top of page

Marzia Oceno

Hi and welcome!

​

 

I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University in Miami, FL. I was previously a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University and a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Center for Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. I received my Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan in May 2020, specializing in American politics and political methodology.

​

Substantively, I am interested in studying the complexities of gender, racial, and partisan identities and attitudes as they relate to public opinion and political behavior in the United States. In particular, my research sheds light on underappreciated heterogeneity in women’s and men’s candidate evaluations, voting preferences, and policy attitudes by analyzing gender at the subgroup level. 

​

Methodologically, my interests include developing original survey and experimental designs. I am also interested in studying how and to what extent pre-registration of designs contributes to transparency, reproducibility, and trustworthiness of political science research. 

​

I earned a B.A. in International and Diplomatic Science with highest honors in 2005 from the University of Bologna in Italy. I was then a visiting graduate student at Yale University in 2008, and in 2009 I was awarded an M.A. in International Studies from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. In 2013, I earned an M.A. in Political Science from The Ohio State University. 

PolSciGradHdsD2-19(40).jpg
Research
Dissertation

Dissertation & Book Project

The Feminist Paradox: How Gender-Related Subgroup Labels Divide the U.S. Public and Impact Representation

Committee: Nicholas A. Valentino (Chair), Nancy Burns, Elizabeth R. Cole (Psychology), and Donald R. Kinder.

Although a desire for descriptive representation is common among historically underrepresented and/or marginalized groups and despite women’s enduring underrepresentation in U.S. government, female voters demonstrate much weaker, less consistent, and more conditional ingroup loyalty at the voting booth. Why don’t female voters generally expect female candidates to provide better substantive representation for their gender group interests? I propose that women and men in the U.S. electorate are divided into two highly salient and strongly politically charged but countervailing gender-related subgroup identities: feminists and non-feminists. Feminists tend to be more ideologically homogeneous and share a gender ideology that focuses on fostering women’s empowerment and advocating for gender-equal rights. I argue that rather than merely representing either the opposite or the absence of feminism, non-feminism is a meaningful identity in and of itself. In other words, not calling oneself a feminist cannot be interpreted as outright rejection of all aspects that constitute what it means to be a feminist. In fact, individuals can positively identify as non-feminists, and self-labeled non-feminists are not only distinct from feminists but also far more ideologically heterogeneous in terms of their beliefs about whether gender inequality and discrimination exist and how they ought to be addressed. Non-feminism is thus a large and highly diverse conglomerate that spans a gender ideological spectrum, ranging from non-labelers – the type that is closest to feminists – to gender individualists around the middle and gender inegalitarians (i.e., anti-feminists) at the opposite end of the spectrum from feminists. These types are all bound together politically by their shared adoption of non-feminism as a positive identity but differ in terms of their gender belief system.

​

I examine the socio-political predictors and correlates of feminism and the non-feminist types, on the one hand, and their electoral impact and implications, on the other hand, across a variety of campaigns and candidates running for both legislative and executive offices at different levels of government in the United States. Specifically, the book employs a mixed-method approach: it deploys survey and experimental tests of my theory using eight distinct quantitative studies as well as qualitative interviews. The quantitative studies include four nationally representative surveys with both open- and closed-ended responses and four experiments.

​

My results demonstrate that labels related to the feminist and non-feminist subgroups divide the U.S. public much more than the actual idea of gender equality, particularly the female electorate. Despite their persistent underrepresentation, female voters are unlikely to view female candidates and officeholders as being one of their own or acting in their best interest solely based on shared gender identity. Instead, across genders, feminists and non-feminists interpret shared feminist or non-feminist identity, respectively, as a more informative signal of how closely a candidate will represent them substantively. Paradoxically, rather than leading to greater gender equality in representation, explicit association with the label of feminist on the campaign trail is likely to put candidates at a severe electoral disadvantage and be riskier and costlier than touting a gender egalitarian policy agenda. The label indeed appeals to feminists but alienates a much larger and far more diverse subgroup – non-feminists, even those who support many policies commonly associated with feminism. In sum, subgroup identity labels tend to matter more than policy agendas and can ultimately distort, rather than enhance, substantive representation.

Publications

 
Publications

Book

​

Affective Group Mobilization in the Era of Trump (with Nicholas A. Valentino). Under contract with Cambridge University Press. 

Peer-Reviewed Articles

​

  • “How Social Desirability Bias Impacts the Expression of Emotions.” Conditionally accepted at Political Science Research and Methods.

 

​​Abstract:

Emotions and their impact on socio-political behavior have received increasing scholarly attention. However, it remains largely unclear whether and to what extent emotional expression within surveys is subject to social desirability bias, similarly to a broad range of self-reported sensitive attitudes and behaviors. By drawing on impression management theory and the disclosure decision model, we argue that emotional expression is likely to be prone to social desirability bias in interviewer-administered survey modes and test our hypotheses on mixed-mode ANES data. The findings demonstrate that respondents significantly underreport negative emotions – anger and fear – when interviewed face-to-face as compared to online. Further, positive emotions, such as hope and pride, are not exempt from biased reporting related to interview mode. These results advance our understanding of mode effects and social desirability and highlight the risks of estimating emotions and their salience by either relying on interviewer administration or combining survey modes.​​

 

​

Abstract:

What is the relationship between feminism and political participation? How does partisanship moderate this relationship? Prior research shows that gender attitudes, particularly sexism, rather than gender identity per se, increasingly shape vote choice and participation in US elections. However, the role played by feminism in voter behavior remains scarcely understood. As feminist identification crosses partisanship, we argue that its impact on engagement with campaigns and turnout depends on party ID. Therefore, we expect feminist identity and how it intersects with either aligned or conflicting partisan identity to impact partisans’ participation asymmetrically. Using data from the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies, our results support these expectations. Holding the mutually reinforcing identities of Democrat and feminist has a significant mobilizing impact, while holding the cross-cutting identities of Republican and feminist tends to lead to a decline in political participation.

​

​

Abstract:

Although gender-related attitudes have played an increasingly larger role in recent U.S. elections, the implications of feminist identity beyond electoral politics remain largely understudied. This paper examines how the interaction of feminist and party ID impacts political elite evaluations and policy attitudes that are not gender-based by relying on an original survey fielded as part of the 2020 CES and the 2016 ANES. Our analyses show that feminists of both parties give the highest feminist ratings to co-partisan elites. However, while Democratic feminists rate Democratic elites as more feminist than Republican elites, Republican feminists rate the two similarly. Furthermore, within both parties, feminist self-labeling is associated with increased support for policies that advance social equity and inclusion. This gap in policy preferences between feminists and non-feminists largely persists across ideologies – among liberal, moderate, and conservative members of both parties. These findings suggest that feminist identifiers constitute a distinct group within each party, and fostering feminism across political leanings may strengthen public support for more equitable and inclusive policy goals and outcomes.

​

​

​

Abstract:

Racial disparities have persisted in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the United States. Differences in vaccination hesitancy have also emerged by race: communities of color and, particularly, African Americans have been more reluctant to get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Can racial descriptive norms provide a tool to increase confidence and reduce hesitancy within the US public? We conducted a survey experiment at the end of January 2021 on a sample of non-Hispanic white and Black American adults. The experiment varied whether information about uptake intent by race was provided, and what racial group was reported to be more likely to get a vaccine if one were available to them today. Our results show that the tendency to conform to one’s racial ingroup can play a key role in improving vaccination attitudes across race. Indeed, whites become significantly more willing to get vaccinated now or in the near future after they learn that a majority of whites intend to do so. Furthermore, both Blacks with high science trust and whites with low science trust are more likely to accept multiple vaccine doses and yearly boosters if their racial ingroup plans on getting vaccinated. Finally, the desire for ingroup conformity leads Blacks with low science trust to be more willing to receive a vaccine when they are provided a choice among vaccine brands.

​

​

​

Abstract:

Sexism and feminism are often seen as opposing belief systems on a single dimension in American politics. Gender scholars, however, have noticed that these forces are not equal and opposite. The 2016 election represents a critical case for examining how gender-related attitudes and identities push and pull voters. Hillary Clinton was the first female presidential nominee of a major party and a self-proclaimed feminist facing an opponent considered by many to be hostile to women. As such, many observers predicted a substantial increase in the gender gap. However, the gap did not widen much compared to previous races, and nearly half of women chose Trump. Why? We argue that sexism – as commonly measured – mixes attitudes about women in general with those about feminists in particular. When feminism becomes salient, as in 2016, attitudes about this subgroup become more relevant to the vote. Relying on three studies – a 2016 survey on SSI, the 2018 CCES, and the 2016 ANES, we assess the role of anti-feminist attitudes and feminist identity across gender, race, and party. We find that sexism directed against feminists powerfully dampened support for Clinton across genders. However, feminist identity was much less common in the electorate, and had little effect on men’s votes. Thus, although countervailing, these two forces are not equivalent. In 2016, the benefit of appealing to feminists was overwhelmed by the cost of activating voters who intensely dislike the group. These results reveal a consequential imbalance in the power of sexism and feminism in U.S. politics.​

 

 

​

Abstract: 

The outcome of the 2016 US presidential election cycle generated a great deal of attention about the political psychology of the average American voter. A familiar narrative was that authoritarianism, perhaps triggered by fears of cultural and economic change, was the primary driver of support for Donald Trump. This article argues that sexism has been underestimated as a political force, especially given the angry emotional climate. The article first explores the electoral role of sexism early in the campaign, finding that sexism powerfully predicted vote choice even after controlling for authoritarianism, partisanship, and other predispositions. Second, the article analyzes American National Election Studies time-series data to examine the impact of sexism in recent presidential elections, demonstrating that 2016 was the only year in which it played a large and significant role. Finally, a survey experiment tests the theorized causal mechanism underlying sexism’s influence: the catalyzing power of anger versus fear. Fear sharply reduced sexism’s impact on support for Trump relative to those who experienced anger. Further, anger powerfully mobilized sexists, a group that would normally be likely to stay home. These results illuminate the role that emotional undercurrents play in catalyzing group-based predispositions into politics.

 

​

Book Review

 

American Rage: How Anger Shapes Our Politics. By Steven W. Webster. (Cambridge University Press 2020). 2021. Political Science Quarterly 136(4), 784-785.

​

​

Publicly Engaged Scholarship

​

“What encourages Black Americans to get vaccinated? Hearing that other Black Americans want the vaccine” (with Wei-Ting Yen). 2021. The Washington Post.

​

“How sexism drives support for Donald Trump” (with Nicholas A. Valentino and Carly Wayne). 2016. The Washington Post. 

​

Working papers

Working Papers

​

  • “The Intersectional Anger Gap: How Race and Gender Condition the Impact of Anger on Participation” (with Sara Morell). Under Review.

​​

  • “Sexism Against Whom? The Impact of Candidates’ Association with Feminism and Voters’ Sexist Attitudes on Electoral Support.”

​​

  • “The Political Feasibility of UBI: The Role of Framing, Partisan Cues, and Economic Insecurity” (with Wei-Ting Yen).

Teaching

Teaching

At FIU:

  • American Government (undergraduate)

  • Methods Bootcamp for Political Science Ph.D. students

  • Political Psychology and Its Applications (graduate)

  • Seminar in American Politics (graduate)

  • Statistical Methods I (graduate)

At Michigan:

  • Mentor for the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (2017-2019)

  • Game Theory I (at ICPSR), Graduate Student Instructor for Scott H. Ainsworth (graduate, Summer 2018)

  • Capstone Seminar for Senior in Statistics, Graduate Student Instructor for Ben B. Hansen (undergraduate, Winter 2017)

  • Modeling Political Processes, Graduate Student Instructor for Scott E. Page (undergraduate, Fall 2016)

  • Statistical Methods II, Graduate Student Instructor for Rocío Titiunik (graduate, Winter 2016)

© 2020 by Marzia Oceno. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page