Psychology Behind Women Voting Against Their Own Interests

We are approximately one day away from a collective exhale after the US election cycle.

Whichever candidate moves into the Oval Office, the rest of the world will finally be allowed to move on. No more relentless barrage of American political public service announcements.

Within the United States, the barrage reaches an almost overwhelming level across social media, news cycles, advertisements, and print. That reflects the symbolic position of global leadership the country holds. The rest of the world cannot escape it either.

Now is the time when our ‘socials’ are overflowing with opinions, shares, memes, clips, and images.

They show which side of the fence the poster sits on and signal which ideologies and issues matter most to them.

Politics is a deeply polarising hot button. It divides people at the voting booth and at the dinner table. People digest information and decide how it aligns with their own priorities and values.

You may hear stories in which families become alienated, friends are cut off, and even marriages are dissolved as opposing parties tally supporters.

We can feel so strongly about political affiliations. Sometimes we are willing to lose friends, families, and loved ones over them (Gonzalez et al., 2020).

We usually have never met the candidates. We have never read the fine print underscoring campaign promises. And sometimes the personal impact of an election outcome is minimal.

Walking Contradictions: Exploring the Reasons Women May Vote Against Female Bodily Autonomy

Sometimes, however, the personal impact is not minimal. Lives can be truly, meaningfully impacted and disrupted by policy arising from the election of a new party.

Using female bodily autonomy as an example, this article explores why women may support, advocate, and vote for parties that conflict with their own self-interest.

Women’s rights have shifted unevenly since 1918.

Year	Where	What changed
1918	UK	Women’s suffrage granted women the right to vote in national elections, with restrictions
1928	UK	The restrictions were loosened to bear more resemblance to those placed on men
1967	England, Scotland, and Wales	The legal right to make one’s own reproductive decisions was granted to women
2019	Ireland	Similar protections were enacted 52 years later, after centuries of religious moral absolutism (Earner-Byrne & Urquhart, 2019)
2022	USA	The constitutional protections in place since 1973 were overturned

The 2022 decision came under the watch of a stacked Supreme Court bench. Women were catapulted back to a time of dangerous closed-door options. Safety was not only jeopardized but seriously impacted.

Few legitimate or objective observers can claim this to be a function of anything other than a patriarchal administration’s selection of Supreme Court justices.

These justices were issued into power at break-neck speed and with unprecedented controversy. They espoused empty promises to maintain the Roe v. Wade status quo should the issue come before them during their tenure.

This issue impacts you.

It does so whether you are a woman of reproductive age or simply a person aware of women existing in the world.

That includes mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, friends, and co-workers.

Reproductive autonomy leads to higher educational attainment, workforce participation, and national GDP (Coburn, 2019). The cost of healthcare is reduced, as are rates of anxiety and depression in mothers with reproductive freedom (World Health Organization, 2009).

The impact of bodily autonomy is incalculable. Yet an astonishing 48% of American women who voted in the 2022 midterms cast House ballots for Republican candidates (Hartig et al., 2023).

That is a vote against their own bodily autonomy, and that of their daughters, nieces, sisters, and granddaughters.

Why are women voting against themselves?

Firstly, not all women cast votes based on this issue. Many consider the loss of female bodily autonomy an unfortunate byproduct of a choice they feel compelled to make based on alternative factors, for example, personal economic impact.

This is an honest concern. Global economic data supports the fact that women are more likely to align themselves with conservative spending and risk assumptions.

Set aside the clear and present danger of cultural oppression and dictates. Set aside, too, the speculative future risk of eternal damnation arising from religious indoctrination or pedagogy.

Even then, a contingent remains. These Western-based women are willing to cast a vote that serves to undermine their own freedom, value, health, and safety.

On the surface, this makes no sense. It may be enticing to judge this demographic, who seem dead set on ignoring the sage advice often attributed to Maya Angelou. Do the best we can until we know better. Then when we know better, do better.

But is it that simple? Why do free-thinking, educated women of all shapes, colors, means, and ethnicities vote for the party working so transparently to strip them of their bodily autonomy?

Voting behavior is a heavily researched and complex topic, comprised of a wide variety of variables including personal values, social and cultural elements, and broader psychological factors.

There is unlikely to be one single and simple answer to why women may vote against their own self-interest. Research suggests the answer may involve safety. Some theoretical lenses through which this idea may be explored are discussed below.

• Social identity theory: belonging and the safety of the in-group.
• Groupthink: the pressure to conform to a cohesive group.
• Narrative theory: internalised cultural stories about what we should value.
• Cognitive dissonance: the discomfort when values and votes conflict.
• Ambivalent sexism: how protection can feel like care.
• System justification: the pull to see existing arrangements as fair.
• The patriarchal bargain: compliance as a strategy for security.

Social Identity Theory: Belonging and Safety

Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) explains how we organize and categorize our environments into manageable groups. This is a natural and instinctual human function.

We organize people, including ourselves, into groups, and then seek ways to gain positive feedback from group membership.

The group to which one allocates oneself, their “in-group”, is viewed more positively than groups of which one is not a self-identified member, i.e., “out-groups”.

This organizational model helps reinforce positive self-perception and reduce uncertainty (Hogg, 2000).

Group membership can require a subjugation of personal interests. The wider group’s interests are perceived as more important. That may be a worthy exchange.

It may seem worthwhile when a woman perceives her identity as aligned with group members who appear safely positioned to survive and thrive with the status quo.

Suppose my neighbors all signal their belief that the sky is red, and I secretly believe it is blue. Do I really belong in this nice, safe neighborhood?

So far, I have lived a reasonably calm and safe life, insulated from the turmoil of the unknown in other neighborhoods.

And if I do not belong here, then where do I fit in? Where is my tribe, and who will walk with me under the blue sky?

Potential loss of in-group status is a frightening proposition. It can be experienced as a threat to one’s very survival (Turquet, 2019). Thus, to survive, some women may feel compelled to live under a red sky.

Groupthink: The Pressure to Conform

A step removed, but not entirely distinct from SIT, is Groupthink (Janis, 1982). Janis defined it as follows:

a mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action (p. 9).

In social contexts, particularly those with dominant political beliefs, women may conform to prevailing opinions to maintain harmony and for self-preservation. Women are not free from the risk of facing anger. That anger can come from those whose beliefs or desires conflict with their own.

So serious and prevalent is this phenomenon (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2019) that it has a label: rejection killing.

In this context, it becomes a bit easier to contemplate that women may be aware of the perils of violating groupthink, consciously or not. They may feel drawn to comply.

Narrative Theory: Internalised Cultural Stories

Another lens through which to consider what may seem a walking contradiction is that of Narrative Theory (NT). NT explores how we make sense of our identities and social positions through the stories we consume, accept, reject, and repeat (Bruner, 1991).

These stories, shaped by culture, media, religion, and social expectations can significantly impact the way we perceive our own interests.

Group belonging influences dominant narratives. NT adds another view: internalized cultural narratives.

This is the idea that cultural prescriptions of ‘should’ can significantly impact thinking around concepts like gender roles, family, and even morality. That can result in the prioritization of values arising from tradition, religion, or group loyalty (e.g., political party, community, or social/economic class affiliation).

Recent research speculates the construction of self-narratives requires that individuals internalize cultural master narratives in specific socio-cultural settings (de la Mata et al., 2022). Here, the story shapes the behavior.

For example, internalized stories touting the risk of economic decline can overshadow concerns about reproductive freedom.

Women living relatively comfortable lives may find themselves casting a vote for the party with the most compelling promise of status quo. Better the devil you know. The alternative is the risk associated with potential upheaval.

Cognitive Dissonance: When Values and Votes Conflict

We might also consider cognitive dissonance (CD; Festinger, 1957). It is the mental discomfort experienced by holding contradictory beliefs, attitudes, or values, or when behavior conflicts with any of these.

For example, if someone values bodily autonomy but also votes for the party working to strip women of this right, the conflict between values and belief creates dissonance.

Dissonance is uncomfortable. CD theory posits that we are intrinsically motivated to alleviate this discomfort in one of three ways:

• Change beliefs: “I do not value female bodily autonomy the way I used to.”
• Change behavior: “I must now vote differently.”
• Add new cognitions: introduce new beliefs or justifications to help manage the conflict (“the odds of this becoming as bad as all that are probably slim”).

Once again, external factors matter. Cultural and social norms influence the intensity of discomfort. Individuals may experience varying degrees of dissonance, depending on the expectations of their social circles.

This is an important point as it highlights the internal threat also experienced by women who cast a vote that may seem contradictory to their own self-interest. Through this lens, we can start to understand that this is not always so.

Ambivalent Sexism: Protection as a Trade-Off

Not every lens centres on belonging. Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) asks why many women accept sexist beliefs at all.

Glick and Fiske distinguished two components. Hostile sexism treats women as manipulative competitors seeking to usurp men’s power. Benevolent sexism treats women as pure, moral, and deserving of protection, provided they conform to traditional roles.

Benevolent sexism feels like affection to those who hold it. That makes it far more palatable to women than hostility is.

Glick and colleagues (2000) tested the theory across cultures.

Women’s scores on benevolent sexism came closest to men’s in the most sexist nations. That fits the idea that protection is valued where hostility is high.

The data are correlational. They cannot show which way causation runs.

Experiments point the same way. Becker and Wright (2011) found that women exposed to benevolently sexist statements were less willing to take collective action for gender equality. Exposure to hostile sexism increased that willingness.

A systematic review of 654 studies (Bareket & Fiske, 2023) reached a clear verdict. The two forms work as a coordinated system.

Hostile sexism responds to cues about power and sexuality. Benevolent sexism responds to cues about roles.

A 62-nation study of 29,518 people replicated the core pattern (Zawisza et al., 2025). Nations with more sexism also showed more antidemocratic tendencies, lower productivity, and shorter healthy lifespans for both genders.

These studies concern sexist beliefs, not voting. They show why protection can feel valuable. They cannot show how any one woman will vote.

System Justification: Defending the Status Quo

Jost and Banaji (1994) proposed that people sometimes rationalise existing arrangements as fair and natural, even at the expense of their own interests. They called this system justification.

The theory was built to explain two puzzles:

• Self-stereotyping: disadvantaged groups often take part in negative stereotypes of themselves.
• Shared stereotypes: stereotypic beliefs stay consensual across groups whose interests plainly diverge.

On this account, the pull is partly emotional. Believing the world is unjust and unchangeable is more distressing than believing it is basically fair. A system-justifying belief relieves that distress. The cost falls mainly on the believer’s own group.

Jost and Banaji framed it as a psychological account of what the Marxist tradition calls false consciousness. The lens would predict that some women find the status quo reassuring even when it costs them. It is a prediction about motive. It is not a finding about any one voter.

The Patriarchal Bargain: Compliance as Strategy

Deniz Kandiyoti (1988) offered a different answer. She argued that women strategise within concrete constraints, which she called patriarchal bargains.

In some systems, the available strategies involve upholding patriarchal arrangements rather than resisting them.

Consider a woman whose old age depends on her sons. Her standing depends on her respectability. Defending the rules protects a real asset.

On this view, compliance is a strategic investment, not a false belief.

James Scott (1990) made a related point. What subordinate groups say in public is a performance shaped by power, and it can sit alongside a hidden critique voiced only offstage. Apparent endorsement may therefore be strategic compliance rather than belief.

Kandiyoti studied societies unlike the contemporary West, so her idea travels only as an analogy. Even so, both ideas treat compliance as a choice made under constraint. That echoes the safety theme above.

Stepping Back: The Patriarchal Context

Taking a step back, it is important to recognize the inherently patriarchal context in which the entire culture and system is rooted.

Patriarchal ideology is the belief that men should hold more power and privilege than women, and that this arrangement is natural or right. Patriarchy is the arrangement itself, such as who holds authority. The ideology is the set of beliefs that justifies it.

Its master move is naturalisation. An arrangement produced by history and institutions is recast as a fact of nature, so it stops being noticed.

Is it really even reasonable to ask the question of why women may vote against their own self-interest?

Who is asking this question of men? When might we read about the steps being taken to assuage the historical imbalance of power, whether subversively or transgressively?

Sandra Bem (1993) called this habit androcentrism: treating men’s standpoint as the default. Men’s choices then seem to need no explanation, while women’s do.

Probably not in the next month. In the meantime, it may help to understand the differences between us and our ideologies with more empathy and insight, and less judgment.

We may not agree on the choices our friends and loved ones make. We may still see the internal and external challenges they face as they make those choices and uphold their own values as best they can.

References

Bareket, O., & Fiske, S. T. (2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11–12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000400

Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615

Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.

Coburn, E. (2019). Trickle-down gender at the International Monetary Fund: the contradictions of “femina economica” in global capitalist governance. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 21(5), 768-788.

de la Mata, M. L., Cala, M. J., & Sala, A. (2022). Facing dominant master narratives on gender and sexuality: Identity reconstruction of women in situations of inequality. Memory Studies, 15(1), 120-138.

Earner-Byrne, L., & Urquhart, D. (2019). The Irish abortion journey, 1920–2018. Springer.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Hartig, H., Daniller, A., Keeter, S., & Van Green, T. (2023, July 12). Republican gains in 2022 midterms driven mostly by turnout advantage. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voting-patterns-in-the-2022-elections

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2019). Global study on homicide 2019: Booklet 5. Gender-related killing of women and girls. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_5.pdf

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223– 255. doi:10.1080/14792772043000040

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, A., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expósito, F., . . . López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763

Gonzalez, K. A., Pulice-Farrow, L., & Galupo, M. P. (2020). “My aunt unfriended me:”: Narratives of GLBTQ Family Relationships Post 2016 Presidential Election. In The 2016 US Presidential Election and the LGBTQ Community (pp. 63-86). Routledge.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson

Turquet, P. (2019). Threats to identity in the large group: A study in the phenomenology of the individual’s experiences of changing membership status in a large group 1. In The large group (pp. 87-144). Routledge.

World Health Organization, & Key Centre for Women’s Health in Society. (2009). Mental health aspects of women’s reproductive health: a global review of the literature.

Zawisza, M., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Glick, P., Olech, M., Besta, T., Jurek, P., Sobiecki, J., Best, D. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Safdar, S., Włodarczyk, A., & Żadkowska, M. (2025). Worse for women, bad for all: A 62-nation study confirms and extends ambivalent sexism principles to reveal greater social dysfunction in sexist nations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(8), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241302882