitudes of Black women toward the women’s movement (Gay & Tate, 1998). Given the evidence concerning the impact of gender on public opinion and political behavior, our expectation is as follows:

Intra-racial Divergence Hypothesis: Black women will report higher levels of support for issues oriented towards women than Black men.

The Role of Economic Status

The economic standing of African Americans is historically worse than that of white Americans. Typically, the poverty rate for African Americans is three times the rate for whites (Dawson, 2011). In addition, African Americans have a much higher unemployment rate compared to white Americans. Since the 1980s, the unemployment rate among African Americans has been twice that of whites (Dawson, 2011). There are sizeable class divisions, however, among African Americans with the top 5% of Black households receiving around 20% of all income received by African Americans (Dawson, 2011).

In addition, the lived experiences of Black women differ from those of other groups. The poverty rate for Black women in 2016 was 21.4% compared to 9.7% for White women and 7.0% for White men (Patrick, 2017). The majority of Black women with children, 60.9%, are single heads of households (Institute for Women’s Policy Research [IWPR], 2016). Among Black female-headed families, 38.8% live in poverty (Patrick, 2017). As of 2016, Black women make 63 cents on the dollar of what White men earn compared to 79 cents for White women and 73 cents for Black men (Patten, 2016; Tucker, 2017). Black women’s earnings were 89.3% in 2016 and 92.5% in 2017 of Black men’s earnings (Institute for Women’s Policy Research [IWPR], 2018). Black female-headed households have not recovered as well as other households since the Great Recession (Hassmer, 2017).

We contend that these differences in economic standing between Black men and women may facilitate different positions on public policy. The expectation is that these differences will be particularly pronounced when considering their preferences on social welfare policy, which, given the evidence surrounding income disparities between Black men and women, are more likely to benefit Black women. One of the explanations for gender differences in political behavior and public opinion is economic vulnerability. Time-series analysis shows an association at the aggregate level between the size of the partisan gap and the proportion of economically-vulnerable residents (Box-Steffensmeier et al., 2004). Economically-vulnerable women may support the Democratic Party and greater government spending on social welfare programs because of the potential for them to benefit from such policies. Evidence reveals, in some years, low-income women are more likely to identify as and vote for Democrats (Huddy et al., 2008b). Furthermore, other findings show low income explains some—though not all—of the gender differences in support for more government services and spending (Clark & Clark, 2009; Lizotte, 2016).³

Our approach focuses on how differences in economic standing between Black men and Black women lead to opinion gaps on social welfare redistributive policies. In other words, if it is Black women’s socio-economic status that is driving these differences, then income should mediate the gap in policy preferences. Therefore, our final hypothesis is as follows:

Income-Mediated Hypothesis: The influence of gender on attitudes towards social welfare policy is mediated by differences in income between Black men and women.

Data and Analysis

We use the American National Election Study (ANES) cumulative data from 1980 to 2016. There are several benefits of using the ANES: (1) it is an established data set with a nationally representative sample, (2) it includes measures of the issue positions of interest, (3) it has been widely used by previous studies of gender gaps in issue preferences, party identification, and voting, (4) the question wording for all of the measures is mostly consistent over this time-period, and (5) using the cumulative data allows for a large enough sample across years of African Americans to statistically analyze with proper control variables.

Analysis Plan

First, we analyze African Americans’ attitudes toward affirmative action and providing aid to Blacks. According to the intra-racial convergence hypothesis, we expect that preferences toward affirmative action and giving aid to Blacks will not be significantly different between Black women and men. As such, we expect our key independent variable-gender-to not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. Next, we examine attitudes surrounding appropriate gender roles and abortion. Both issues are expected to trigger Black women’s underlying gender attachment so that they express support for more equitable gender roles and less restrictive preferences for abortion than Black men. Consequently, we would expect the coefficient for the gender item to reveal a statistically significant difference between the preferences of Black women and men.

In the analysis of redistributive social welfare attitudes, we test mediational hypotheses, meaning we expect that the inclusion of income will minimize the gender gap. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), there are four parts to mediational analyses. First, the independent variable, gender, must be a significant predictor of the dependent variable, social welfare policy. Second, the independent variable, gender, must be a predictor of the mediational variable, income. Third, the mediational variable must be predictive of the dependent variable without the independent variable, gender, in the model. Finally, for mediation to exist, the effect of the independent variable, gender, on the dependent variable should reduce with the inclusion of the meditational variable. In other words, the size and significance of the gender variable as a predictor of social welfare attitudes should reduce when income is included. It is also possible with respect to this final step that complete mediation may not exist, but that gender reduces in size/significance indicating partial mediation. We use the Hicks and Tingley (2011) mediation package, which is based on a new procedure for mediational analyses (Imai et al., 2011), to calculate the percent mediated in STATA. This mediation package performs all of the mediation steps and calculates an overall total percent mediated.

Measures

The key independent variable captures respondents’ gender identification. It is based on a self-report measure where 1 represents females and 0 represents males in the sample. Another key independent variable is income, which is employed in the mediational analysis. The item for income is coded so that a value of 1 represents respondents that report their household income is below the 33rd percentile⁴ and 0 otherwise.

Our key dependent variables capture respondents’ preferences on racial policies, women’s issues as well as social welfare policies. To test the intra-racial convergence and inter-racial divergence hypotheses, we analyze questions on affirmative action and giving federal aid to Blacks. Respondents indicate whether they believe that the government should stay out of ensuring fair treatment for blacks when it comes to jobs (0) or the government should ensure fair treatment (1). For the question gauging support for federal assistance to Blacks, respondents indicate if they favor such spending to (1) decrease, (2) stay the same, or (3) increase. To test the intra-racial divergence hypothesis, we analyze two questions on equal gender roles and the legality of abortion. The equal gender role question asks respondents to place themselves on a continuum with 1 indicating the belief that women’s place is in the home and 7 the belief that men and women should have an equal role. The abortion item asks respondents their degree of support for abortion legality. The response options are coded as follows: (1) By law, abortion should never be permitted, (2) The law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger, (3) The law should permit abortion for reasons other than rape, incest, or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established, and (4) By law, a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice. Lastly, we employ a battery of items that capture respondents’ preferences on social welfare policies.⁵ The first asks respondents if they believe that the government should guarantee jobs and/or a minimum standard of living. Respondents place themselves on a continuum from 1 to 7 with 7 indicating the highest level of support. The second question asks respondents to place themselves on a continuum concerning the provision of government services with 1 indicating the belief that government services should be reduced and 7 that the government should provide more services. There are four government spending questions about social welfare spending to aid the poor, on welfare, on social security, and to aid the homeless. All four of the items are asked the same way and include the same response options. Individuals are asked if federal government spending should be (1) decreased, (2) kept the same, or (3) increased. The social welfare items offer us the opportunity to test the income-mediated hypothesis.

Control Variables: We control for various demographic and religious factors that are often included in multivariate analyses of public opinion. Controlling for these other factors, allows for the isolation of the effect of gender independently of other characteristics related to public policy preferences. We include demographic controls for education, region, and age.⁶ The item for educational attainment is coded so that respondents with a bachelor’s degree or more are given a value of 1 and those with less than a college degree are given a value of zero. Previous work demonstrates college education is associated with increased tolerance and greater support for equality (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). For the measure of region of residence, respondents living in the South are given a value of 1 and 0 otherwise. The models include two measures of religiosity. First, we include a measure of religious affiliation where self-reported Protestants were given a value of 1 and all other religious affiliations as well as non-affiliated respondents were given a value of 0. Second, the analysis includes a measure for church attendance, which is an ordinal variable with higher values indicating more frequent church attendance. Next, we include party identification. Party identification is coded from 1 to 7 so that 7 equals strong Republican identifier and 1 equals strong Democrat identifier. Finally, we include dummy variables for each survey year (not shown in tables).

Results

We begin the analysis by examining whether a gender gap emerges among Black respondents on preferences for affirmative action and providing federal aid to Blacks. Columns 2 and 3 in Table 1 show the estimates from both models. As we hypothesized, Black women and men do not significantly differ in their support for affirmative action or for government assistance to Blacks. The marginal values for affirmative action support are 0.52 for Black men and 0.49 for Black women. The marginal values for supporting more government spending to assist Blacks are 2.62 for Black men and 2.62 for Black women. Both findings offer solid evidence in support of the intra-racial convergence hypothesis

Table 1.

Racial and Gender-Oriented Policy Preferences among African Americans.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	Affirmative action	Assist Blacks	Equal role	Abortion
Female	−0.078 (0.086)	0.011 (0.123)	0.166 (0.084)**	0.135 (0.066)**
Income	0.349 (0.087)***	0.140 (0.124)	−0.164 (0.084)*	−0.456 (0.066)***
South	0.114 (0.087)	−0.174 (0.127)	−0.208 (0.084)**	−0.525 (0.067)***
College	0.076 (0.115)	−0.263 (0.182)	0.243 (0.123)**	0.821 (0.100)***
Age	−0.001 (0.003)	−0.005 (0.003)	−0.023 (0.002)***	−0.011 (0.002)***
Protestant	−0.096 (0.123)	−0.012 (0.180)	−0.115 (0.122)	−0.010 (0.096)
Church	0.019 (0.030)	0.059 (0.043)	−0.110 (0.029)***	−0.248 (0.024)***
Party ID	0.051 (0.030)*	0.096 (0.040)**	0.118 (0.029)***	0.132 (0.023)***
Liberal	0.120 (0.090)	0.268 (0.105)**	0.175 (0.074)**	0.184 (0.068)***
Cons	−0.122 (0.089)	−0.283 (0.105)***	−0.182 (0.074)**	−0.213 (0.068)***
R ²	0.02	0.03	0.11	0.07
N	2,543	1,435	2,104	3,658

Note. Data is cumulative ANES 1980–2016. Bivariate logistic regression is used for Affirmative Action dependent variable. Ordered-logistic regression is used for the government Assist Blacks measure. OLS regression is used Equal Role dependent variable. Ordered-logistic regression is used for the Abortion dependent variable. Not shown, the analysis also includes dummy variables for years of the survey.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Table 2 displays the results among white Americans. As shown in the table, there is a significant gender gap among whites on the issue of government assistance to Blacks but not a significant gap on the affirmative action question. The marginal values for support for affirmative action are 0.11 for white men and 0.11 for white women. The marginal values for spending more to assist blacks are 1.89 for white men and 1.92 for white women. White women are more supportive of government assistance for Blacks in comparison to white men.

Table 2.

Racial and Gender Policy Attitudes among White Americans.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	Affirmative action	Assist Blacks	Equal role	Abortion
Female	−0.007 (0.060)	0.088 (0.044)**	0.098 (0.029)***	0.246 (0.028)***
Income	0.538 (0.064)***	0.229 (0.051)***	−0.276 (0.034)***	−0.457 (0.032)***
South	−0.112 (0.066)*	−0.443 (0.049)***	−0.040 (0.032)	−0.126 (0.030)***
College	0.500 (0.066)***	0.394 (0.052)***	0.520 (0.034)***	0.697 (0.033)***
Age	−0.003 (0.002)*	0.004 (0.001)***	−0.014 (0.001)***	−0.001 (0.001)
Protestant	−0.063 (0.063)	−0.052 (0.047)	−0.178 (0.031)***	−0.059 (0.030)**
Church	−0.023 (0.020)	0.002 (0.014)	−0.150 (0.009)***	−0.489 (0.009)***
Party ID	0.199 (0.016)***	0.122 (0.012)***	0.049 (0.008)***	0.090 (0.007)***
Liberal	0.562 (0.056)***	0.399 (0.035)***	0.265 (0.025)***	0.415 (0.026)***
Conservative	−0.509 (0.055)***	−0.401 (0.036)***	−0.293 (0.025)***	−0.474 (0.027)***
R ²	0.07	0.04	0.15	0.10
N	12,343	8,780	13,042	19,772

Note. Data is cumulative ANES 1980–2016. Bivariate logistic regression is used for affirmative action dependent variable. Ordered-logistic regression is used for the government Assist Blacks measure. OLS regression is used equal role dependent variable. Ordered-logistic regression is used for the abortion dependent variable. Not shown, the analysis also includes dummy variables for years of the survey.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

For sake of comparison, we pooled the white and black respondents to test the magnitude of the differences between both groups (not shown here). Figure 1 illustrates the differences in the margins on racial and gender issues between Black and white respondents by gender. The top two panels show the predicted probabilities for preferences on affirmative action and aid to Blacks between Black and white respondents. The results illustrate what we discussed above. Black women and men express virtually identical support for affirmative action and aid to Blacks. White men and women also have similar preferences on these issues, although white women express stronger support providing federal assistance to Blacks. As stated above, the difference is statistically significant. However, as a confirmation of the inter-racial divergence hypothesis, both Black women and men express significantly stronger support for affirmative action and aid to Blacks than white respondents, either male or female.

Figure 1.

Gender differences among Whites and Blacks on race and gender policy.

Next, we observed differences in support for equal gender roles and abortion legality. In keeping with the intra-racial divergence hypothesis, the coefficients for gender in columns 4 and 5 of Table 2 indicate that African American women are more supportive of equal gender roles and abortion being legal than African American men. Likewise, white women are also more supportive compared to white men for equal gender roles and abortion legality. Columns 4 and 5 in Table 2 reveal a statistically significant difference in preferences between white men and women. As illustrated by the bottom two panels in Figure 1, Black women and white women report similar levels of support for both issues and, conversely, the preferences of Black men and white men are similar as well, revealing a main effect for gender between both Black and white respondents. On equal roles (7 = support for equal gender roles), the margins are as follows: 5.46 for white men, 5.48 for Black men, 5.59 for white women, and 5.68 for Black women. On abortion legality (4 = always legal), the margins are as follows: 2.83 for white men, 2.82 for Black men, 2.94 for women, and 2.93 for Black women. For both of these dependent variables, education leads to greater support while being from the South, frequently attending church, and having an income below the 33rd percentile predict lower levels of support.

Turning to redistributive social welfare policies, we examine not only the gender disparities among African Americans, we also are interested in whether income differences between Black men and women explain the disparity in their preferences. In Table 3, we display the results for the redistributive social welfare policy analyses and investigate the income-mediated hypothesis among Black respondents. Our hypothesis was that Black women will be more likely than Black men to support social welfare policies and spending because of their economic status. First, in order for economic status to be a mediator, there must be a significant gender gap. In an analysis not shown, Black women are more likely than Black men to report an income below the 33rd percentile (B = 0.58, SE = 0.06, p = .000). The income variable is dichotomous; therefore, we calculated the margins: Black men have a .26 (.00) probability and Black women have a .36 (.00) probability of reporting an income below the 33rd percentile.

Table 3.

Gender Differences among African Americans on Redistributive Social Welfare Issues.

	Government services		Guarantee jobs		Aid to poor		welfare
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Female	0.153 (0.062)**	0.134 (0.062)**	0.260 (0.069)***	0.205 (0.069)***	0.097 (0.103)	0.051 (0.105)	0.098 (0.076)	0.047 (0.079)
Income		0.115 (0.063)*		0.339 (0.070)***		0.457 (0.109)***		0.562 (0.081)***
South	−0.149 (0.062)**	−0.163 (0.062)***	−0.029 (0.069)	−0.070 (0.070)	−0.217 (0.106)**	−0.244 (0.108)**	−0.125 (0.077)	−0.197 (0.080)**
College	−0.268 (0.080)***	−0.230 (0.083)***	−0.326 (0.093)***	−0.213 (0.096)**	−0.366 (0.125)***	−0.247 (0.130)*	−0.227 (0.098)**	−0.084 (0.104)
Age	−0.002 (0.002)	−0.002 (0.002)	−0.004 (0.002)*	−0.004 (0.002)**	−0.010 (0.003)***	−0.011 (0.003)***	0.000 (0.002)	−0.001 (0.002)
Protestant	−0.117 (0.088)	−0.114 (0.088)	−0.066 (0.098)	−0.053 (0.098)	−0.004 (0.144)	0.035 (0.146)	−0.061 (0.109)	−0.085 (0.112)
Church	0.022 (0.022)	0.024 (0.022)	0.007 (0.024)	0.015 (0.024)	0.065 (0.037)*	0.074 (0.038)**	−0.032 (0.027)	−0.011 (0.028)
Party ID	0.161 (0.022)***	0.164 (0.022)***	0.164 (0.025)***	0.171 (0.024)***	0.254 (0.036)***	0.266 (0.037)***	0.115 (0.029)***	0.139 (0.030)***
Liberal	0.079 (0.060)	0.079 (0.060)	0.028 (0.071)	0.028 (0.070)	0.087 (0.125)	0.081 (0.130)	0.170 (0.084)**	0.168 (0.089)*
Cons	−0.056 (0.060)	−0.056 (0.060)	0.002 (0.070)	0.000 (0.070)	−0.042 (0.125)	−0.036 (0.130)	−0.159 (0.084)*	−0.158 (0.089)*
%Mediated		13.1%		19.7%		0%		0%
R ²	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.06	0.02	0.03
N	2,783	2,783	3,122	3,122	2,397	2,346	2,600	2,493
	Food Stamps		Social Security		Homeless
	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)		(14)
Female	0.237 (0.096)**	0.131 (0.098)	0.266 (0.085)***	0.246 (0.087)***	0.365 (0.212)*		0.353 (0.216)
Income		0.621 (0.099)***		0.196 (0.089)**			0.062 (0.216)
South	−0.330 (0.099)***	−0.433 (0.101)***	−0.093 (0.088)	−0.130 (0.089)	−0.337 (0.232)		−0.346 (0.234)
College	−0.504 (0.142)***	−0.308 (0.146)**	−0.464 (0.108)***	−0.383 (0.113)***	0.554 (0.389)		0.574 (0.395)
Age	0.002 (0.003)	0.001 (0.003)	0.005 (0.003)*	0.005 (0.003)*	−0.007 (0.006)		−0.007 (0.006)
Protestant	−0.239 (0.145)*	−0.259 (0.146)*	0.264 (0.117)**	0.281 (0.118)**	0.033 (0.332)		0.032 (0.332)
Church	−0.083 (0.034)**	−0.068 (0.034)**	0.048 (0.031)	0.052 (0.031)*	0.001 (0.077)		0.002 (0.077)
Party ID	0.089 (0.033)***	0.106 (0.033)***	0.104 (0.029)***	0.101 (0.030)***	0.155 (0.064)**		0.156 (0.064)**
Liberal	0.015 (0.081)	0.017 (0.082)	0.106 (0.087)	0.106 (0.090)	0.041 (0.174)		0.043 (0.174)
Cons	0.023 (0.081)	0.020 (0.081)	−0.101 (0.087)	−0.098 (0.090)	−0.048 (0.175)		−0.050 (0.175)
%Mediated		50.9		7.2			0
R ²	0.05	0.06	0.03	0.03	0.02		0.02
N	1,793	1,793	3,610	3,503	968		968

Note. Data is cumulative ANES 1980–2016. Government services and guarantee jobs dependent variables are 7 point scales with higher values indicating more support for the liberal position. OLS is used. Aid to poor and welfare dependent variables are 1 = decrease spending, 2 = maintain spending, and 3 = increase spending; ordered logistic regression is used. Food stamps, social security, and homeless dependent variables are 1 = decrease spending, 2 = maintain spending, and 3 = increase spending; ordered logistic regression is used. Not shown, the analysis also includes dummy variables for years of the survey.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

For a number of redistributive social welfare items, Black women are more likely to support greater government services and spending. In support of our hypothesis, the mediation results suggest that income is accounting for much of these gender differences. The results from the government services analyses are in the first two columns of Table 3. Income mediates 13.1% of the gender gap on support for more services. Low-income individuals are more likely to favor greater government services. Southerners and those with a college degree are less likely to favor more government services. Age, religious denomination, and church attendance do not predict policy preferences. Lastly, Democrats are more supportive of greater government services.

The results are even stronger for the guaranteed jobs and standard of living item. Income mediates 19.7% of the gender gap. With respect to the control variables, the results are quite similar to the government services findings. southerners, those with a bachelor’s degree, and older individuals are less likely to favor guaranteeing jobs, while religious denomination and church attendance are not significant predictors. Again, Democratic identification is associated with greater support for guaranteed jobs.

As noted in Table 3, the gender gaps among African Americans on spending to aid the poor and on welfare are not significant when party identification is included in the analysis. Therefore, these do not provide a test of our Income Mediated Hypothesis. Income mediates the gender gaps on food stamps spending and social security spending, 50.9% and 7.2%, respectively. These results are displayed in columns 11 and 13 in Table 3. Reporting an income below the 33rd percentile is associated with a desire for increased spending for food stamps and social security. Similar to the prior findings in this table, living in the South and having a bachelor’s degree is associated with less support for such spending. Protestants and frequent church attendees are less supportive of food stamp and social security spending while Democrats are more supportive. Finally, income is not a significant predictor of attitudes toward government spending to help the homeless.

For the purposes of comparison, we show the gender gap on redistributive social welfare policies among white Americans in Table 4. The results demonstrate a significant gender gap among whites on all of the redistributive policies. White women are consistently more likely to support more government services, guaranteed jobs, and more government spending than white men. The mediation results are not as strong among whites, but income does partially mediate the gender gaps. In other words, there is partial mediation of the gender gap among White Americans but the mediation results are stronger among African Americans meaning that income explains more of the gender gap among Blacks than whites. Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the differences in predicted probabilities on each policy item. These figures display the intersectional differences on all of the policy issues discussed above with controls for region, education level, age, religious identity, church attendance, party identification, liberal identification, and conservative identification. The figures include 84% confidence intervals, which is the appropriate level to determine if there is a .95 probability that two point estimates are different from one another (Knol et al., 2011). Both figures reveal substantial differences between Black women and Black men as well as white women and white men on their social welfare policy preferences. However, while there are gender gaps between women and men within both groups, the figures also highlight significant differences between racial groups, with Black respondents—both female and male—voicing greater support for social welfare policy than white respondents. Overall, whites are less supportive than Blacks of increased government services, guaranteed jobs, and more government spending to aid the poor, on welfare, on food stamps, on social security, and on the homeless. As such, the results offer more support for the inter-racial divergence hypothesis.⁷

Table 4.

Gender Differences among White Americans on Redistributive Social Welfare Issues.

	Government Services	Guarantee Jobs	Aid to Poor	Welfare	Food Stamps	Social Security	Homeless
	(23)	(24)	(25)	(26)	(27)	(28)	(29)
Female	0.311 (0.022)***	0.229 (0.025)***	0.238 (0.041)***	0.244 (0.039)***	0.215 (0.038)***	0.435 (0.032)***	0.520 (0.056)***
Income	0.301 (0.026)***	0.379 (0.029)***	0.444 (0.048)***	0.585 (0.044)***	0.575 (0.044)***	0.249 (0.038)***	0.411 (0.069)***
South	−0.096 (0.024)***	−0.082 (0.027)***	−0.003 (0.044)	−0.078 (0.042)*	−0.275 (0.042)***	0.075 (0.035)**	−0.078 (0.062)
College	−0.153 (0.025)***	−0.047 (0.028)*	−0.313 (0.045)***	0.163 (0.043)***	0.204 (0.044)***	−0.847 (0.037)***	−0.143 (0.066)**
Age	−0.007 (0.001)***	−0.010 (0.001)***	−0.003 (0.001)***	−0.001 (0.001)	0.001 (0.001)	−0.004 (0.001)***	−0.014 (0.002)***
Protestant	−0.116 (0.024)***	−0.074 (0.027)***	−0.020 (0.044)	0.075 (0.041)*	−0.026 (0.040)	0.081 (0.034)**	−0.077 (0.060)
Church	−0.028 (0.007)***	−0.001 (0.008)	0.013 (0.013)	−0.024 (0.013)*	−0.044 (0.012)***	−0.035 (0.010)***	0.021 (0.018)
Party ID	0.218 (0.006)***	0.218 (0.007)***	0.277 (0.011)***	0.242 (0.011)***	0.135 (0.010)***	0.138 (0.008)***	0.179 (0.015)***
Liberal	0.271 (0.019)***	0.293 (0.023)***	0.251 (0.040)***	0.343 (0.037)***	0.400 (0.030)***	0.147 (0.028)***	0.375 (0.045)***
Cons	−0.241 (0.020)***	−0.275 (0.023)***	−0.196 (0.040)***	−0.336 (0.037)***	−0.393 (0.031)***	−0.101 (0.028)***	−0.372 (0.046)***
% Mediated	6.4	11.8	10.8	15.6	23.0	4.1	8.7
R ²	0.21	0.14	0.10	0.08	0.07	0.07	0.07
N	16,078	16,746	9,627	10,929	11,363	16,939	5,919

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Figure 2.

Gender differences among Whites and Blacks on social welfare issues.

Figure 3.

Gender differences among Whites and Blacks on social welfare issues.

Discussion

In general, we find support for the intra-racial convergence, inter-racial divergence, intra-racial divergence, and income-mediated hypotheses. First, Black women and men do not differ on their attitudes toward racial policies. Presumably because of their gendered interests, Black women, however, are more likely than Black men to support equal gender roles and abortion legality. Finally, Black women compared to Black men are more supportive of redistributive social welfare policies. The mediation results suggest that Black women’s greater support for redistributive policies is due to their lower economic status relative to Black men. Lastly, while there are gender differences between Black women and men on social welfare policy, they support social welfare policies at significantly higher rates than their white counterparts.

Overall, these results reaffirm the growing trend toward intersectional analysis in the social sciences. While there are several issue areas in which women—regardless of their race—have more liberal attitudes than men of the same race, there are certain issues in which Black women and white women diverge significantly. In particular, white women and men report considerably lower levels of support for racially-oriented policy than either Black women or men. This gap between Black and white women on racial policy is important when considering the historical tensions between white and black women within the feminist movement in which black women often argue that the mainstream feminist agenda has been dominated by the concerns of middle-class, cis-gendered, white women. A similar gap emerges between Black women and white women on social welfare policy. Our results indicate that while the economic status of all women, in part, explains gender differences in support for redistributive policies; it has a stronger impact on the preferences of Black women, who tend to have lower incomes than white women.

Politically, our results may help explain the differences that emerged between Black and white women in the 2016 presidential elections. Several analysts and political pundits were perplexed that despite reports of sexual impropriety by the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, exit polls indicated a majority of white women supported him for the general election. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of Black women voted for his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. Our findings suggest that, first, Black women are generally more progressive in their political attitudes and preferences than white women. Second, while gender issues may have primed similar gender concerns from white women as other women of color, some white women may have been more persuaded by Trump’s racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric during the campaign.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-apr-10.1177_1532673X211013462 – Supplemental material for Minding the Black Gender Gap: Gender Differences in Public Opinion among Black Americans

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-apr-10.1177_1532673X211013462 for Minding the Black Gender Gap: Gender Differences in Public Opinion among Black Americans by Mary Kate Lizotte and Tony E. Carey in American Politics Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mary Kate Lizotte

Tony E. Carey Jr.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Mary-Kate Lizotte is an associate professor of Political Science in the Department of Social Sciences at Augusta University. Her main area of research is on gender differences in public opinion, voting, and party identification. Much of this work focuses on investigating the origins of these gender gaps. Her work has been published in various journals and edited volumes. Her book, Gender Differences in Public Opinion: Values and Political Consequences, with Temple University Press was published in March 2020.

Tony E. Carey Jr. is an associate professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas and is the co-founder and co-director of UNT’s Center on Racial and Ethnic Equity in Health and Society (CREEHS). His research and teaching interests focus on identity politics, with an emphasis on racial and ethnic politics, gender politics and social movements.

References

American National Election Studies (ANES). The ANES cumulative Time Series Study 1980-2016. Stanford University and the University of Michigan. https://electionstudies.org/data-center/anes-time-series-cumulative-data-file/

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Berelson

B. R.

Lazarsfeld

P. F.

McPhee

W. N.

(1986). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. University of Chicago Press.

Blumer

(1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3–7.

Bobo

(1983). Whites’ opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1196.

Bobo

Kluegel

J. R.

(1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58(4), 443–464.

Bolzendahl

C. I.

Myers

D. J.

(2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83(2), 759–789.

Box-Steffensmeier

J. M.

De Boef

Lin

T. M.

(2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 515–528.

Brewster

K. L.

Padavic

(2000). Change in gender-ideology, 1977–1996: The contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2), 477–487.

10.

Brown

N. E.

(2014). Political participation of women of color: An intersectional analysis. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 35(4), 315–348.

11.

Campbell

Converse

P. E.

Miller

W. E.

Stokes

D. E.

(1980). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.

12.

Carroll

Fox

(2009). Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

13.

Chaney

C. K.

Alvarez

R. M.

Nagler

(1998). Explaining the gender gap in US presidential elections, 1980-1992. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 311–339.

14.

Clark

(1996). Whither the Gender Gap? Converging and Conflicting Attitudes Among Women. In Whitaker

L. D.

(Ed.), Women in Politics: Insiders or Outsiders? A Collection of Readings (pp. 78–99). Prentice-Hall.

15.

Clark

(2009). Women at the polls: The gender gap, cultural politics, and contested constituencies in the United States. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

16.

Cohen

C. J.

(1999). The boundaries of blackness: AIDS and the breakdown of black politics. University of Chicago Press.

17.

Cook

E. A.

Jelen

T. G.

Wilcox

(1992). Between Two Absolutes: Public Opinion and the Politics of Abortion. Westview Press.

18.

Cook

E. A.

Wilcox

(1995). Women Voters in the Year of the Woman. In Weisberg

(Ed.), Democracy’s Feast: Elections in America (pp. 195–219). Chatham House.

19.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.

20.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

21.

Dawson

M. C.

(1995). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton University Press.

22.

Dawson

M. C.

(2003). Black visions: The roots of contemporary African-American political ideologies. University of Chicago Press.

23.

Dawson

M. C.

(2011). Not in our lifetimes: The future of Black politics. University of Chicago Press.

24.

Dolan

(2011). Do women and men know different things? Measuring gender differences in political knowledge. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 97–107.

25.

Farris

E. M.

Holman

M. R.

(2014). Social capital and solving the puzzle of Black women’s political participation. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(3), 331–349.

26.

Gay

Tate

(1998). Doubly bound: The impact of gender and race on the politics of black women. Political Psychology, 19(1), 169–184.

27.

Gershon

S. A.

Montoya

Bejarano

Brown

(2019). Intersectional linked fate and political representation. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(3), 642–653.

28.

Greer

C. M.

(2013). Black ethnics: Race, immigration, and the pursuit of the American dream. Oxford University Press.

29.

Hancock

(2004). The politics of disgust: The public identity of the welfare queen. New York University Press.

30.

Hassmer

(2017, September 13). Black women and latina headed households face high poverty rates. National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://nwlc.org/blog/black-women-and-latina-headed-households-face-high-poverty-rates/

31.

Hicks

Tingley

(2011). Causal mediation analysis. Stata Journal, 11(4), 605.

32.

Holman

M. R.

(2016). The differential effect of resources on political participation across gender and racial groups. In Brown

N. E.

Gershon

S. A.

(Eds.), Distinct identities: minority women in US politics (pp.13–28). Routledge.

33.

Hooghe

Quintelier

Reeskens

(2007). How political is the personal? Gender differences in the level and the structure of political knowledge. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28(2), 115–125.

34.

Huddy

Carey

T. E.

(2009). Group politics redux: Race and gender in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Politics & Gender, 5(1), 81.

35.

Huddy

Cassese

Lizotte

M. K.

(2008a). Sources of political unity and disunity among women. In Whitaker

L. D.

(Ed.), Voting the gender gap (pp. 141–169). University of Illinois Press.

36.

Huddy

Cassese

Lizotte

M. K.

(2008b). Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. In Wolbrecht

Beckwith

Baldez

(Eds.), Political women and American democracy (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.

37.

Imai

Keele

Tingley

Yamamoto

(2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.

38.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2016, September). Breadwinner mothers by race/ethnicity and state. Retrieved August 2, 2018, from https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/iwpr-export/publications/Q054.pdf

39.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2018, March). The gender wage gap: 2017. Retrieved August 2, 2018, from https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/C464_Gender-Wage-Gap-2.pdf

40.

Jelen

T. G.

Wilcox

(2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489–500.

41.

Jordan-Zachery

(2003). The female bogeyman. Souls, 5(2), 42–61.

42.

Jordan-Zachery

J. S.

(2008). A declaration of war: An analysis of how the invisibility of black women makes them targets of the war on drugs. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 29(2), 231–259.

43.

Knol

M. J.

Pestman

W. R.

Grobbee

D. E.

(2011). The (mis) use of overlap of confidence intervals to assess effect modification. European Journal of Epidemiology, 26(4), 253–254.

44.

Lemi

D. C.

Brown

N. E.

(2020). The political implications of colorism are gendered. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(4), 669–673.

45.

Lien

P. T.

(1998). Does the gender gap in political attitudes and behavior vary across racial groups? Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 869–894.

46.

Lizotte

M. K.

(2015). The abortion attitudes paradox: Model specification and gender differences. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 36(1), 22–42.

47.

Lizotte

M. K.

(2016). Investigating women’s greater support of the Affordable Care Act. The Social Science Journal, 53(2), 209–217.

48.

Lopez

M. H.

Taylor

(2009). Dissecting the 2008 electorate: Most diverse in US history. Pew Research Center.

49.

Mangum

(2008). Testing competing explanations of Black opinions on affirmative action. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 347–366.

50.

Mansbridge

J. J.

(1985). Myth and reality: The ERA and the gender gap in the 1980 election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 164–178.

51.

Norrander

(2008). The history of the gender gaps. In Whitaker

L. D.

(Ed.), Voting the gender gap (pp. 9–32). University of Illinois Press.

52.

Norrander

Wilcox

(2008). The gender gap in ideology. Political Behavior, 30(4), 503–523.

53.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). In Feldman

K. A.

(Ed.). Jossey-Bass.

54.

Patrick

(2017, August 4). Black women lead families but still lag behind in jobs and wealth. National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://nwlc.org/blog/black-women-lead-families-but-still-lag-behind-in-jobs-and-wealth/

55.

Patten

(2016) Racial, gender wage gaps persist in US despite some progress. Pew Research Center, 1.

56.

Pinkney

(1984). The myth of black progress. Cambridge University.

57.

Price

M. T.

(2009). Dreaming blackness: Black nationalism and African American public opinion. NYU Press.

58.

Sanbonmatsu

(2003). Gender-related political knowledge and the descriptive representation of women. Political Behavior, 25(4), 367–388.

59.

Sanchez

G. R.

Masuoka

(2010). Brown-utility heuristic? The presence and contributing factors of Latino linked fate. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(4), 519–531.

60.

Sanchez

G. R.

Vargas

E. D.

(2016). Taking a closer look at group identity: The link between theory and measurement of group consciousness and linked fate. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 160–174.

61.

Sapiro

(2003). Theorizing gender in political psychology research. In Sears

D. O.

Huddy

Jarvis

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 601–634). Oxford University Press.

62.

Scott

(1989). Conflicting beliefs about abortion: Legal approval and moral doubts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(4), 319–326.

63.

Scott Carter

Corra

Carter

S. K

. (2009). The interaction of race and gender: Changing gender-role attitudes, 1974–2006. Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 196–211.

64.

Sears

D. O.

Funk

C. L.

(1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1–91.

65.

Shapiro

R. Y.

Mahajan

(1986). Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 42–61.

66.

Sigelman

Welch

(1984). Race, gender, and opinion toward black and female presidential candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 467–475.

67.

Simien

E. M.

(2004). Gender differences in attitudes toward black feminism among African Americans. Political Science Quarterly, 119(2), 315–338.

68.

Simien

E. M.

(2005). Race, gender, and linked fate. Journal of Black Studies, 35(5), 529–550.

69.

Simien

E. M.

(2013). African American public opinion: Past, present, and future research. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(2), 263–274.

70.

Simien

E. M.

Clawson

R. A.

(2004). The intersection of race and gender: An examination of Black feminist consciousness, race consciousness, and policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 793–810.

71.

Smith

C. W.

(2013). Ethnicity and the role of group consciousness: a comparison between African Americans and Black immigrants. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(2), 199–220.

72.

Smith

C. W.

(2014). Black mosaic: The politics of Black pan-ethnic diversity. NYU Press.

73.

Smith

T. W.

(1984). The polls: Gender and attitudes toward violence. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(1), 384–396.

74.

Stoper

Johnson

R. A.

(1977). The weaker sex & the better half: The idea of women’s moral superiority in the American feminist movement. Polity, 10(2), 192–217.

75.

Strickler

Danigelis

N. L.

(2002). Changing frameworks in attitudes toward abortion. Sociological Forum, 17(2), 187–201.

76.

Tate

(1994). From protest to politics: The new Black voters in American elections. Harvard University Press.

77.

Tucker

(2017, September 18). You should be ticked off by the wage gap for some women of color. National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://nwlc.org/blog/you-should-be-ticked-off-by-the-wage-gap-for-some-women-of-color/

78.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.

79.

Walton

(1985). Invisible politics. State University of New York Press.

80.

Welch

Foster

(1987). Class and conservatism in the black community. American Politics Quarterly, 15(4), 445–470.

81.

White

I. K.

(2007). When race matters and when it doesn’t: Racial group differences in response to racial cues. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 339–354.

82.

White

I. K.

Laird

C. N.

(2020). Steadfast democrats: How social forces shape Black political behavior (Vol. 19). Princeton University Press.

83.

White

I. K.

Laird

C. N.

Allen

T. D.

(2014). Selling out? The politics of navigating conflicts between racial group interest and self-interest. American Political Science Review, 108(4), 783–800.

84.

Wilson

(2001). Support for redistributive policies among the African American middle class: Race and class effects. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 18, 97–115.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB