Thirteenth International Conference on Food Studies

Abstract

Members of the electorate often rely on political heuristics when deciding for whom to vote, and a candidate’s personality can contribute to their popularity during the campaign cycle. Indeed, studies have shown that the candidate individuals would rather “have a beer with” tends to fair better come Election Day. This metric appears to have harmed Hillary Clinton in 2016, as she merely functioned as the candidate people would rather invite over for dinner, while Trump emerged as the preferred beer buddy, especially among men. Having a drink with a candidate is a fundamentally different activity than inviting them over for dinner. It deserves further investigation, as it speaks to a candidate’s likability. In this paper, I unpack the gendered nature of beer and investigate whether or not this metric generally hurts female candidates’ chances of appearing personable by evaluating the results from an original survey experiment. I compare two fictional candidates from the same party, one male candidate and one female, and construct three conditions to compare how the gender stereotypes evoked by an alcoholic beverage shape their appeal. The conditions ask respondents the candidate with whom they’d rather have a beer, have a glass of wine, and have a drink, respectively. The findings reveal if the gender stereotypes evoked by the “beer metric” question subtly harm women running for office. If the two candidates are more appealing in different contexts, then campaign strategists for female candidates may wish to find an alternative metric of likability.