Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Not “With Her”: How Gendered Political Slogans Affect Conservative Women’s Perceptions of Female Leaders

  • Saaid A. Mendoza
  • Marissa G. DiMaria
Original Article

Abstract

Past research has indicated that women who work in male-dominated fields, such as politics, face discrimination due to a stereotypically perceived poor fit between their gender and occupational expectations. Even when their potential for success is undeniable, these women are typically derogated and viewed as unlikeable for violating prescriptive gender norms. We examined whether conservative U.S. women would respond in this unfavorable manner toward Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Female undergraduates (n = 140) were randomly assigned to watch a set of three campaign ads that included either no slogan, a gender-neutral slogan (“Stronger Together”), or a gendered slogan (“I’m with Her”). Afterwards, they rated Clinton on dimensions related to interpersonal hostility, competency, and overall support. Given its adherence to traditional values and gender roles, we hypothesized that political conservatism would be predictive of critical responses to Clinton, especially when the campaign slogan made her gender-norm violation salient. Results revealed that conservative ideology was more strongly associated with increased ratings of perceived hostility and less support for Clinton within the “I’m with Her” condition than with the comparison groups. These findings point to the social maintenance of political inequality and suggest that female leaders may need to use gender-neutral platforms to diminish the negative effects of their perceived norm violation, at least among conservative voters.

Keywords

Sex role attitudes Gender norm violations Female leaders Conservatism Political psychology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Suzette Caleo, Elizabeth Parks-Stamm, and members of the Social Perception & Attitudes Lab at Providence College for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The results reported in this manuscript have not been published previously and are not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. This research was conducted in a manner consistent with the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Research with Human Participants (1982).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_910_MOESM1_ESM.docx (109 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 108 kb)

References

  1. Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527–545.  https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, C. (2018). A year ago, they marched. Now a record number of women are running for office. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/5107499/record-number-of-women-are-running-for-office/.
  3. Bauer, N. M. (2015). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support for female candidates. Political Psychology, 36, 691–708.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12186/abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, N. M. (2017). The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 38, 279–295.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351/abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beinart, P. (2016, October). Fear of a female president: Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has provoked a wave of misogyny – one that may roil American life for years to come. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/.
  6. Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2012). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 80–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312455524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brazile, D. (2015, March 4). This time, Hillary will run as a woman. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/01/opinion/brazile-hillary-clinton-woman-2016/
  8. Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlin, D. B., & Winfrey, K. L. (2009). Have you come a long way, baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies, 60, 326–343.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903109904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpinella, C. M., & Johnson, K. L. (2013). Appearance-based politics: Sex-typed facial cues communicate political party affiliation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 156–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carpinella, C. M., Hehman, E., Freeman, J. B., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). The gendered face of partisan politics: Consequences of facial sex typicality for vote choice. Political Communication, 33, 21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.958260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (2016). An estimated 24 million young people voted in 2016 election. Retrieved from http://civicyouth.org/an-estimated-24-million-young-people-vote-in-2016-election/.
  15. Deason, G., Greenlee, J. S., & Langner, C. A. (2015). Mothers on the campaign trial: Implications of politicized motherhood for women in politics. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3, 133–148.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2014.992792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards, J. L., & McDonald, C. A. (2010). Reading Hillary and Sarah: Contradictions of feminism and representation in 2008 campaign political cartoons. American Behavioral Scientist, 54, 313–329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210381704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fabian, J. J. (1972). The hazards of being a professional woman. Professional Psychology, 3, 324–326.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2014). Reconciling family roles with political ambition: The new normal for women in twenty-first century U.S. politics. The Journal of Politics, 76, 398–414.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2011). Sarah Palin, a nation object(fie)s: The role of appearance focus in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Sex Roles, 65, 149–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9901-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hehman, E., Carpinella, C. M., Johnson, K. L., Leitner, J. B., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). Early processing of gendered facial cues predicts the electoral success of female politicians. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 815–824.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614534701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
  25. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Averting penalties for women’s success: Rectifying the perceived communality deficiency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.Google Scholar
  28. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503–525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jost, J. T. (2009). “Elective affinities”: On the psychological bases of left-right ideological differences. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 129–141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003a). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003b). Exceptions that prove the rule: Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 383–393.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of 'poor but happy' and 'poor but honest' stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Koch, A., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2014). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128–161.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lammers, J., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2009). Iron ladies, men of steel: The effects of gender stereotyping on the perception of male and female candidates are moderated by prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 186–195.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawless, J. L. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 479–490.  https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2014). Men rule: The continued under-representation of women in U.S. Politics. American University. Retrieved from https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-men-rule-report-web.pdf.
  43. Lilla, M. (2016, November 18). The end of identity liberalism. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html.
  44. Lye, D. N., & Waldron, I. (1997). Attitudes toward cohabitation, family, and gender roles: Relationships to values and political ideology. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 199–225.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1389522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Malone, C. (2016, November 9). Clinton couldn’t win over White women. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/.
  46. Meeks, L. (2012). Is she 'man enough'? Women candidates, executive political offices, and news coverage. Journal of Communication, 62, 175–193.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01621.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mo, C. H. (2015). The consequences of explicit and implicit gender attitudes and candidate quality in the calculations of voters. Political Behavior, 37, 357–395.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9274-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nelson, L. (2016, October 12). Donald Trump’s history of misogyny, sexism, and harassment: A comprehensive review. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2016/10/8/13110734/donald-trump-leaked-audio-recording-billy-bush-sexism.
  49. Niemi, R. G., & Hanmer, M. J. (2010). Voter turnout among college students: New data and a rethinking of traditional theories. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 301–323.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00694.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Jost, J. T. (2009). The politics of intergroup attitudes. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), The social and psychological basis of ideology and system justification (pp. 480–506). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2009). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 237–247.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderate role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.  https://doi.org/10.1086/208954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41, 192–202.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schreiber, R. (2016). Gender roles, motherhood, and politics: Conservative women’s organizations frame Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, 37, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1115319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Siddiqui, S., & Gambino, L., (2016, November 3). How women could vote Hillary Clinton into the White House. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/hillary-clinton-how-women-voters-could-win-election.
  60. Silver, N. (2016). Who will win the presidency? FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/.
  61. Smith, J. L., Paul, D., & Paul, R. (2007). No place for a woman: Evidence for gender bias in evaluations of presidential candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 225–233.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van der Toorn, J., Feinberg, M., Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C., Tyler, T. R., Willer, R., … Wilmuth, C. (2015). A sense of powerlessness fosters system justification: Implications for the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Psychology, 36, 93–110.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12183.
  63. Zarya, V. (2016, July 27). A brief history of Hillary Clinton’s complicated relationship with the “woman card.” Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/07/27/hillary-clinton-gender-dnc/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyProvidence CollegeProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations