The Gender Gap in the Presidential Debate

Caption: Trump and Clinton side by side (image credit)

Written by Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, Intentional Insights Co-Founder and President


The vast majority of pundits described Donald Trump’s performance at the debate as very poor, including conservative ones. For instance, Douglas Schoen of Fox News wrote that Hillary Clinton “was ready for all of his quips with a litany of detail that may have bored the viewer at points, but showed why she is winning on qualifications.” In previous presidential debates with such a clear consensus by pundits, the polls moved several percent for the winner.

The rigorous post-debate polls suggest voters people perceived Clinton as the winner. Yet most post-debate online polls are breaking for Donald Trump. These polls are corruptible, but some have hundreds of thousands of votes, suggestive of greater enthusiasm for Trump’s debate performance, regardless of who people saw as the winner.

Clinton won the debate on substance decisively. This is the typical focus of post-debate analysis as seen in Schoen’s quote: policy details that express appropriate qualifications. Yet the viewing public often pays more attention to nonverbal cues, and remember them after the debate is over, compared to the content of what is said, according to David Givens, director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies. These nonverbals are of fundamental importance to communication, and they often mean more than what is actually being said. This is something that traditional pundits fail to give due credit.

Trump attacked Clinton repeatedly throughout the debate, interrupting her a whopping 51 times, while she interrupted him only 17. For instance, he attacked NAFTA as “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country” with anger in his voice, and attributed this deal to Secretary Clinton. With aggressive body language and tone, he attacked her record of public service of 30 years as leading to massive job losses. He angrily criticized her for, in his words, allowing China to use United States “as a piggy bank.” Calling for “law and order,” he criticized Clinton for being soft on crime. He went personal and attacked her as having a poor temperament and judgment, and not having “the look” or “the stamina” for being the president.

Clinton had the iron control to not respond with anger and aggression to this series of allegations, which post-debate fact checkers have found to be mostly false. Instead, she kept cool, making factual statements such as “that is just not accurate” or delivering one-line comebacks in a calm voice, such as “Donald, I know you live in your own reality.”

She kept the same cool tone in her own attacks on Trump, such as on his business record of stiffing workers, or threat to negotiate down the national debt, or name-calling of a former Miss Universe contestant for her weight and Latina heritage. Trump responded to her attacks with angry interruptions and in many cases false denials.

Despite Trump’s weakness on policy details and truth, he conveyed his message with strong emotions of anger and frustration. In doing so, he played to the anger and anxiety of many working-class voters who are suffering economically and are looking for a strong protector figure.

Clinton could not afford to express anger and frustration. Women leaders who express anger are usually perceived as emotionally unstable or worse, and fail to get ahead in a number of fields, including politics. Clinton is often described as inauthentic, cold and distant, yet this criticism does not account for the difficulty she faces in expressing emotions in public speaking setting as a woman.

Despite losing the debate on substance, Trump may have won on the amount of enthusiasm elicited. While we perceive ourselves to be rational beings, in reality studies shows that our emotions drive most of our mental processes and actions. Trump’s ability to influence large numbers of people with his emotions - his charisma - is in part a result of Clinton not being able to tap anger and fear. These emotions are particularly powerful motivators that induce people to take action - such as vote in online polls, or vote in the actual election for that matter. Clinton will continue to face a fundamental disadvantage in this election due to the gender norms for emotional expression in our society.


Please DONATE if you found this article helpful. Intentional Insights is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, and we are able to create our content only thanks to the generous support of readers like you (your donations are tax-deductible). We also invite you to volunteer and buy our merchandise. To avoid missing out on content that help you reach your goals, subscribe to the Intentional Insights monthly newsletter and RSS feed. Thank you!

Recent Posts 10

Here’s Why Your Gut Instinct Is Wrong At Work – And How To Know W

Here’s Why Your Gut Instinct Is Wrong At Work – And How To Know When It Isn’t

March 20, 2017

Avoid bad decisions by learning when to trust your gut!

How Behavioral Science Can Help Truth Triumph Over Baseless Accus

How Behavioral Science Can Help Truth Triumph Over Baseless Accusations

March 17, 2017

Current media narratives promote "alternative facts" - learn how to prevent this problem in this article.

Want To Make Smarter Decisions? It’s All About Framing

Want To Make Smarter Decisions? It’s All About Framing

March 13, 2017

Don't make bad decisions, especially about your money!

The Science of Effective Fundraising: Four Common Mistakes to Avo

The Science of Effective Fundraising: Four Common Mistakes to Avoid

March 6, 2017

Psychology research casts light on the most effective fundraising strategies

Towards a Post-Lies Future

Towards a Post-Lies Future

February 26, 2017

How do we combat alternative facts and post-truth politics?

Collaborative Truth-Seeking

Collaborative Truth-Seeking

February 20, 2017

How do we collaborate with others to figure out the truth?

Preserving Our Democracy on Valentine's Day

Preserving Our Democracy on Valentine's Day

February 14, 2017

Help your partner have great mental and physical health while improving our society on Valentine's Day!

The Science of Solving Alternative Facts

The Science of Solving Alternative Facts

February 7, 2017

How can we use science-based approaches to address lies in politics?

How I Learned to Truly Love Animals

How I Learned to Truly Love Animals

January 31, 2017

Do you love animals? Can't miss this post!

What Would Gandhi Do About Trump? High-Time For a Science Of Wisd

What Would Gandhi Do About Trump? High-Time For a Science Of Wisdom

January 23, 2017

The science of wisdom provides answers for dealing with difficult times.