Archer, Allison M. N. “The Effects of Elite Attacks on Co-Partisan Media: Evidence from Trump and Fox News.” Accepted, Public Opinion Quarterly. [pdf]

Archer, Allison M. N. and Cindy D. Kam. 2022. “She Is the Chair(man): Gender, Language, and Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 33(6). [pdf]

This article presents results from two complementary experiments that examine the effects of a potential obstacle to female leadership: gendered language in the form of masculine leadership titles.  In the first experiment (N=1,753), we utilize an unobtrusive writing task to find that a masculine title (“Chairman” vs. “Chair”) increases assumptions that a hypothetical leader is a man, even when the leader’s gender is left unspecified.  In the second experiment (N=1,000), we use a surprise recall task and a treatment that unambiguously communicates the leader’s gender to find that a masculine title increases the accuracy of leader recollection only when the leader is a man.  In both studies, we find no significant differences by gender of respondents in the effects of masculine language on reinforcing the link between masculinity and leadership.  Thus, implicitly sexist language as codified in masculine titles can reinforce stereotypes that tie masculinity to leadership and consequently, weaken the connection between women and leadership.

Archer, Allison M. N. and Scott Clifford. 2022. “Improving the Measurement of Hostile Sexism.” Public Opinion Quarterly 86(2): 223-246. [pdf] [online appendix]

In recent years, sexism has played an increasingly pivotal role in American politics, and scholarship examining the importance of gender attitudes for political behavior has surged. Researchers have largely relied on the hostile sexism scale to measure prejudice against women, and this scale seems particularly relevant to political science research. However, this scale measures attitudes with an agree-disagree response format, which has long been recognized as a source of substantial measurement error. In this paper, we introduce a revised version of the hostile sexism scale that instead relies on an item-specific question format. Across three studies, we show that the item-specific scale is strongly related to the agree-disagree scale, but that the item-specific version reduces problems with truncation and tends to improve discriminant and predictive validity. Given these advantages, we conclude by recommending that researchers adopt the item-specific hostile sexism scale.

Archer, Allison M. N. and Joshua P. Darr. 2022. “Gubernatorial Elections Change Demand for Local Newspapers.” American Politics Research 50(1): 52-66. [pdf]

How do partisans react when their candidate wins or loses a gubernatorial election? Previous work shows that when parties win presidential elections, demand for their affiliated local newspapers decreases relative to the losing party’s newspapers. However, it is unclear if this negative link extends beyond presidential races into state-level elections. To test this relationship, we analyze demand for partisan and non-partisan newspapers in Virginia and New Jersey—two states that hold off-cycle gubernatorial elections with no competition from federal elections—from 1933-2005. We find demand for local newspapers associated with the winning party declines after gubernatorial elections compared to demand for other newspapers. The results also shed light on whether (and which) winning partisans are disengaging completely or shifting their consumption to independent newspapers. Taken together, our study suggests that state-level elections significantly influence local newspaper consumption and adds valuable local context to our understanding of the political dynamics of news demand.

Kam, Cindy D. and Allison M. N. Archer. 2021. “Mobilizing and Demobilizing: Modern Sexism and Turnout in the #MeToo Era.” Public Opinion Quarterly 85(1): 172-182. [pdf]

Since the 2016 US presidential campaign and the rise of the #MeToo movement, issues of sexual assault and harassment have risen to prominence.  At the same time, these issues have also been understood and evaluated through the lens of partisanship.  The US Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh exemplified these dynamics by providing clear partisan and emotion-laden cues to citizens.  Given these events’ temporal proximity to the midterms, we argue the confirmation hearings not only amplified an ongoing conversation, but also heightened the effect of sexist predispositions on turnout.  Using a unique online survey with validated voter turnout in the 2018 midterms, we find that higher levels of modern sexism increased turnout among Republicans while lower levels of modern sexism increased turnout among Democrats.  In 2018, sexist predispositions triggered turnout in opposing ways across the aisle.

Archer, Allison M. N. and Cindy D. Kam. 2020. “Modern Sexism in Modern Times: Public Opinion in the #MeToo Era.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84(4): 813-837. [pdf] [replication files]

Issues of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gendered power imbalances have risen to prominence in the wake of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the rise of the #MeToo movement.  This paper uses original panel and cross-sectional data to assess the degree to which levels of sexism have changed in response to current events, and finds very little change in levels of sexism from 2004 to 2018. The results also suggest that modern sexism significantly correlates with views undercutting the pervasiveness of sexual misconduct, purporting #MeToo has gone too far, and opposing mandatory workplace harassment training, among other beliefs. Overall, the evidence suggests modern sexism is firmly entrenched in the public mind and readily connected to public opinion in the wake of #MeToo.

Archer, Allison M. N. 2020. “Attacking the Fourth Estate: The Nature and Effects of Political Leaders’ War with the Press.” In Leadership, Populism, and Resistance, edited by Kristin M.S. Bezio and George R. Goethals, 129-147. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

In the 2016 presidential election, verbal attacks on the press and threats of violence against journalists were commonplace during Trump’s campaign rallies. Since his election, critiques of the media have increasingly become a staple in political discourse; Trump even characterized the press as the “enemy of the American people.” Of course, this is not the first time that politicians have espoused attacks on the media as part of their political strategies. Political leaders often discredit the press as elitist, distrustful, and biased in an attempt to both spin the facts and align themselves with the “everyday” voter. In this chapter, I will examine the nature of press attacks by U.S. political leaders throughout history. Then, I will present original data that characterize the frequency of President Trump’s criticisms of the press on Twitter as well as common themes he employs. Finally, I will turn to social science research to help us better understand the effects of such media attacks on voters.

Archer, Allison M. N. 2018. “Political Advantage, Disadvantage, and the Demand for Partisan News.” Journal of Politics 80(3): 845-859. [pdf]