Gender and moral language on the presidential campaign trail

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
David P. Redlawsk, Jiwon Nam, Annemarie S. Walter
{"title":"Gender and moral language on the presidential campaign trail","authors":"David P. Redlawsk, Jiwon Nam, Annemarie S. Walter","doi":"10.1111/psq.12856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political candidates choose to highlight morality in their campaign speeches in various ways. In particular, we expect presidential candidates to highlight moral principles in introducing themselves to voters early in the campaign. However, usage may not be the same across candidates. Existing research suggests that, in general, women focus on different moral values than men. The question is whether such findings in the mass public translate into rhetorical differences between men and women presidential candidates. We know little about whether such gender differences exist, and if so, how they might influence voters. We examine a unique data set of presidential candidate speeches given in Iowa in the 2016 and 2020 nomination campaigns, developing and testing hypotheses about gender, the use of moral language, and its effects on vote outcomes. Using automated text analysis, we find that all else equal, while women candidates do not use more moral language overall, they do emphasize care and fairness more than men, and in doing so, they may be disadvantaging themselves, especially when using language related to fairness.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12856","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Political candidates choose to highlight morality in their campaign speeches in various ways. In particular, we expect presidential candidates to highlight moral principles in introducing themselves to voters early in the campaign. However, usage may not be the same across candidates. Existing research suggests that, in general, women focus on different moral values than men. The question is whether such findings in the mass public translate into rhetorical differences between men and women presidential candidates. We know little about whether such gender differences exist, and if so, how they might influence voters. We examine a unique data set of presidential candidate speeches given in Iowa in the 2016 and 2020 nomination campaigns, developing and testing hypotheses about gender, the use of moral language, and its effects on vote outcomes. Using automated text analysis, we find that all else equal, while women candidates do not use more moral language overall, they do emphasize care and fairness more than men, and in doing so, they may be disadvantaging themselves, especially when using language related to fairness.
总统竞选过程中的性别和道德语言
政治候选人在竞选演说中以各种方式强调道德。特别是,我们期待总统候选人在竞选初期向选民介绍自己时强调道德原则。然而,不同候选人的用法可能不一样。现有的研究表明,一般来说,女性关注的道德价值观与男性不同。问题是,这些在公众中的发现是否会转化为男女总统候选人在言辞上的差异。我们对这种性别差异是否存在知之甚少,如果存在,它们将如何影响选民。我们研究了2016年和2020年提名竞选期间爱荷华州总统候选人演讲的独特数据集,开发并测试了关于性别、道德语言的使用及其对投票结果的影响的假设。通过自动文本分析,我们发现在其他条件相同的情况下,虽然女性候选人总体上没有使用更多的道德语言,但她们确实比男性更强调关心和公平,这样做可能会使自己处于不利地位,尤其是在使用与公平相关的语言时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Presidential Studies Quarterly
Presidential Studies Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信