SEX, GENDER, AND THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: READY FOR A FEMALE PRESIDENT?

Gary N. Powell University of Connecticut Department of Management 2100 Hillside Road, Unit 1041 Storrs, CT 06269-1041 USA Phone: (860) 486-3862 Fax: (860) 486-6415 E-mail: gpowell@business.uconn.edu D. Anthony Butterfield University of Massachusetts Isenberg School of Management Amherst, MA 01003 USA Phone: (413) 545-5678 Fax: (413) 545-3858 E-mail: dabutter@mgmt.umass.edu

submitted to Gender in Management June 2011

SEX, GENDER, AND THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: READY FOR A FEMALE PRESIDENT?

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine perceptions of the Ideal President and candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election in relation to gender and leader prototypes. Design/methodology/approach Seven hundred sixty-eight undergraduate business students rated either the Ideal President or a presidential candidate on Bem Sex-Role Inventory and Implicit Leadership Theory scales. Findings The Ideal President was seen as more similar to male candidates as a group than female candidates as a group (i.e., think presidentthink male). The Ideal President was seen as higher in masculinity than femininity (i.e., think presidentthink masculine). Research limitations/implications Additional factors beyond gender and leader prototypes may affect perceptions of presidential candidates and the Ideal President. Respondents came exclusively from the northeastern U.S.; hence, results may not be generalizable to other populations. Replication of this study in nations that have elected a female leader is recommended. Future theory and research should link perceptions of male and female leaders in different nations to dimensions of national culture such as gender egalitarianism. Social implications The results suggest the continued presence of sex-related biases in leader evaluations in the political context. Such biases influence whether specific groups are excluded from political leadership because of their personal characteristics (e.g., women), which would dilute the talent of the pool of available candidates. Originality/value The results increase knowledge of the linkages among sex, gender, and political leadership by incorporating both gender and leader prototypes. Keywords sex, gender, political leadership, gender stereotypes, leader prototypes 1

Paper type Research paper. Introduction An increasing number of countries are moving away from a history of having had only men serve in their highest political leadership position. Up to 1995, 25 women had held the most senior position of political leadership (e.g., prime minister, president, chancellor) in their country (Adler, 1996), starting with Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, in 1960. By 2005, 68 women from 57 different countries had held a senior leadership position in their country, representing more than a 100% increase in female political leaders over the previous decade (Adler, 2007). Since then, the number of female political leaders has grown further. For example, in 2006, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the current President of Liberia, became the first women ever to be elected president of an African country. However, although many Western countries have had a female leader (e.g., Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Finland), the United States has never had a female president. Is the United States as a country ready for a female president? During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, we took advantage of the presence of a female candidate (Hillary Clinton) during the Democratic Party primaries, and a female vice-presidential candidate (Sarah Palin) on the final ticket for the Republican Party, to address this question by exploring the possible effects of gender stereotypes and leader prototypes on perceptions of presidential candidates. The prominence of these two women during the presidential campaign provided the opportunity to examine how perceptions of male and female candidates would compare with those of the Ideal President. Such questions received considerable attention during the campaign. For example, Gloria Steinem (2008), a leading spokesperson for the U.S. feminist movement, asserted that women are never front-runners, thereby suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling (Powell, 1999) that keeps women from holding senior political positions in the United States. 2

Such assertions make comparisons of the profiles of male and female U.S. presidential candidates with that of the Ideal President, and with each other, particularly compelling. The effects of gender stereotypes on understanding and evaluating leaders have been investigated for almost four decades across a variety of disciplines (e.g., Alexander & Andersen, 1993; Banducci & Karp, 2000; Butterfield & Grinnell, 1999; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993; Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008; Kent & Moss, 1994; Powell, Butterfield, & Bartol, 2008). Similarly, the leadership categorization or prototype approach, starting with Lord (1977) and stated fully in Lord and Maher (1993), has helped scholars to understand leadership by examining the cognitive structures that characterize ideal leaders. More recently, Epitropaki and Martin (2004, 2005) have developed and applied implicit leadership theory (ILT) scales. The present study applies both gender stereotypes, using Bems (1974, 1981) dimensions of masculinity and femininity, and leader and anti-leader prototypes, using dimensions of implicit leadership theories (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004, 2005) to examine the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Theory The term sex is generally used by scholars to refer to the binary categories of male and female, whereas the term gender is generally used to refer to the psychosocial implications of being male or female (Archer & Lloyd, 2002; Lippa, 2005; Unger, 1979). Gender stereotypes consist of beliefs that people have about the psychological traits that are characteristic of members of each sex (Kite, Deaux, & Haines, 2008). Studies of the relationships among sex, gender stereotypes, and leader stereotypes were first conducted in the 1970s. In this section, we briefly review two streams of prior theory and research that are relevant to this study and pose hypotheses based on each stream. 3

Think PresidentThink Male Schein (1973, 1975) compiled a list of 92 characteristics that people commonly believe distinguish between men and women, the basis for gender stereotypes. She then asked a sample of U.S. middle managers to describe how well each of the characteristics fit women in general, men in general, or successful middle managers in general. Schein hypothesized that because the vast majority of managers were men, the managerial job would be regarded as requiring personal attributes thought to be more characteristic of men than women. In support of her hypothesis, she found that both male and female middle managers believed that a successful middle manager possessed personal characteristics that more closely matched beliefs about the characteristics of men in general than those of women in general. Essentially the same pattern of results has been exhibited over time in countries with very different national cultures such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, China, Turkey, and Sweden: Both men and women tend to believe that men are more similar to successful managers than women are (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Schein, 2001; Schein & Mueller, 1992; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). These results suggest that beliefs about managers may be best expressed as think managerthink male. Several theoretical explanations have been offered for the think managerthink male phenomenon. For example, Heilmans (1983, 1995) lack of fit model suggests that when individuals believe that men possess the characteristics that are best suited for the managerial role in greater abundance than women, they are likely to evaluate male managers more favorably than female managers, even if the managers being evaluated are exhibiting exactly the same behavior. Eagly and Karaus (2002) role congruity theory invokes the construct of gender role congruence, defined as the extent to which leaders behave in a manner that is congruent with gender role expectations (Eagly et al., 1992: 5). According to role congruity theory, leader and 4

gender stereotypes put female leaders at a distinct disadvantage by forcing them to deal with the perceived incongruity between the leader role and their gender role. If women conform to the female gender role, they fail to meet the requirements of the leader role. However, if women compete with men for leadership positions and conform to the leader role, they fail to meet the requirements of the female gender role, which calls for feminine niceness and deference to the authority of men (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Extending these notions to the arena of political leadership, people may believe that male presidential candidates are more similar to an ideal president than female presidential candidates are (i.e., think presidentthink male). Therefore, consistent with these notions, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: The ideal U.S. president will be seen as more similar to male presidential candidates than to female presidential candidates. Think PresidentThink Masculine Powell and Butterfield (1979, 1989, 2011; Powell, Butterfield, & Parent, 2002) have taken a different approach to the analysis of leader stereotypes in a research program that also began in the 1970s. For four decades, they have periodically asked part-time MBA students in the United States, nearly all of whom work full-time, and undergraduate business students to describe both themselves and a good manager on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974, 1981), which includes the dimensions of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity is defined as beliefs that people have about the extent to which they possess masculine (i.e., taskoriented, agentic) traits associated with men in gender stereotypes. Femininity is defined as beliefs that people have about the extent to which they possess feminine (i.e., interpersonallyoriented, communal) traits that are associated with women in gender stereotypes (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000; Kite et al., 2008). 5

When Powell and Butterfield (1979) first collected data, the proportion of women in management positions in the United States was just beginning to rise. Based on this trend, they hypothesized that a good manager would be seen as possessing similarly high levels of masculine and feminine traits, which Bem (1981) called an androgynous personal profile. However, contrary to their hypothesis, a good manager was seen as possessing predominantly masculine characteristics by a majority of respondents in all groups, including undergraduate and part-time graduate males and females. Powell (1978) obtained similar results in a separate study of actual managers stereotypes of a good manager. Since then, as Powell and Butterfield have continued to assess individuals good-manager descriptions (Powell & Butterfield, 1989, 2011; Powell et al., 2002), their results have remained essentially the same. Although the proportion of respondents from different groups that describe a manager as possessing predominantly masculine characteristics has declined somewhat over time, men and women still describe a good manager in predominantly masculine terms. Overall, in studies conducted over four decades, men and women at different career stages have described a good manager as higher in stereotypically masculine traits than stereotypically feminine traits (i.e., think managerthink masculine). These results are consistent with Heilmans (1983, 1995) lack of fit model and Eagly and Karaus (2002) role congruity theory. Butterfield and his colleagues have applied these notions to the arena of political leadership. Since the presidential elections of 1980, the ideal president has consistently been seen as more masculine than feminine, i.e., in the elections of 1980 (Butterfield & Powell, 1981), 1984 (Powell & Butterfield, 1987), 1988 (Butterfield & Prasad, 1989), 1996 (Butterfield & Grinnell, 1998), and 2004 (Butterfield & Alves, 2005). These studies suggest that beliefs about U.S. presidents may be best expressed as think presidentthink masculine. Therefore, consistent with these notions, we hypothesize that: 6

Hypothesis 2: The ideal U.S. president will be seen as higher in masculinity than femininity. Method Sample and Population Data were collected from a total of 768 respondents enrolled in undergraduate management courses at an eastern U.S. public university; estimated response rate was 85%. All respondents were of voting age, and their mean age was 20.8 years, ranging from 18 to 55 years. The sample was 63% male. Political party was Democratic for 54% of respondents, Independent for 26%, Republican for 17%, and other for 3%. Data were collected at three different points in time: spring 2007 and spring 2008 during the primaries, and fall 2008, approximately one week before the November 4 election. Respondents were randomly assigned to describe one of the various candidates (Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, or an Ideal President of the United States); each respondent rated one candidate at one point of time. Data on Palin and Biden were obtained only in the fall of 2008 as they became vice-presidential candidates only after their parties conventions in the summer of 2008. Data on the other candidates were combined across time periods. Clinton was dropped from the fall 2008 collection since she was no longer a candidate. There were no major differences across time periods, although perceptions of Obama tended to improve as the election approached. Bem Sex-Role Inventory Scales The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974, 1981) has been used in a long or short form in over a thousand studies of gender identity (Beere, 1979, 1990; Hoffman & Borders, 2001), including the presidential research mentioned previously (e.g., Butterfield & Grinnell, 1998; Powell & Butterfield, 1987), and is overwhelmingly the instrument of choice. Relevant to 7

this study, it has often been used in studies about the role of gender in political science. For example, Dayoff (1983) showed that sexist language influences political candidates evaluations, and Butterfield and Grinnell (1998) found that Bill Clinton approached the ideal type of U.S. President in terms of femininity. The Short BSRI (Bem, 1981) was used to assess masculinity and femininity. It contains ten items associated with masculine sex roles (e.g., assertive, forceful), ten items associated with feminine sex roles (e.g., affectionate, understanding), and ten neutral items not used in scoring. Masculinity and femininity scores were obtained by averaging the responses to each of the corresponding ten items. Items were evaluated on a seven point scale which ranged from 1= Never or almost never true to 7= Always or almost always true of the person being described. Coefficient alphas for masculinity and femininity appear in Table 1. While test-retest reliability was not measured in the current study, past studies using the same instrument for the same purpose have found reliabilities of .80 and above (Butterfield & Powell, 1981; Butterfield & Prasad, 1989). -------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here -------------------------------Implicit Leadership Theory Scales Implicit Leadership Theory scales for intelligence, dedication, and tyranny were adapted from Epitropaki and Martin (2004). For each scale, three to six items were assessed, using the same seven point range above (1= Never or almost never true to 7= Always or almost always true). Sample items include intelligent, educated for the leader prototype scale of intelligence and dedicated, motivated for the leader prototype scale of dedication. The anti-leader prototype scale of tyranny addresses the negative or dark side of leadership; it includes items such as domineering, manipulative, pushy. The ILT masculinity and sensitivity scales were 8

not used because their constructs duplicate the BSRI scales of masculinity and femininity, which are much more widely used. Also, the ILT dynamism scale was not used due to its relatively low reliability ( = .65) across candidates. Coefficient alphas for the three ILT scales used in this study are presented in Table 1. Results Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities for the BSRI and ILT scales across all candidates. Tables 2 and 3 present mean scores for the Ideal President, all male candidates combined, all female candidates combined, and each of the individual candidates on the BSRI scales for masculinity and femininity and the ILT scales for intelligence, dedication, and tyranny. ANOVA comparisons of the Ideal President, all male candidates combined, and all female candidates combined reveal significant differences on all five scales. ---------------------------------------Insert Tables 2 and 3 about here ---------------------------------------Hypothesis 1 proposed that the Ideal President would be seen as more similar to male candidates than to female candidates. To test this hypothesis, the ANOVA comparisons reported in Tables 2 and 3 include results of Scheffe tests of pairwise comparisons for each of the BSRI and ILT scales. According to Scheffe comparisons in Table 2, the Ideal President is significantly higher than all female candidates combined on both masculinity and femininity. Further, all male candidates combined are significantly higher on masculinity and femininity than all female candidates combined. However, the Ideal President and all male candidates combined do not significantly differ on masculinity or femininity. Thus, on the BSRI scales used in past research on perceptions of the Ideal President, male candidates fit the profile of the Ideal President, whereas female candidates do not. According to Scheffe comparisons in Table 3, the Ideal President is significantly higher 9

than all male candidates combined and all female candidates combined on intelligence and dedication, representing the positive side of presidential leadership according to implicit leadership theories. In addition, the Ideal President is significantly lower than all male candidates combined and all female candidates combined on tyranny, representing the negative side of presidential leadership. Further, all male candidates combined are significantly higher on intelligence and dedication than all female candidates combined. Thus, for the ILT scales as a whole as well as the BSRI scales, the profile of the Ideal President is more similar to that of male candidates than female candidates. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Hypothesis 2 proposed that the Ideal President would be seen as higher in masculinity than femininity. To test this hypothesis, a comparison of mean scores on masculinity and femininity for the Ideal President was conducted. As Table 2 presents, Hypothesis 2 is supported. In addition, all male candidates combined, all female candidates combined, and all candidates except Palin are significantly higher on masculinity than femininity. Although not the subject of hypotheses, differences among the candidates as well as differences between individual candidates and the Ideal President are of interest. As depicted in Table 2, there are few differences on the BSRI scales between individual candidates and the Ideal President, the exceptions being that Palin is significantly below the Ideal President on masculinity and McCain is significantly below on femininity (see Figures 1 and 2). Palin is lower than all candidates on masculinity. Obama is higher than McCain, Clinton, and Palin in femininity, and Biden is higher than McCain on femininity. ----------------------------------------Insert Figures 1 and 2 about here ----------------------------------------As depicted in Table 3, the Ideal President is significantly higher than all candidates except Obama in intelligence and dedication and significantly lower than all candidates in 10

tyranny (see Figures 3 and 4 for intelligence and tyranny respectively). Palin is lower than all candidates on intelligence and dedication. McCain is lower than Obama, Biden, Clinton on intelligence and higher than Obama on tyranny. Biden does not differ from running mate Obama on intelligence, dedication, or tyranny; he is higher than McCain and Palin on intelligence and higher than Palin on dedication. Clinton is higher than Obama on tyranny. These results paint a positive picture of Obama (high on intelligence and dedication, low on tyranny), a negative picture of Palin (low on intelligence and dedication), and a somewhat negative picture of Clinton (high on tyranny), although Clinton is seen as higher on intelligence than Palin and McCain. ----------------------------------------Insert Figures 3 and 4 about here ----------------------------------------Because gender stereotypes are so associated with individual sex, we also examined whether men and women respondents differ in their views of an Ideal President or the candidates. Differences according to respondent sex are minor. Men and women agree on their perceptions of an Ideal President, all female candidates combined, and three of the five candidates (McCain, Biden, and Palin) on all five scales examined: masculinity, femininity, intelligence, dedication, and tyranny (ns in all cases). Women see all male candidates combined as higher in masculinity (t = -2.01, p < .05), intelligence (t = -2.78, p < .01), and dedication (t = -2.45, p < .05) than men do. Also, women see Obama as higher in masculinity (t = -3.45, p < .001), intelligence (t = -2.41, p < .05), and dedication (t = -3.32, p < .001), and Clinton as higher in masculinity (t = -3.24, p < .001) and dedication (t = -2.14, p < .05), than men do. Discussion Is the United States as a country ready for a female president? Our results suggest an answer to this question: not yet. As expected, these results support the dual notions of think presidentthink male and think presidentthink masculine. 11

Hypothesis 1 proposed that the Ideal President would be seen as more similar to male candidates than to female candidates. In support of the hypothesis, when candidates are aggregated by sex and then compared with the Ideal President, the profile of the Ideal President is more similar to that of male candidates as a group than that of female candidates as a group. Respondents clearly did not perceive all male candidates as alike or all female candidates as alike. Nonetheless, when the results for candidates of each sex are aggregated, they suggest that the U.S. is not ready for a female president. When individual candidates are compared with the Ideal President and with each other, the following results for the BSRI scales seem worth highlighting: First, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were not significantly different from the Ideal President on both masculinity and femininity, whereas John McCain and Sarah Palin were on two of the four possible comparisons (Palin on masculinity and McCain on femininity). The Obama-Biden ticket won the election. Dare one argue that meeting the ideal prototype on masculinity and femininity wins U.S. presidential elections? It did in 2008. Second, Obama was different from McCain and Palin on three of the four comparisons, further explaining his victory over the Republicans. Third, Sarah Palin, the female candidate on the losing ticket, was the candidate most different from the Ideal President and the other candidates. Fourth, Hillary Clinton, the female candidate who lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, was not significantly different from the Ideal President on masculinity and femininity, but was lower than Obama on femininity. In addition, the following results for the ILT scales seem worth highlighting: First and foremost, all candidates are different from the Ideal President on intelligence, dedication, and tyranny except Obama, who is not different on intelligence or dedication. Perhaps these three ILT scales constitute a presidential prototype more difficult to attain than the ones for masculinity and femininity, and as such warrant continued use in future presidential research. 12

Second, Biden and Obama do not differ from each other on intelligence, dedication, and tyranny, nor were they different from each other on masculinity and femininity, whereas McCain and Palin differ from each other on intelligence and dedication. Perhaps a team that is similar to each other rather than one composed of more different partners makes a stronger ticket, especially when they approximate the ideal prototype. Third, Clinton was different from the Ideal President on intelligence and dedication, as were all of the other candidates except Obama, and also different on tyranny, where, along with McCain, she was the highest. Hypothesis 2 proposed that the Ideal President would be perceived as higher in masculinity than femininity as suggested by previous research. In support of the hypothesis, the masculinity mean for the Ideal President in Table 2 is significantly higher than the femininity mean. The persistence of the masculine profile for presidential leadership, going back to the 1980 U.S. presidential election (Butterfield & Powell, 1981) and extending through the 2004 election (Butterfield & Alves, 2005), has been remarkable. Despite the increasing presence of female candidates and other women in high political leadership positions in the United States (e.g., former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi), the masculine gender stereotype seems solidly entrenched in cognitions and prototypes of presidential leadership. The results also suggest that the Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) scales, used for the first time in research on presidential leadership in this study, embellish the picture of the Ideal President beyond that provided by the BSRI scales used in past research. The means on intelligence and dedication for the Ideal President are the highest of all candidates. Clearly, respondents want their president to be intelligent and dedicated. The mean on tyranny for the Ideal President is the lowest of all candidates. Just as clearly, respondents do not want their president to be tyrannical. However, not all of Epitropaki and Martins (1994) ILT scales are needed to paint this picture; the masculinity and sensitivity scales are redundant with their 13

counterparts in the BSRI, and the dynamism scale has suspect reliability. The sex of respondents to our surveys had minimal effect on their cognitions of the Ideal Presidents or views of the candidates themselves. As they have fairly consistently since the beginning of this type of research in the early 1980s (e.g., Butterfield & Powell, 1981), men and women agree on what they want in an Ideal President in terms of masculinity and femininity. The present study also indicates they agree on the ILT scales of intelligence, dedication, and tyranny as well. Even though the cognitions of men and women may differ in some ways, they do not differ with respect to what they are looking for in a president. They do differ, however, with respect to views of two of the candidates, Obama and Clinton. As for all empirical studies, this study has limitations. Gender stereotypes may be changing and have their critics, though to keep results consistent with previous research we used the BSRI. We had to modify slightly the ILT scales as developed by Epitropaki and Martin (2004) to fit the BSRI format. Although we think prototypes are very important in understanding leadership, surely people consider additional factors in making their choices for President. The sample was quite youthful, and even though all of voting age, came exclusively from the northeastern U. S. Yet results using this methodology have been fairly stable over time. Previous studies (e.g., Powell & Butterfield, 1987) have reported remarkable similarities between straw votes taken on the surveys and final vote counts after the elections. Nevertheless the sample was definitely not random, even though the assignment of forms (candidates) to respondents was. Finally, the fact that Sarah Palin, one of the two high-profile female candidates in the 2008 election, is expected to run for the U.S. presidency in the 2012 campaign suggests the question posed in the title of this paper has continued relevance. The results of the present study suggest that she would have considerable work to do to attain the presidency, as she was seen as different from the Ideal President on masculinity, a key leader prototype, and in general 14

compared less favorably to the other candidates. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, the other high-profile female candidate who could run for the U.S. presidency in the future, was no different from the Ideal President on both masculinity and femininity, and was no different from the final Democratic candidate and ultimate winner Barack Obama on both masculinity and intelligence, highly desired in an Ideal President. However, Clinton may have a serious problem with respect to the tyranny factor, on which she ranked highest with McCain of all candidates. That aspect of her image as a potential president, mirroring a key anti-leader prototype, will need addressing if she decides to run again. Considering our results for both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, perhaps Gloria Steinem (2008) is correct. Although the U. S. was ready to elect a Black president in 2008, our results suggest that, unlike many other countries, it was not ready to elect a female president. Will the United States ever be ready to elect a female president? Further field replications of this study (i.e., future presidential elections) are necessary to answer this question.

15

References Adler, N. J. 1996. Global women political leaders: An invisible history, an increasingly important future. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 133-161. Adler, N. J. 2007. One world: Women leading and managing worldwide. In D. Bilimoria & S. K. Piderit (Eds.), Handbook of women in business and management: 330-355. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. 1993. Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Leadership Quarterly, 46: 527-545. Archer, J., & Lloyd, B. 2002. Sex and gender, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Banducci, S. A., & Karp. J. A. 2000. Gender, leadership, and choice in multiparty systems. Political Research Quarterly, 53: 815-848. Beere, C.A. 1979. Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). In Women and womens issues: A handbook of tests and measures: 104-113. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beere, C. A. 1990. Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). In Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures: 73-119. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Bem, S. L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42: 155-162. Bem, S. L. 1981. Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Butterfield, D. A., & Alves, J. C. 2005. Effects of sex-role stereotypes in public leadership: The U.S. presidential elections of 2004. Paper presented at the Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, San Francisco. Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. 1998. The impact of sex-role prototypes in evaluating 16

presidential candidates: Can we call Bill Clinton a Good President? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego. Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. 1999. Re-viewing gender, leadership, and managerial behavior: Do three decades of research tell us anything? In G.N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work: 223-238. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Butterfield, D. A., & Powell, G. N. 1981. Convergent validity in students perceptions of Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, and the Ideal President. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52: 51-56. Butterfield, D. A., & Prasad, A. 1989. Leadership, sex-role stereotypes and the 1988 presidential election: How did George do it? Paper presented at the Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, New Orleans. Dayoff, S. 1983. Sexist language and person perception: Evaluation of candidates from newspaper articles. Sex Roles, 9: 527-539. Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. 1986. Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Academy of Management Review, 11: 118-127. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 233-256. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109: 573-598 Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M.G. 1995. Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 125-145. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 3-22. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. 2000. Social role theory of sex differences and 17

similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender: 23-174. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. 2004. Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293310. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. 2005. From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659-676. Heilman, M. E. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 5: 269-298. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Heilman, M. E. 1995. Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we dont know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 (6): 3-26. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. 1989. Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 935-942 Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. 2001. Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34: 39-55. Huddy, L. & Terkildsen, N. 1993. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37: 119-147. Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. 2008. The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leader prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106: 39-60. 18

Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. 1994. Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1335-1346. Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. 2008. Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories, 2nd ed.: 205-236. Westport, CT: Praeger. Lippa, R. A. 2005. Gender, nature, and nurture, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lord, R. G. 1977. Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to social power and leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 114-133. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1993. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London: Routledge. Powell, G. N. 1978. Management styles. Address to Allstate Insurance Company, Farmington, CT. Powell, G. N. 1999. Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and future prospects. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work: 325-345. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1979. The good manager: Masculine or androgynous? Academy of Management Journal, 22: 395-403. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1987. Is the presidential image reserved for males? Sexrole stereotypes and the 1984 Presidential election. Psychological Reports, 61: 491-495. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1989. The good manager: Did androgyny fare better in the 1980s? Group & Organization Studies, 14: 216-233. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 2011. The good manager over four decades: Stability and change. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Bartol, K. M. 2008. Leader evaluations: A new female advantage? Gender in Management, 23: 156-174. 19

Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. 2002. Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28: 177-193. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 743-762. Schein, V. E. 1973. The relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 340-344. Schein, V. E. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 340-344. Schein, V. E. 2001. A global look at psychological barriers to womens progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 675-688. Schein, V. E., & Mueller, R. 1992. Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 439-447. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. 1996. Think managerthink male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 33-41. Steinem, G. 2008 (January 8). Women are never front-runners. New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com. Unger, R. K. 1979. Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34: 1085-1094.

20

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities Scale 1. Masculinity 2. Femininity 3. Intelligence 4. Dedication 5. Tyranny Mean 5.11 4.25 5.58 5.83 3.60 SD .83 .99 1.20 1.03 1.15 1 (.80) .22 .55 .64 .17 (.88) .45 .39 -.25 (.87) .75 -.19 (.79) -.16 (.79) 2 3 4 5

Note. n = 768. All correlations are significant at the .05 level. Coefficient alpha scores indicating the reliability of each scale across all candidates are in parentheses.

21

TABLE 2 Mean Scores by Candidate and Candidate Sex: Bem Sex-Role Inventory Scales Masculinity Mean SD 5.25 5.16 4.94 6.81*** I,M>F 5.25 5.29 5.05 4.99 5.25 4.37 16.92*** I,O,M,B,C>P .63 .79 .99 Femininity Mean SD t 4.42 4.28 4.06 5.95** I,M>F 4.42 4.65 3.76 4.32 4.05 4.08 18.39*** I>M O>M,C,P B>M .70 10.80*** 1.00 16.77*** 1.10 9.04***

N By candidate sex: Ideal President (I) Male Candidates (M) Female Candidates (F) F (df=2) Scheffe comparisons By candidate: Ideal President (I) Barack Obama (O) John McCain (M) Joe Biden (B) Hillary Clinton (C) Sarah Palin (P) F (df=5) Scheffe comparisons 128 434 206

128 214 153 67 134 72

.63 .74 .79 .91 .81 1.03

.70 .84 .97 1.02 1.10 1.11

10.80*** 10.20*** 13.91*** 4.71*** 10.30*** 1.87

Note. Scheffe comparisons are at the .05 significance level. *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

22

TABLE 3 Mean Scores by Candidate and Candidate Sex: Implicit Leadership Theory Scales Intelligence Mean SD 6.35 5.59 5.10 47.59*** I>M,F M>F 6.35 5.98 5.00 5.67 5.68 4.01 67.40*** I>M,B,C,P O>M,P M>P B>M,P C>M,P .64 1.11 1.39 Dedication Mean SD 6.45 5.82 5.40 37.05*** I>M,F M>F 6.45 6.19 5.46 5.75 5.80 4.95 32.90*** I>M,B,C,P O>M,P M,B,C>P .64 1.03 1.04 Tyranny Mean 2.95 3.67 3.88 29.42*** I<M,F

N By candidate sex: Ideal President (I) Male Candidates (M) Female Candidates (F) F (df=2) Scheffe comparisons By candidate: Ideal President (I) Barack Obama (O) John McCain (M) Joe Biden (B) Hillary Clinton (C) Sarah Palin (P) F (df=5) Scheffe comparisons 128 434 206

SD 1.01 1.08 1.22

128 214 153 67 134 72

.64 .97 1.11 .99 .96 1.42

.64 .83 1.05 1.11 .86 1.05

2.95 3.45 3.97 3.66 3.97 3.72 16.71*** I<O,M,B,C,P O<M,C

1.01 1.06 1.04 1.05 1.32 .99

Note. Scheffe comparisons are at the .05 significance level. *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

23

FIGURE 1. Masculinity by Candidate

Estimated Marginal Means of masculinity

5.25

5.00

4.75

Estimated Marginal Means

4.50

4.25

Ideal

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

Sarah Palin

Joe Biden

Candidate
24

FIGURE 2. Femininity by Candidate

Estimated Marginal Means of femininity

4.75

4.50

4.25

Estimated Marginal Means

4.00

3.75

Ideal

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

Sarah Palin

Joe Biden

Candidate
25

FIGURE 3. Intelligence by Candidate

Estimated Marginal Means of intelligence

6.50

6.00

5.50

Estimated Marginal Means

5.00

4.50

4.00 Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John McCain Sarah Palin Joe Biden

Ideal

Candidate
26

FIGURE 4. Tyranny by Candidate

Estimated Marginal Means of tyranny

4.00

3.80

3.60

3.40

Estimated Marginal Means

3.20

3.00

2.80 Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John McCain Sarah Palin Joe Biden

Ideal

Candidate
27