Preferences for Female Political Leaders in Times of Threat: The Roles of Group Membership and System Justification

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in the United States government despite accounting for approximately half of the U.S. electorate. Therefore, investigation into the types of contexts in which female candidates may emerge may improve gender parity. This study seeks to investigate preferences for female candidates in times of threat, as evidence from the glass cliff literature indicates that female leaders may be preferred to male leaders in times of crisis, that this preference may be driven, in part, by system justifying ideologies (Brown, Diekman, & Schneider, 2011), and that the type of threat may influence preferences for female leaders. Therefore I propose to investigate preferences for female political leaders as a function of the membership of the group posing the threat and whether the leader is described as upholding cultural traditions. University students will read vignettes about a terrorist attack perpetrated by ingroup member (i.e., White supremacists) or outgruop members (ISIS) and then view responses from male and female presidential primary contenders who either voice support for cultural traditions or do not mention them. Participants then rate their perceptions of the candidates’ warmth and competence and indicate how likely they would be to vote for the candidate in the primary and how electable they believe the candidate to be in a general election.

Preferences for Female Political Leaders in Times of Threat: The Roles of Group Membership and System Justification

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump beat presumed frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, after a bruising political campaign. In her concession speech, Clinton directly addressed those who had hoped to see a female president in their lifetime, stating, “I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but some day someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now” (Clinton, 2016). Certainly, there are many potential reasons why Clinton’s campaign was unsuccessful. Some have blamed an overemphasis on identity politics (Lilla, 2016), whereas others see Trump’s win as a repudiation of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations (Guo, 2016). However, some, including Clinton herself (e.g., Suliman, 2017) have attributed her loss at least partially to sexism, prompting some to wonder more generally under what conditions a female political leader might be desirable.

The purpose of the proposed research is to investigate conditions under which a female U.S. presidential candidate would be preferred to a male U.S presidential candidate among American college students. One condition in which a female head of state might be desirable is when the nation is under threat, as evidence suggests women are more likely to be nominated to precarious leadership positions when organization is in crisis (Ryan & Haslam, 2005) and that this phenomenon may be motivated by system justifying ideologies (Brown, Diekman, & Schneider, 2011). It also seems likely that this effect likely also depends on the type of threat, as some studies (e.g., Bruckmüller & Branscombe, 2010) show a diminished preference for a male leader, whereas others (e.g, Brown et al., 2011) show a pronounced preference for a female leader. I therefore investigate preferences for male and female candidates as a function of system justification (i.e., whether the candidate is described  as endorsing cultural tradiitons or not), and the type of threat, that is whether the threat comes from members of the ingroup (i.e., domestic terrorism) or members of the outgroup (i.e., international terrorism).

Gender Roles

Social Role Theory.In order to understand the machanisms that might motivate preferences for female leaders, it is necessary to consider how gender roles and stereotypes affect perceptions of women who work, especially in stereotypically masculine professions. Social role theory (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000) suggests that women and men are ascribed traits that correspond toon their representation in different occupational roles. To the extent that women are seen in caretaking roles (e.g., occupations such as teachers, nurses, homemakers), they are ascribed communal traits such as being warm, kind, and nurturing. Similarly, to the extent that men are seen in breadwinning roles (e.g., occupations such as business leaders, doctors, lawyers), they are ascribed agentic traits, such as being dynamic, assertive, and aggressive. Thus social role theory encompasses descriptive gender role content, that is, traits that are typical of men and women

Several studies indicate support for this theory, For example, in a series of studies, Diekman and Eagly (2000) demonstrated that perceptions of the traits that men and women have vary as a function of occupational role. For example, women were perceived as having more agentic traits over time, consistent with women’s increasing participation in the labor force since 1950. There is also evidence suggesting that social role theory may apply more generally to perceptions of different groups (e.g., ethnic, racial, and religious groups). Koenig and Eagly (2014) found that perceptions of group traits for different racial, ethnic and religious groups varied as a function of their occupational roles. In other words, regardless of whether the target group is gender or another group (e.g., religious groups), representation in occupational roles appears to impact perceptions of the types of traits that people in that group may typically posess.

Role Congruity Theory. Of course, judgments of group members not only depend on individuals’ perceptions of traits that groups are likely to have (i.e., descriptive stereotypes) but also judgments of the types of traits that group members should have (i.e., prescriptive stereotypes). Therefore, social role theory was augmented by role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), which describes the prescriptive content of gender roles. According to role congruity theory, individuals whose actions do not align with their prescribed gender roles are be judged harshly or punished for role incongruity, whereas those who behave in ways that are consistent with gender roles are rewared.

Indeed, a great deal of evidence supports the propositions made in role congruity theory. For example, judgments of male and female job applicants who were described as either self promoting (i.e., displaying agentic behaviors) or self-effacing (i.e., displaying communal behaviors) indicated that self-promoting candidates were generally preferred to those who were self-effacing. However, female candidates who exhibited self-promoting behaviors were judged as having fewer social skills and as being less hireable than their male colleagues (Rudman, 1998), suggesting that women may be punished for role-incongruent behavior, even if that behavior is generally viewed positively.

Evidence also suggests that conformity to gender roles is rewarded. For exampole, evidence suggests that young children are rewarded for conforming to gender roles (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) and that among individuals who placed importance on gender roles, gender role-congruent behavior was associated with greater self-esteem and smaller discrepancies between ought and ideal selves (Wood, Chistensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). Therefore, it appears that self-regulating mechanisms and societal mechanisms reward individuals for engaging in role-congruent behaviors.

Gender and Leadership

Female Leadership Disadvantage. Role congruity theory makes two specific predictions about female leaders. In particular, it describes a “double-bind” for female leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The first part of this bind describes how women may be passed over for promotion to leadership positions because descriptive theories of gender roles do not align with perceptions of leaders. That is, individuals may assume that because women are less commonly found in leadership positions, they are less qualified for them than are men. The second part of the bind describes the experiences of women already in leadership positions. As leadership may require displays of agency, women in leadership may be judged harshly for violation of prescriptive gender norms. Therefore female leaders may be regarded as cold, cutthroat or manipulative.

Indeed, research on gender and leadership generally supports the double bind described by role congruity theory. For example, meta-analytic evidence suggests that stereotypes of men align more closely with stereotypes of leaders than do stereotyeps of women across three different paradigms measuring aspects of agency and communion (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Similar research on implicit leadership theories (ILTs) indicates that protytypes of successful leaders are closer to prototypes of men than prototypes of women (Hall, Workman, & Marchioro, 1998) and that leadership prototypes are more descriptive of masculine than feminine traits (Schein, 1973).

Furthermore, there is evidence that man and women may be held to different standards in leadership positions. For example, meta-analytic evidence from 61 studies suggests that perceptions of leaders are more positive when the leader is male rather than female, particularly when judged by men (vs. women) and when the leader was described as displaying agentic qualities, such as being directive (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). There is also evidence suggesting that leader behaviors may be judged differently depending on the gender of the leader. For example, leaders exhibiting both masculine and feminine traits were judged more positively than those exhibiting only masculine or feminine qualities. However, this was only th