Tuesday, the University of Florida highlighted a study entitled Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
As one can infer from the title, the study came to the earth-shattering conclusion that people with actual sexist tendencies voted for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, stating that “Trump voters were higher in hostile and benevolent sexism than were Clinton voters.”
Perhaps UF should conduct a similar study to determine if Clinton voters were higher in hostile and benevolent feminism than were Trump voters. Or would that be a waste of the publicly funded university’s funding and resources?
Even though the study didn’t yield any results that an average person could not infer through basic deductive reasoning, the University of Florida did a decent job of twisting the information in their coverage of the results.
In reference to the study, the University’s news publication stated the following:
“You might think voters’ political leanings would be the primary influence on how they cast their ballots, and past studies would back you up. But when University of Florida researchers looked at the 2016 presidential election, another factor emerged as a strong predictor: sexism.
In a study published in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, UF psychologists found that in the contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, voters’ choices were strongly linked to hostile attitudes toward women.”
UF News also included the following quote from Liz Redford, a doctoral candidate involved in conducting the study:
“Most Americans would probably like to think that sexism is not a big factor in their voting choices, but this [study] forces us to consider whether political decisions are impacted by that.”
Perhaps if Redford had considered the obvious possibility that prejudiced people don’t stow their prejudices away during a presidential election before conducting her groundbreaking study, UF wouldn’t be able to misrepresent her findings in order to propagate a political narrative.