Eight in ten Americans agree: we should pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

New Pew survey shows that most Americans are optimistic about reaching gender equality in the future, but many believe we are moving in the wrong direction

By Wayne Shields, July 12, 2020

The Pew Research Center’s latest social trends report, released on July 7, shows wide, consistent support from US adults for passing the Equal Rights Amendment that is strong across genders, party affiliations, and ethnicities.[1] These results from polling super-power Pew give credence to recent, smaller-scale surveys, mostly from advocacy groups interested in ERA passage. AP/NORC sponsored a related poll in January with similar results but it had twice Pew’s margin of error. [2],[3] This matters. Now we can confidently say that Americans want equal rights for women and want them codified in the Constitution.

Pro-equality advocates have fought for equal rights for women since the first ERA — called the “Lucretia Mott Amendment” — was proposed in 1923 by Alice Paul.[4],[5] In 1972, Congress finally passed the ERA, but attached a 1982 deadline for ratification by at least 75% of the states, as required in the constitution. Only 35 of the necessary 38 states met the deadline, scrapping hopes for passage.

After four decades in limbo, the ERA is being seriously reconsidered. On January 27, 2020, Virginia ratified the amendment, followed a month later by passage of a US House bill to increase the ERA’s chances of becoming law.[6],[7]

This survey is important: The results are credible, and the data can inform evidence-based campaigns and other efforts to educate Americans about gender equality, gender-based violence, and harmful gender norms.[8] Also, 72% of respondents from the AP/NORC survey believe the constitution guarantees equal rights.[9] It does not. The ACLU reports that 80% of Americans have the same perception.[10] These Pew data can help advocates, policymakers, nonprofits, and others show that gender equality can be only be guaranteed if the ERA is part of the constitution.

KEY FINDINGS[11]

- Most Americans favor adding the ERA to the constitution: 78% at least somewhat favor the ERA

- Almost all Americans (97%), regardless of gender, political affiliation, race, age, or other demographic groups believe we have not gone far enough to give women equal rights: 79% say it is very important for women to have equal rights, 18% say it is somewhat important

- Women are more likely than men to strongly favor adding the ERA to the constitution: 39% of women and 31% of men favor it

- Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to favor adding the ERA to the constitution: 88% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans favor it

- White Democrats are more likely than Black or Hispanic Democrats to strongly favor adding the ERA to the constitution: 58% of white Democrats, 42% of Black Democrats, and 42% of Hispanic Democrats strongly favor it

- Republican men are least likely to favor adding the ERA to the constitution, but the majority (58%) still support it

- Older Democrats are somewhat more likely than younger Democrats to strongly favor adding the ERA to the constitution: 63% 65+, 52% 50–64, and 42% 18–49

-A majority (57%) of Americans say the US has not gone far enough to give women equal rights to men

ANALYSIS

What caused soft political attitudes about gender equality and the ERA to evolve toward overwhelming support in the past century? Some political science theories and sociobehavioral models can provide clues. Political scientists have evolved their thinking, too, about why and how people make political decisions and act on them. They have developed, tested, and expanded theories to help explain why people make political decisions like supporting the ERA, and how those opinions might evolve over time.

Early political scientists relied on the economic self-interest model to explain political behaviors, assuming logic always prevails, and people vote to maximize their personal benefits. Following Gallup’s launch of the first scientific polling group in 1935, political scientists had more data to inform their work, leading to a game-changing correlation in voting patterns a decade later: Berelson et al found that 75% of people voted like their fathers, also called the “Hereditary Vote.”[12],[13] These new data spurred new thinking about political decision-making: Children from partisan environments are influenced by the social milieu of their family, friends, neighbors, churches, etc. Berelson et al also proposed a social differentiation model featuring primary groups whose members are likely to vote similarly. Kohlberg, a rationalist famous for his “Heinz’ Dilemma” research with children, proposed that moral reasoning in political decision-making is a learned behavior that comes first, followed by judgment.[14] As a 1960s outlier, Converse then upset the cart by proposing that political beliefs do not exist, and that political decision-making is essentially a random act.[15] In 1973, Erickson and Tedin pointed to social class, race, age, religion, and zip code as good indicators of voting patterns.[16],[17]

Over the past thirty years, a rash of political scientists have built on — and sometimes discarded — previous theories and developed new, more complex models to help explain the many dimensions of political behavior:

In 1990, Sears and Funk deflated earlier self-interest theories, concluding that most people think about political issues, “. . .in a disinterested frame of mind.”[18] Zaller introduced a three-step “Consideration” model in 1994: individuals receive information from trusted sources, accept it based on various considerations, and rely on whatever is top of mind at the decision point.[19] Jost dismissed Converse’s “chaos” theory and proposed that political ideas arise from psychological needs and motives.[20]

Shweder and other social intuitionists introduced culturally sensitive, complex, and potentially more realistic models to explain the psychological processes behind political beliefs.[21] Haidt brings us the theory that reason comes second to passion — the opposite of Kohlberg’s rationalism — and argues that political opinions arise from gut instincts, often tempered afterward by reflection and evaluation.[22] In 2014, Feldman and Johnston proposed a two-dimensional approach to explain political opinions and ideologies.[23] Most recently, Fukuyama added identity and demand for public recognition as drivers of political opinions.[24]

This incomplete list representing seven decades of evolving political science theory can help show how changing attitudes over time might lead to today’s high levels of support for the ERA.

All studies have strengths and weaknesses. Pros: Pew is a highly respected foundation with a reputation for well-designed survey instruments, small margins of error, and rigorous data analysis. The outcomes are believable and are probably accurate, giving confidence to interested parties who may use the data for general information or their own analyses. This is also a confirmatory study, built on prior studies that came to similar conclusions.

Cons: A survey conducted in March may not capture major attitude and perception changes due to the COVID crisis and Black Lives Matter protests. The past several months have been socially, physically, and psychologically disruptive due to high levels of COVID infection and death, social isolation, and employment, childcare, and education concerns.[25] Add these stressors to the tension, anger, and frustration stoked by black people’s deaths at the hands of police, and you have potential for drastic shifts in political beliefs and voting behaviors.[26]

METHODOLOGIES

Pew’s nationally representative survey of 3,143 adults (1,582 men, 1,561 women) was conducted online from March 18 — April 1, 2020 with a margin of error of +/- 1.9% at a 95% confidence level.[27] Pew used the Ipsos Knowledge Panel, a scientifically recruited group of 60,000 potential respondents, to identify a pool of study participants.[28]

CONCLUSION

How will we know if we’ve made it to full gender equality? Pew’s respondents helped by naming key markers that resonate with them: equality in the workplace, equal pay, no discrimination in hiring and promotion, and equal participation in workplace and political leadership.[29] Working from the scientific models for political decision-making and ensuring that the ERA becomes part of the US constitution can give us a good start.

[1] Horowitz, J, Igielnik, R, July 7, 2020. A Century after women gained the right to vote, majority of Americans see work to do on gender equality. Pew Research Center. Accessed on July 9, 2020, at https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/07/07/a-century-after-women-gained-the-right-to-vote-majority-of-americans-see-work-to-do-on-gender-equality

[2] Americans — by 94 percent — overwhelmingly support the equal rights amendment (ERA), June 17, 2016. ERA Coalition/Women’s Equality Fund. Accessed on July 11, 2020, at http://www.eracoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ERA-Polling-Press-Release.pdf

[3] The Equal Rights Amendment and discrimination against women, February 2020. AP/NORC survey. Accessed on July 11, 2020, at https://apnorc.org/projects/the-equal-rights-amendment-and-discrimination-against-women

[4] Lyons, P, Astor, M, Salam, M. January 15, 2020. Why the equal rights amendment is back. New York Times. Accessed on July 11, 2020, at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/us/what-is-equal-rights-amendment.html

[5] The history of the equal rights amendment. Alice Paul Institute. Web page accessed on July 12, 2020, at https://www.alicepaul.org/era/history

[6] Williams, T, January 15, 2020. Virginia approves the ERA, becoming the 38th state to back it. NY Times. Accessed on July 9, 2020, at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/us/era-virginia-vote.html

[7] Mueller, E, Ollstein, A, February 13, 2020. House passes bill to revive Equal Rights Amendment. Politico. Accessed on July 9, 2020, at https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/house-passes-bill-to-revive-equal-rights-amendment-114865

[8] Greene, M, Berger, B, Hakobyan, L, Stiefvater, D, Levtov, R, 2019. Getting to equal: men, gender equality, and sexual and reproductive health and rights. Promundo, Washington, DC. Accessed on July 10, 2020, at https://promundoglobal.org/resources/getting-to-equal-men-gender-equality-and-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights

[9] The Equal Rights Amendment and discrimination against women, February 2020. AP/NORC, University of Chicago. Accessed on July 10, 2020, at https://apnorc.org/projects/the-equal-rights-amendment-and-discrimination-against-women

[10] Tortoriello, N, January 3, 2019. Making the case for the Equal Rights Amendment. ACLU Virginia. Accessed on July 10, 2020, at https://acluva.org/en/news/making-case-equal-rights-amendment

[11] 19th amendment survey final topline, March 2020. Pew Research Center. Accessed on July 9, 2020, at file:///C:/Users/Wayne/AppData/Local/Temp/PSDT_07.07.20_19thamendment_TOPLINE.pdf

[12] American Institute of Public Opinion was formed in 1935 (Web page). Gallup. Accessed on July 12, 2020, at https://www.gallup.com/education/227672/about.aspx

[13] Berelson, B, Lazarsfeld, P, McPhee, W, 1954. Voting: a study of opinion Formation in a presidential campaign, social process, pp 88–90. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[14] Kohlberg, L (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol l. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper & Row San Francisco.

[15] Converse, P, 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Apter, D (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. The Free Press, New York.

[16] Berelson, B, Lazarsfeld, P, McPhee, W, 1954. Voting: a study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[17] Erickson, R, Tedin, K, July 13, 2004. American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact (7th Edition). Pearson Longman, London.

[18] Sears, D, Funk, C, Fall 1990. The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public. Journal of Behavioral Economics v19(3), pp 247–271.

[19] Zaller, J, May 1994. The nature and origins of mass opinion. The Journal of Politics, v56(2), pp528–531. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[20] Jost, J, October 2006. The End of End of Ideology. American Psychologist, v61(7), pp 651–670.

[21] Shweder, R, 1991. Thinking through cultures: expeditions in cultural psychology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[22] Haidt, J, 2012. The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage Books, NY.

[23] Feldman, S, Johnston, C, June 2014. Understanding the determinants of political ideology: implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, v35(3), pp 337–358.

[24] Fukuyama, F, 2018. Identity: the demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York.

[25] COVID impact survey, Last updated July 6, 2020. Data Foundation and NORC, University of Chicago. Accessed on July 12, 2020, at https://apnorc.org/projects/covid-impact-survey

[26] Black Lives Matter: policing and incarceration — a guide to resources about the Black Lives Matter movement. Last updated July 7, 2020. Princeton University. Accessed on July 12, 2020, at https://libguides.princeton.edu/c.php?g=598338&p=4142165

[27] Ibid: Horowitz, J, Igielnik, R, July 7, 2020, pp 32–33

[28] Ten differentiators of the Ipsos Knowledge Panel, April 2020. Ipsos. Accessed on July 9, 2020, at https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/20-04-55_10diff_v4.pdf

[29] Ibid: Horowitz, J, Igielnik, R, July 7, 2020, pp 32–33