Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for a Woman for ...online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Simon_Hoyt_2008.pdf · Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for a Woman for

Running head: UNDERSTANDING THE GENDER GAP

Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for a Woman for President

Stefanie Simon

Harvard University

Crystal L. Hoyt

University of Richmond

Please do not cite without permission from authors

Stefanie Simon, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Crystal L.

Hoyt, Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond. We acknowledge and

thank Audrey Innella for her excellent contributions to this research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stefanie Simon, Center for

Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 JFK Street,

Cambridge, MA, 02138; Phone: (617) 496-6243; Email: [email protected].

Understanding the Gender Gap 2

Abstract

The gender gap in support for a female presidential candidate has recently gathered much media

attention with Hillary Clinton as a frontrunner for the 2008 democratic presidential nomination.

Two common explanations for this gap are that women have more liberal gender role and

political attitudes. We contend that another important, and distinct, factor for heightened support

among females is shared social identity. We tested these three explanations across two studies. In

Study 1, hierarchical regression analyses revealed that both attitudes toward women and sex

independently predict a significant proportion of the variance in willingness to elect a woman for

president. In Study 2, hierarchical regression analyses showed that when entered together,

attitudes toward female authority and sex independently predict support, but when political

attitudes were entered, only sex and political attitudes predicted support for Clinton. Finally, as

expected, when primed with their gender identity, women increased their support for Clinton and

men decreased their support, and women perceived her more favorably and men less so. In sum,

these studies strongly support the arguments that the gender gap in support for female

presidential candidates stems in part from women’s more liberal gender role and political

attitudes, and also from women sharing the same gender social identity as a female candidate for

commander in chief.

Key words: Sex, Gender Stereotypes, Leadership, Presidential Candidates, Hillary Clinton


Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for a Woman for President

With women greatly underrepresented in most levels of public office in the United States,

the purpose of this research is to illustrate just how important a factor gender is in presidential

elections. Nearly two years ago Herbert (2006) correctly predicted that the gender stigma would

be influential, yet silenced, issue in the 2008 Democratic election:

When the crunch comes, the toughest issue for Clinton may be the one that so far has been talked about least. If she runs, she’ll be handicapped by her gender. Anyone who thinks it won’t be difficult for a woman to get elected president of the United States should go home, take a nap, wake up refreshed, and think again.

Unlike in 1992 when a then unprecedented 14 women ran for governor or U. S. senator

with campaigns centered around their identity as women (Plutzer & Zipp, 1996), Senator

Clinton has not championed her gender as one of her selling points. Moreover, while

Senator Obama is seen as a unifying force by his race, Senator Clinton is seen as divisive

by her sex and accused of “playing the gender card” (Steinem, 2008).

The negative implications of gender have clearly affected Clinton’s campaign, will likely

impact those of future female presidential candidates, and thus need to be addressed seriously.

Interestingly, the impact of gender has been of interest to researchers and pollsters since 1937

when a Gallup poll asked respondents: “Would you vote for a woman for president if she was

qualified in every other respect?” (Gallup, 1937). At that time, 64% of respondents said that they

would not vote for a woman. Similar questions have evolved since then addressing gender bias in

voting behavior. For example, in the early 1950s the General Society Survey asked respondents,

“If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her if she were qualified for

the job?” and in the 1970s, “Tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: Most men are

better suited emotionally for politics than are most women.” In a more recent Gallup poll, 77%


of respondents indicated that they would feel completely comfortable voting for a presidential

candidate who was woman (Gallup, 2007a).

While recent polls seem to indicate that the American public now holds much more

positive views of women vying for the presidential nomination, other evidence reveals women’s

chances may not be so optimistic. For example, Elizabeth Dole’s failed presidential campaign in

1999 clearly demonstrated that the country was not ready for a female president. Moreover,

while a CBS/New York Times poll found that nearly all Americans say they would vote for a

woman for president from their own political party if she were qualified, the same CBS/New

York Times poll revealed that only 55% of people think that America is ready to elect a woman

for president (CBS News, 2006). This discrepancy suggests that while respondents may say they

will vote for a woman in order to avoid appearing sexist, when it comes time to casting a ballot,

many of those respondents would not actually vote for a woman (Kennedy, 2003). This tendency

for people to be more willing to say that they will vote for a woman than they are to actually vote

for a female candidate was first evidenced by Clinton’s surprising upset in the Iowa primary,

finishing in third place behind Democratic candidates Obama and Edwards after polls predicted a

much stronger showing.

Despite the apparent hardships for women seeking leadership positions, women are

undoubtedly reaching higher-level leadership positions in the political sphere than ever before.

Women now hold 16% of the seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the

U.S. Congress (Center for American Women and Politics, 2008). In 2005, Condoleezza Rice

became the second woman to hold the powerful position of secretary of state, in 2007, Nancy

Pelosi became the first woman to hold the top leadership position of Speaker of the House of

Representatives, and now in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton is the first woman to be considered a


serious frontrunner in a US presidential election. Nonetheless, these women serve as exceptions

to the rule, and attainment of such high power leadership positions remains a rarity for women.

As Herbert (2006) implies in the quote above, it is a feat in itself that Senator Clinton has made it

even this far in the 2008 Presidential race. Similarly, Eagly and Carli (2007) argue in their recent

book, Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders, while the

metaphor of the glass ceiling no longer servers as an appropriate metaphor for women because it

implies an impenetrable barrier, women must still successfully overcome a myriad of challenges,

or what they refer to as a ‘labyrinth’, on the path to achieving leadership positions.

Are Women ‘Fit’ for the Presidential Race?

One of the challenges that women encounter while striving for leadership positions is

negative prejudice. Research suggests that this prejudice is at least partially the reason why a

great disparity between women and men in high-level leadership positions still remains

(Heilman, 2001; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007; Hoyt & Chemers, 2008; Schein, 2001). Eagly and

Karau’s (2002) role congruity theory explains that prejudice against women in leadership

positions exists because the role and the person are not perceived as a “fit” (Eagly & Karau,

2002). Whereas the female gender role is characterized by communal qualities such as kind,

sympathetic, and nurturant, the leadership role is characterized by agentic qualities such as

aggressive, ambitious, and dominant—traits that are congruent with men. This incompatibility

between the female gender role and the leadership role creates prejudice that negatively impacts

the way in which women are perceived and evaluated in leadership positions. Individuals

perceive women as less likely than men to hold leadership positions because leadership ability is

more stereotypic of men than of women. Moreover, individuals evaluate women’s actual

leadership behavior less favorably than men’s because leadership behavior is less desirable in


women than in men (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Indeed research has demonstrated the negative

impact that prejudice has on female candidates for political office (Dolan, 1997; Fox & Smith,

1998; Fox & Oxley, 2003; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993; Koch, 2002; Smith, Paul, & Paul, 2007).

On the other hand, men are seen as congruent with the leadership role because the agentic

qualities used to describe men are the same as those used to describe effective leaders.

The needed congruency between role and person also helps to explain why women now

fare no worse than men in lower-level elections (Leeper, 1991). For instance, middle manager

positions and lower-level leadership positions now appear to have an appropriate fit for women:

As of 2006, women held 42% managerial and administrative positions (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2007). Unfortunately, these “velvet ghetto” positions that have become congruent with

women, such as public relations, education, accounting, and human resources positions, do not

lead to promotion to top corporate positions and tend to be structured so that women hold less

authority over others than do men (Bowles & McGinn, 2005; Catalyst, 2006; Eagly & Carli,

2007). Similarly, there has been a relative increase in the number of women elected to the U. S.

House of Representatives and U. S. Senate beginning in 1992 and the number of women serving

in state legislatures—a number that has more than quintupled since 1971 (Center for Women and

Politics, 2008). In contrast, because the role of U. S. President has always been filled by a man,

the presidency has become a gender-stereotyped role that prescribes a man should be president

(Eagly et al., 1992; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). In other words, when the person running for

president is not a man, the role and the candidate are incongruent. Thus, a woman vying for a

presidential nomination is likely to be subject to prejudice—putting her at a disadvantage in the

upcoming election.

Gender Role Attitudes and Support for a Female Presidential Candidate


Because the prejudice held against women is based on gender role stereotypes and

expectations, it follows that the extent to which individuals endorse traditional gender role

attitudes will influence their support for a female president. If the female gender role is perceived

in a more nontraditional or modern manner, then there will not be a perceived incongruency

between women and leaders. In fact, research has demonstrated a general move in the U.S.

toward more nontraditional beliefs about the distinct roles that women and men should play and

about the different rights and privileges women and men should have (Helmreich, Spence, &

Gibson, 1982; Spence & Hahn, 1997; Twenge, 1997). Thus, we expect to find that the more

modern the views are that individuals hold for women, the more they will be likely to support a

female presidential candidate.

Similarly, research suggests that individuals who hold nontraditional attitudes toward

women tend to be more liberal, as liberalism is associated with openness to change and

challenges to inequality, while conservatism is associated with resistance to social change and

justification of inequality (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). In fact, research by Fox

and Smith (1998) found that participants from a university in Wyoming showed significant

gender bias toward female candidates, while those from a university in California did not,

suggesting that voters with a history of more conservative views are more likely to display

prejudice toward female candidates in their voting behavior.

While attitudes toward women have in general become more egalitarian in the U. S., the

movement toward more nontraditional beliefs has been more pronounced for women than it has

been for men (Spence & Hahn, 1997). Since the women’s movement in the 1970s, women have

been less approving of traditional gender roles (Harris & Firestone, 1998; Spence & Hahn,

1997). The current gender gap in support for Senator Clinton illustrates this disparity in gender


role attitudes. For example, a Gallup poll of independent voters found that while men were

equally likely to rate Clinton favorably or unfavorably, 59% of women rated her as favorable

compared to 36% who rated her as unfavorably (Gallup, 2007b). Moreover, Clinton has also

gained disproportionately strong support among female Democratic voters: A January 2, 2008

poll showed that 48% of women, compared to 38% of men, supported Clinton (Gallup, 2008).

Evidence of women’s nontraditional attitudes toward gender roles is also demonstrated by their

more favorable attitudes than men toward equal rights for women (Swim, Aiken, Hall, & Hunter,

1995) and for gays and lesbians (Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1996). In an analysis of a General

Social Survey, Eagly, Diekman, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Koenig (2004) found that men were

more oriented than women to group-based dominance and conservatism and women were more

oriented than men to equality and liberalism. Thus, women demonstrate greater support for a

female presidential candidate in part because they tend to hold more liberal gender role attitudes

and sociopolitical attitudes than men.

Gender-Identity Politics

Diverging from past research which has focused on political and social attitudes to

explain the gender gap in voting, we propose that another potent predictor of voting behavior is

shared social identity. According to Pomper’s (1975) gender identity approach, voters tend to

cast votes based on social group membership; therefore, men are more likely to vote for a male

candidate and women are more likely to vote for a female candidate. Importantly, we contend

that gender-identity voting is not driven solely by social or political attitudes; rather, we argue

that gender identity uniquely impacts one’s support for a female presidential candidate above and

beyond the effects of certain attitudes.


Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) supports the prediction that individuals will tend to

vote along gender-lines. According to the social identity theory, individuals value and have

emotional ties to their social identity groups. Moreover, social identity membership serves as a

source for positive self-esteem for individuals, leading to social comparison processes that

evaluatively favor the ingroup (Turner, 1972). This ingroup bias allows individuals to enhance

their self-esteem by viewing their own ingroup as positively distinct from other groups and as

better than other groups. According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), group members may behave in

different ways to protect or enhance positive distinctiveness and positive social identity. The

tendency for group members to show ingroup bias is even stronger in competitive situations

(Taylor & Moriarty, 1987), which by nature electoral races tend to be. Thus, adding to the body

of literature examining gender gaps in voting behavior, we predicted that, irrespective of gender

role and political ideologies, women may be more likely to support a female presidential

candidate more than men will simply because she elicits a bond through sharing social identity

membership.

Past research has shown evidence of gender identity politics. For example, Plutzer and

Zipp (1996) found that in 1992 when a then record 14 women sought statewide office by

explicitly running “as women” and as representatives of women, the sex of the voter was

significantly related to voting for female candidates in 8 of the 13 states. In this election, making

one’s gender identity salient had the intended effect of increased support from women. Gender

identity politics may be particularly strong for women because lower status groups (such as

women) seek to change status-quo relationships when societies have distinct group boundaries

that are seen as illegitimate (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Therefore, women in particular may show

ingroup bias in an attempt to create a positive social identity for women in a domain where


women are historically devalued and absent (i.e., leadership). Electing a woman to such a

powerful leadership position helps to create a positive social identity for all women.

Study Overview and Predictions

Our ability to study the influence of a candidate’s sex on voting behavior is greatly

limited by the fact that only few women have sought a major-party presidential nomination and

no woman has ever been nominated by the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties. The current

race for the Democratic nominee provides the closest real-case scenario of how gender will

influence a presidential electoral race. The 2008 Democratic presidential nomination has resulted

in a clear gender gap in support for Hillary Clinton such that women are demonstrating

significantly more support for Clinton than men. In order to understand this gender gap, the

present research explores how attitudes toward women, political ideology, and one’s gender

social identity influence support for a female presidential candidate.

In accordance with previous research, we predicted that the gender gap in support of a

female presidential candidate would be due, in part, to women having more liberal attitudes

about gender roles and more liberal political attitudes. However, unlike past research, we also

contend that this gender gap is uniquely predicted by a shared gender social identity between the

female candidate and women, unlike men who do not have this shared identity. We tested these

three explanations for the gender gap in support for a female president across two studies. In

Study 1, we assessed individuals’ attitudes toward women (ATW) and attitudes toward electing a

woman for president. In Study 2, we assessed individuals’ attitudes toward female authority,

political attitudes, and support for Hillary Clinton. Additionally, Study 2 experimentally

investigated the role of gender social identity in attitudes toward a female presidential candidate


by examining the influence of priming their gender social identity on degree of participants’

support for Clinton and on the favorability of participants’ perceptions of Clinton.

Study 1

In Study 1, we assessed participants’ attitudes toward women and attitudes toward

electing a female candidate for president. We hypothesized that 1) women will endorse more

nontraditional gender roles than men and that 2) individuals who endorse nontraditional gender

roles will support electing a female candidate for president significantly more than those who

endorse traditional gender roles. In addition, we predicted that women’s social identity would

also impact their support for a female candidate and therefore hypothesized that 3) women will

support electing a woman for president significantly more than men will when controlling for

their attitudes toward women.

Method

Participants and Procedure

In Study 1, we surveyed 112 people (56 women, 58 men; age ranging from 18-74, M =

26.92, SD = 13.12). This study was a part of a classroom research project, and students in the

class were responsible for recruiting individuals to participate on a voluntary basis. The

researchers recruited a broad convenience sample beyond undergraduates for this study.

Participants completed the questionnaires individually.

Measures

Attitudes Toward Women (ATW) Scale. Participants responded to 25 items from Spence

and Helmreich’s (1973) Attitude Towards Women (ATW) Scale, which asked them to indicate

their agreement to items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). This scale has been shown to be a reliable measure of both men and women’s


attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in society (Spence & Hahn, 1997). Examples of

items include: “Swearing and obscenity are more repulsive in the speech of a woman than of a

man”; “Women should take increasing responsibility for leadership in solving the intellectual

and social problems of the day”; and “Women should be concerned with their duties of

childbearing and house tending rather than with desires for professional or business careers.”

Items were recoded such that higher scores indicated more liberal attitudes toward the female

gender role. The ATW scale showed adequate internal consistency (α = .83).

Attitudes Toward Electing a Woman for President. Participants responded to 10 items on

the same Likert scale as above. Examples of items include: “Americans are ready to elect a

woman for president”; “I would prefer to have a man for president”; and “I would vote for a

qualified woman candidate for president.” Items were recoded such that higher scores indicated

stronger support for electing a woman for President. This measure also showed adequate internal

consistency (α = .82).

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, including scale means, standard deviations, and

intercorrelations for Study 1 and 2.

Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Women

First, we examined the relationship between ATW and sex by conducting an independent

samples t-test. As expected, women reported significantly more liberal attitudes towards women

(M = 5.60, SD = .53) than men did (M = 5.18, SD = .69; t(110) = 3.65, p < .001).

Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Women, Sex, and Attitudes Toward Electing a Woman

for President


We employed hierarchical regression to test three predictions. First, we tested the

prediction that people with more nontraditional attitudes towards women’s roles in society will

be more likely to support electing a woman for president. Next, we examined the hypothesis that

women will have more positive attitudes towards electing a woman for president than men will.

Finally, we tested the hypothesis that these effects are independent; that is, the impact of sex on

attitudes toward a female president is not fully explained by women’s more liberal attitudes

toward women.

Table 2 displays the standardized regression coefficients and the change in R2 at each

step. Attitude toward women was entered into the regression equation in Step 1. This analysis

revealed that those with more liberal attitudes toward women were more like to be in support of

electing a female president. Thirty percent of the variance in support for electing a woman for

president was accounted for by ATW. In Step 2, sex was added to the equation as a predictor of

support for a female president. In total, 36% of the variance in support of a female president was

accounted for by both ATW and sex. The addition of sex to the equation results in a significant

increase in R2 and accounts for an additional 6% of the variance in support for electing a woman

for president. Specifically, women supported electing a woman for president more than men, and

importantly, this effect is significant controlling for their ATW.

Discussion

As expected, women reported significantly more liberal attitudes towards women’s place

in society than men did. Women were not as supportive of traditional gender roles as men.

Furthermore, we demonstrated that attitudes toward women and sex both predict support for

electing a woman for president. As predicted, hierarchical regression analyses revealed that sex

independently predicted a significant proportion of the variance in support for a female candidate


for president. This supports our contention that women’s identity to their gender social group

uniquely influences their support for electing a woman as president.

Study 2

In Study 2, we sought to replicate and generalize our findings from Study 1 that women

hold more liberal gender role attitudes than men by using an alternate measure of gender role

attitudes. In this study we used Rudman and Kilianski’s (2000) Gender and Authority Measure

(GAM), rather than the ATW scale. Rather than assessing the extent to which individuals

endorse traditional attitudes toward women’s place in society in general, the GAM specifically

looks at the extent to which individuals prefer male versus female authorities in various power

situations (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000).

Furthermore, we sought to increase the external validity of this line of research by

specifically asking questions about support for Hillary Clinton. As a frontrunner in the 2008

Presidential race, using Clinton as a dependent measure provides a more realistic view of how

individuals will actually respond to a female presidential candidate. However, because Senator

Clinton ran as a Democratic candidate, we expected political attitudes to influence support for

her presidency. Therefore, in Study 2 we also examined and controlled for the role of

participants’ political attitudes in support of Clinton for president. We hypothesized that 1)

women will endorse nontraditional gender roles and politically liberal attitudes more than men,

2) individuals who endorse nontraditional gender roles and have more liberal political attitudes

will support Clinton significantly more than those who endorse traditional gender roles, 3)

women will support Clinton significantly more than men, while controlling for both attitudes

toward female authority and political attitudes.


In order to further explore the influence of one’s social identity, we chose to

experimentally investigate the role of social identity in attitudes toward electing a female for

president. In this study, we primed women and men’s gender social identity and examined the

extent to which that impacted the degree of their support for Clinton and the favorability of their

perceptions of her. Specifically we predicted an interaction between gender identity prime and

sex such that, when primed with their gender identity, women will increase their support for a

female president and view her more positively, whereas men will decrease their support and

view her less positively.

Method

Participants and Design

In this study, we surveyed 83 participants (44 women and 39 men). As in Study 1, this

study was completed as part of a classroom research project, but in this study the student

researchers were responsible for recruiting only undergraduate participants. Female and male

participants were randomly assigned to the gender prime or control condition and completed the

consent form and questionnaires individually. This study employed a 2 (Participants’ Sex:

Female or Male) X 2 (Social Identity: Gender or Control) between-subjects design.

Procedure

Participants completed what was described to them as a ‘political attitudes’ questionnaire.

Before completing the survey items, participants read one of the following two statements.

Participants in the student prime, or control condition, read: “According to reports of the 2004

election, among 18-25-year olds, 60% of people are registered and only 42% vote. A large

percentage of people in this demographic are students. As a student, write a sentence or two

commenting on this.” Participants in the gender prime condition read: “According to reports of


the 2004 election, 74% of women and 71% of men were registered to vote. Additionally, women

were more likely to vote (65%) than men were (62%). As a man/woman, write a sentence or two

commenting on this.” After this statement, participants read a short biography of Hillary Clinton,

which was identical for participants in both conditions.

Measures

Gender and Authority Measure (GAM). We assessed participants’ attitudes toward

female authority participants with a 15-item measure on which participants indicate preference

for male versus female authorities. This scale has been shown to demonstrate a single factor

structure with adequate internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity (Rudman

& Kilianski, 2000). Participants indicated their agreement to items on a 7-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Example items include: “In general, I

would rather work for a man than a woman”; “The people I look up to most are women”; and

“For most college courses, I prefer a male professor to a female professor.” Items were recoded

such that higher numbers indicate preference for male versus female authorities. The GAM

showed adequate internal consistency (α = .79).

Support for Clinton. We assessed the extent to which participants support Clinton as a

presidential candidate with an 8-item measure. Example items include: “Hillary Clinton would

be a competent President of the US”; “Hillary Clinton would be an influential President of the

US”; and “If nominated, Hillary Clinton will win election for President of the US.” This measure

showed strong internal consistency (α = .96).

Trait Perceptions. We assessed the extent to which participants perceived Clinton as

possessing favorable traits with an 18-item measure consisting of both agentic and communal

traits. Examples of agentic items include: “Confident”; “Competent”; and “Ambitious.”


Examples of communal items include: “Kind”; “Supportive”; and “Sensitive to the needs of

others.” This measure also showed strong internal consistency (α = .94).1

Political Attitudes. We assessed participants’ overall political views on a 5-point Likert-

type scale ranging from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’ with lower numbers indicating

greater liberal views and higher numbers indicating greater conservative views.

Results

Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Female Authority and Political Attitudes2

Similar to Study 1, we examined the relationship between attitudes toward women (as

assessed by the GAM) and sex by conducting an independent samples t-test. As expected,

women reported significantly less negative attitudes toward women in authority (M = 3.56, SD =

.70) than men (M = 4.22, SD = .49; t(80) = 4.95, p < .001).

In Study 2, we also examined the relationship between political attitudes and sex by

conducting an independent samples t-test. As expected, women reported political attitudes that

were significantly more politically liberal (M = 2.39, SD = .1.10) than men (M = 2.84, SD = .97;

t(80) = 1.97, p = .05).

Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Female Authority, Sex, Political Orientation, and

Support for Hillary Clinton

In this study we wanted to test the predictions that people with more liberal attitudes

toward women would be more likely to support a female leader (i.e., Hillary Clinton), that

women will have more positive attitudes towards supporting Clinton than men will, and that

these effects are independent. In addition, we wanted to test the prediction that these effects will

still hold when controlling for political attitudes.


The standardized regression coefficients and the change in R2 at each step of the

hierarchical regression analysis are shown in Table 3. The Gender and Authority Measure

(GAM) was entered into the regression equation in Step 1. This analysis revealed that those with

more liberal attitudes toward women were more likely to be in support of electing a female

president. Thirteen percent of the variance in support for Clinton was accounted for by scores on

the GAM. In Step 2, sex was added to the equation as a predictor and, in total, 20% of the

variance in support of Clinton was accounted for by both GAM and sex. The addition of sex to

the equation results in a significant increase in R2 accounting for an additional 7% of the variance

in support for Clinton with women supporting Clinton more than men, and importantly, this

effect is significant controlling for their GAM scores. Finally, we entered political orientation

into the equation at Step 3. Political attitudes accounted for 33% more of the variance in support

for Clinton with individuals who hold more liberal political attitudes supporting Clinton more

than those who hold more conservative political attitudes. Importantly, when political attitudes

was entered into the equation, attitudes toward female authority (GAM) no longer significantly

predicted attitudes toward Hillary Clinton above and beyond what was accounted for by sex and

political attitudes.

Gender Priming and Support for and Perceptions of Hillary Clinton

Support for Clinton. To test the hypothesis that a gender prime will impact women and

men’s support for Clinton in opposite directions, support for Clinton was analyzed with a 2

(Participant Sex: Male or Female) x 2 (Priming: Gender or Student) between-subjects analysis of

variance. There was no significant main effect for gender priming, p = .63. Therefore, support

for Clinton did not differ as a function of whether participants were primed with their gender or a

control prime. There was a main effect of sex such that women supported Clinton more (M =


4.35, SD = 1.64) than men (M = 3.03, SD = 1.27), F(1, 77) = 17.01, p = .000, �2 = .18.

Additionally, there was a significant interaction between sex and priming (F(1, 77) = 4.12, p =

.046, �2 = .05; see Figure 1). Compared to the control condition, men indicate less support for

Clinton when primed with their gender and women report greater support. Simple effects tests

revealed a significant difference between women and men in the gender prime condition (p =

.000) such that women primed with their gender reported greater support for Clinton (M = 4.59,

SE = .30) than men primed with gender (M = 2.58, SE = .35). The difference between women

and men in the control condition did not quite reach a level of significance (p = .14).

Trait Perceptions. A between-subjects ANOVA revealed that the main effect of

priming was not significant, p = .88; thus, perceptions of Clinton’s traits did not differ between

those who were primed with their gender and those in the control condition (primed with their

identity as a student). There was a main effect of sex such that women perceived Clinton as

possessing more positive traits (M = 4.86, SD = .87) than did men (M = 3.82, SD = .96), F(1, 77)

= 26.70, p = .000, �2 = .26. Additionally, there was a significant interaction between sex and

priming (F(1, 77) = 4.71, p = .033, �2 = .06; see Figure 2). Women indicated more positive

perceptions of Clinton in the gender prime condition compared to the control condition whereas

men reported a decrease in positive perceptions in the gender prime condition. In addition,

simple effects revealed that although there is a significant difference between women and men in

the student prime condition (p = .035) such that women perceived Clinton as possessing more

positive traits (M = 4.61, SE = .20) than men (M = 4.01, SE = .20), this difference is significantly

stronger in the gender prime condition (p = .000; women: M = 5.07, SE = .19; men: M = 3.60, SE

= .22.


Discussion

The findings from Study 2 replicated and extended the findings from Study 1. As in

Study 1, women reported significantly more liberal attitudes toward women and more liberal

political attitudes than men did. The results from hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated

once again that attitudes toward women and participants’ sex account for unique variance in

predicting support for Hillary Clinton. Specifically, the more liberal attitudes toward women that

participants held, the more support they provided for Clinton. Also, as in Study 1, women

indicated greater support for Clinton when controlling for GAM scores. Thus, regardless of their

attitudes toward women in authority positions, women provided more support than men for

Clinton as a presidential candidate. Political attitudes accounted for a large percentage of

variance in predicting support for Clinton with those who hold more liberal political views

supporting Clinton more than those who hold more conservative views. Moreover, when political

attitudes was entered into the equation, attitudes toward female authority (GAM) no longer

significantly predicted attitudes toward Hillary Clinton above and beyond what was accounted

for by sex and political attitudes. Thus, these results demonstrate that the attitudes captured by

the GAM do not predict variance independent of the attitudes assessed by participants’ political

attitudes, while participants’ sex still adds something unique to the equation.

In Study 2, we investigated the unique effect of one’s gender identity group by

experimentally priming participants with their gender group. As expected, when primed with

their gender identity, women increased their support for Clinton and viewed her traits more

positively, while men decreased their support and viewed her traits less positively. These results

suggest that beyond differences in attitudes that women and men may have, there is some degree

of ingroup bias when supporting a presidential candidate such that women are more likely to


support a female presidential candidate because of their shared gender identity. On the other

hand, when men’s gender identity is made salient, they may show a negative bias by derogating

members of an outgroup (Devine, 1995). Thus, men may support a female presidential candidate

less because she is not an ingroup member.

General Discussion

The present research sought to better understand the gender gap in support for female

presidential candidates. Across two studies we investigated the influence of gender role attitudes

and political attitudes, as well as the influence of a shared gender identity between women and a

female presidential candidate. Both Study 1 and Study 2 revealed that women are significantly

less supportive of traditional gender roles than men are. In Study 1, we showed this using a

measure assessing attitudes toward women in society in general (ATW), and in study 2, we

showed this using a measure specifically assessing attitudes toward women in authority positions

(GAM). Study 1 and Study 2 also revealed support for our prediction that attitudes toward

women and participants’ sex would independently predict support for electing a woman for

president. Both studies revealed that individuals who hold more liberal attitudes toward women

and women support female presidential candidates more than those who hold more traditional

attitudes toward women and men. However, in Study 2, when political attitudes was entered into

the regression, attitudes toward women was no longer significant, demonstrating that having

liberal political attitudes in general is a better predictor of support for a woman for president than

the measure we employed to assess liberal gender role attitudes. Study 2 also demonstrated that,

when primed with their gender identity, women increase and men decrease their support.

Liberal Attitudes and Supporting a Woman for President


Gender role attitudes. Our findings support past research showing that women tend to

have more liberal attitudes about gender roles than men do (Harris & Firestone, 1998; Spence &

Hahn, 1997; Swim et al., 1995). In Study 1, women indicated significantly more modern

attitudes toward women’s place in society, and in Study 2, women reported significantly less

preference for men in authority positions over women. Building on past research, our findings

from hierarchical analyses in both studies show that these more liberal attitudes toward women

predict greater support for a female presidential candidate. These findings are not too surprising

because if individuals believe that women can and should fill roles in society that are traditional

held by men then it is understandable that they would also be more supportive of a woman filling

a role that has always been filled by a man.

Political Attitudes. Because we chose to look at attitudes toward an actual presidential

candidate, we expected political attitudes to play an important role in predicting support for a

candidate of a particular political party. Indeed, political attitudes was the strongest predictor of

support for Clinton (Study 2); in fact, when entered into the regression, attitudes toward female

authority no longer remained a significant predictor. Past research suggests that individuals’

attitudes toward women are couched in their political views. For example, women tend to be

more oriented toward equality and liberalism than men are (Eagly et al., 2004). This helps to

explain why the effect of GAM disappears when political attitudes is entered. The present

findings demonstrate that a more general item assessing political attitudes does a better

predicting individuals’ support for a female presidential candidate than more specific attitudes

toward women in authority positions.

Gender Identity and Supporting a Woman for President


In both studies, we found evidence of intergroup bias in that women showed an ingroup

bias in favor of a female presidential candidate, while men showed an outgroup bias against her.

Sex accounted for a significant portion of unique variance in predicting support for a female

presidential candidate in Study 1 and for Hillary Clinton in Study 2. These findings support a

social identity perspective in that women’s support for a female candidate was based on their

social group membership as women. Our findings demonstrated that, independent of gender role

and political ideologies, women showed significantly more support for electing a female

candidate (Study 1) and for electing Hillary Clinton (Study 2).

Furthermore, Study 2 provided experimental evidence for this ingroup bias effect. When

primed with their gender identity, women increased their support for Clinton and viewed her

more favorably, whereas men decreased their support and viewed her less favorably. While past

research has linked a gender gap in attitudes with a gender gap in voting behavior (Eagly et al,

2004), our research demonstrates that, irrespective of attitudes, individuals also demonstrate an

ingroup bias in support for a candidate. The social identity perspective suggests that individuals

process information in terms of their group membership in intergroup situations where social

identities are made salient (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Experimental research supports an ingroup gender-bias in support for electoral

candidates. For example, research by Eagly, Diekman, Scheider, and Kulesa (2003) found that

individuals tend to vote for candidates who endorse policies supportive of the interests of their

gender, regardless of the candidate’s sex. However, when a candidate’s attitudes were not clearly

congenial to only women or only men, a gender-matching preference for candidates of one’s

own gender emerged such that women were more likely to vote for a female candidate and men

were more likely to vote for a male candidate (Eagly et al., 2003, Study 1). Hoyt, Simon, and


Reid (in press) also found a gender-bias, but only when individuals’ mortality was made salient.

Their findings demonstrated that women evaluated a female candidate more positively than a

male candidate and were significantly more likely to cast their vote for the woman than the man

when their death was made salient. These findings suggest that when women’s mortality is made

salient, they buffer their fear of death by clinging to their ingroup (Hoyt et al., in press). The

present research extends these findings by showing that women demonstrate ingroup bias by

supporting a female candidate even without reasons such as similar policy endorsement or

situational influences such as mortality salience and when controlling for sex role and political

attitudes.

Practical implications

This research has important implications for elections involving female candidates.

Judging from the recent media attention on voting polls examining percentages of different

groups of people (e.g., men, women, Blacks, Whites, Latinos, young people, old people, etc.),

there is a clear interest from both the general public and researchers in predicting voting

behavior. While this article particularly focuses on gender bias, the point of this research is not to

dismiss the barriers that stand in the way of an ethnic minority; as Steinem (2008) notes, “The

caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together.” The present

research helps us to better understand the current gender gap in support for Clinton by

demonstrating the importance of both gender role and political attitudes in predicting support for

a female presidential candidate.

Beyond attitudes, the present research also shows the effect of priming a social identity

group on individuals’ support for electing a candidate. While we investigated the effect of gender

identity, it likely that candidates activate many social identity groups depending on, among other


situational factors, whose support they are trying to obtain. The priming used in Study 2 creates a

similar situation as the recent Democratic primaries where voters have chosen to support a man

(Senator Obama) or a woman (Senator Clinton). Indeed, polls report that voters are clinging to

their ingroup. A poll taken in February 2008 indicated that 59% of white Democratic women

plan to vote for Clinton, while about two-thirds of blacks plan to vote for Obama (United Press

International, 2008). Interestingly, there has been a lot of attention focused on who black women

will support beginning with the Democratic primary in South Carolina (Seelye, 2008). These

women are of particular interest because they must choose between social identity groups:

Obama who shares their racial identity or Clinton who shares their gender identity. Judging from

a January 2008 poll indicating that Obama has an 11 point advantage lead over Clinton among

black women, it appears that black women have chosen to support their racial identity group

(Steinhauser, 2008). The present research would correctly predict these results as Obama has

effectively focused his campaign largely on issues of racial equality, while Clinton has put much

less emphasis on gender in her campaign.

The impact of making a specific social identity salient also has implications for

candidates who are seeking to gain support from several different groups of people. If Clinton is

trying to gain more support from women, then our research suggests that she should explicitly

make her gender more salient. However, she then faces the possibility of losing support of men,

which is what happened in Study 2. Moreover, our research suggests that this tactic might also

lose her support of individuals who hold more conservative gender role and political attitudes.

Thus, our research suggests that candidates must be careful as they try to gain support from

certain groups, not to alienate other groups. Recent research has found that, when presented with

images of Clinton and Obama, individuals perceived Clinton to be more American than Obama


(Devos, Ma, & Gaffud, 2008). Moreover, their research demonstrated that the more candidates

were construed as embodying the American identity, the more they were likely to be supported

(Devos, et al., 2008). This research suggests that a possible tactic for minority presidential

candidates, such as women, would be to make a shared identity (i.e., an American identity)

explicitly salient to voters so that they are perceived by all individuals as an ingroup member.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this research provides insight into factors that predict support for a female

presidential candidate, there still remains the possibility that other factors may provide further

predictive ability. While we measured individuals’ attitudes, there may be individual

characteristics that also have an influence. For example, research by Dweck and colleagues has

found that most individuals are either entity theorists or incremental theorists (Dweck, Chiu, &

Hong, 1995). While entity theorists hold the implicit belief that human characteristics are fixed

and stable, incremental theorists believe that they are malleable and develop over time. This

research suggests that entity theorists would resist the movement of women into nontraditional

gender roles, such as high-level leadership positions, and incremental theorists would be open to

changes in gender roles. In fact, research by Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, and Sherman (2001)

found that individuals who hold incremental theories about human traits show a preference for

counterstereotypic information, while those who hold entity theories show a preference for

stereotypic information. Thus, to the extent that women in high-level leadership positions are

counterstereotypic to the female gender role, individuals may respond differently to a female

presidential candidate depending on their implicit theories. Furthermore, based on research by

Jost and colleagues (2003) demonstrating that liberalism is associated with change and openness,

conservatism is associated with resistance to change it is possible that liberals may tend to be


incremental theorists, while conservatives tend to be entity theorists, Future research should

explore whether one’s implicit theories about human traits influences support for a female

presidential candidate. This assessment may have an even stronger influence than attitudes on

individuals’ because it is less likely to elicit social desirability concerns that certain attitude

assessments do.

Future research would also benefit from presenting female leaders who exhibit different

leadership styles. Research has shown that female leaders who exhibit agentic traits face

resistance and backlash (Rudman & Glick, 1999; 2001). While the present research did not

manipulate the female candidate’s leadership behavior, future research should explore reactions

to female candidates who display different types of leadership, such as women who display

predominantly agentic traits versus women who blend agentic and communal traits. Furthermore,

based on the fact that political attitudes accounted for so much of the variance in predicting

support for electing a female candidate, individuals may respond differently to a female

candidate depending on the political party to which she belongs. In an analysis of the six

elections of candidates for the U. S. House of Representatives from 1990-2000, Dolan (2004)

found that people are more likely to see female Democratic candidates as liberal and to utilize

stereotypically female/liberal issues in their evaluations, whereas respondents did not evaluate

Republican candidates’ ideology or issues differently for men or women. This research suggests

that the extent to which individuals perceive female candidates in stereotypical terms depends on

their political party. Building off of Study 2, which utilizes a female Democratic candidate,

future research should also look at female Republican candidates.

This research is limited in its generalizability to real-life situations in which individuals

are actually casting a vote for a candidate. In Study 2, we chose to use Senator Clinton as the


female presidential candidate in order to increase external validity. However, participants are

likely to have pre-existing attitudes toward her and to be influenced by the current presidential

race, or to give their support according to political party. Moreover, because the purpose of this

research was to determine factors that predict support for female presidential candidates, we did

not have a condition including a male candidate. While research suggests that women display

higher degrees of ingroup bias than man do (Rudman & Goodwin, 2004), a social dominance

perspective (Pratto, Stallworth, & Sidanius, 1997) suggests that if a female candidate threatens

the gender hierarchy, men may show an equal amount of ingroup bias. Thus, more research is

needed investigating different electoral situations, varying the race and gender (among other

social categories), and also varying whether real or hypothetical candidates are employed in the

research design. Despite these limitations, the present research provides insights for

understanding the gender gap in support for a female presidential candidate and several different

interesting areas for future research.

Conclusions

In sum, this research indicates that the gender gap in support for a female presidential

candidate is influenced by attitudes toward women, political attitudes, and one’s gender social

identity. Study 1 and Study 2 show that attitudes toward women and participants’ sex have an

independent influence on support for a female candidate for president, while Study 2

demonstrates that political attitudes are a stronger predictor of support than attitudes toward

female authority. Study 2 also demonstrates that when individuals’ gender identity is made

salient, women show an increase in support for a female candidate, while men show a decrease

in support. These findings are consistent with a social identity perspective in that women showed

a positive bias toward their gender identity group, while men showed a negative bias against


their gender outgroup. The present research offers insight into understanding the gender gap in

support for a female candidate for the 2008 presidential race and has important implications for

candidates striving to gain support from various social groups.


References

Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Claiming authority: Negotiating challenges for women

leaders. In D. M. Messick & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of leadership: New

perspectives and research (pp. 191–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Catalyst (2006). Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune

500. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from: www.heidrick.com/NR/rdonlyres/30308A4B-614C-

439E-8D53-29A073872D2D/0/CTLYST_2005WCOTECensusExecSum.pdf

CBS News. (2006). Ready for a woman president? Retrieved March 12, 2008, from:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml

Center for American Women and Politics (2008). Women in elected office 2008. Retrieved

March 13, 2008, from: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts.html

Devine, P. G. (1995). Prejudice and out-group perception. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social

psychology (pp. 467-524). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Devos, T., Ma, D., & Gaffud, T. (2008). Is Barack Obama American enough to be the next

President? The role of ethnicity and national identity in American politics. Poster

presented at the IXth Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social

Psychology, Albuquerque, NM.

Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., & Kulesa, P. (2002). Accuracy and bias in stereotypes about the

social and political attitudes of women and men. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 38, 268–282.

Dolan, K. (2004). The impact of candidate sex on evaluations of candidates for the U.S. House

of Representatives. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 206-217.


Dolan, K. (1997). Gender differences in support for women candidates: Is there a glass ceiling in

American politics? Women and Politics, 17, 27-41.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and

reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become

leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender

gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 87, 796-816.

Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Schneider, M. C., & Kulesa, P. (2003). Experimental tests of an

attitudinal theory of the gender gap in voting. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29, 1245-1258.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.

Fox, R., & Oxley, Z. M. (2003). Gender stereotyping in state executive elections: Candidate

selection and success. Journal of Politics, 65, 833-850.

Fox, R., & Smith, E. (1998). The role of candidate sex in vote decision-making. Political

Psychology, 19, 405-419.

Gallup Poll (1937). Would you vote for a woman president if she were qualified in every other

respect? Roper Poll on Lexis Nexis, Accession #0279248.

Gallup Poll (2007a). Analysis: Impact of personal characteristics on candidate support.


Retrieved April 20, 2008, from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/26857/Analysis-Impact-

Personal-Characteristics-Candidate-Support.aspx

Gallup (2007b). Hillary Clinton's gender gap most evident among independents. Retrieved

April 20, 2008, from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27070/Hillary-Clintons-Gender-Gap-

Most-Evident-Among-Independents.aspx

Gallup (2008). Hillary Clinton’s gender advantage over Obama narrows. Retrieved on April 20,

2008, from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/104104/Hillary-Clintons-Gender-Advantage-

Over-Obama-Narrows.aspx

Harris, R. J., & Firestone, J. M. (1998). Changes in predictors of gender role ideologies among

women: A multivariate analysis. Sex Roles, 38, 239–252.

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s

ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Gibson, R. H. (1982). Sex-role attitudes: 1972-1980.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 656-663.

Herbert, B. (2006, May 19). Hillary can run, but can she win? New York Times, p. A29.

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 66, 40–66.

Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2007). Leadership efficacy and women leaders’ responses to

stereotype activation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 595- 617.

Hoyt, C. & Chemers, M. (forthcoming). Social Stigma and Leadership. To appear in C. Hoyt,

G. Goethals, & D. Forsyth (Eds.) Leadership and Psychology. Praeger.

Hoyt, C., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (in press). Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects of

mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. Leadership


Quarterly.

Huddy, L., & Capelos, T. (2002). Gender stereotyping and candidate evaluation: Good news and

bad news for women politicians. In V. O. Ottati (Ed.), The social psychology of politics.

New York: Kluwer Academic Press.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as

motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

Kennedy, C. (2003). Is the United States ready for a woman president? Is the Pope Protestant? In

R. P. Watson & A. Gordan (Eds.), Anticipating madam president (pp. 131-143). Boulder,

CO: Rienner.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual

persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 22, 336–353.

Koch, J. (1999). Candidate gender and assessment of senate candidates. Social Science

Quarterly, 80, 84-96.

Leeper, M. S. (1991). The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at

voter inference. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 248-261.

Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001). Person theories and

attention allocation: Preferences for sterotypic versus counterstereotypic information.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 876-893.

Plutzer, E., & Zipp, J. F. (1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for woman candidates.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 30-57.

Pomper, G. (1975). Voter’s choice. New York: Harper & Row.

Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political


attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49-

68.

Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be,

and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281.

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.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic

women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.

Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why

Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men?. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87, 494-509.

Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315-1328.

Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in

management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675-688.

Seelye, K. Q. (2008). In South Carolina, a bid for black women’s votes. Retrieved March 25,

2008, from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15carolina.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogi

n

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.

Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and attitude change in

college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17–34.

Steinem, G. (2008). Woman are never front-runners. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.htm

Steinhauser, P. (2008). Poll: Obama makes big gains among black voters. Retrieved March 25,

2008, from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/18/poll.2008/index.html

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned

and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,

1-39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin

& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48).

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Taylor, D. A., & Moriarty, B. F. (1987). Ingroup bias as a function of competition and race.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 192-199.

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1997). The socially structured mind. In C. McGarty & S. A.

Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology (pp. 355–373). Oxford, United

Kingdom: Blackwell.

Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.

United Press International (2008). Poll: Blacks support Obama over Clinton. Retrieved March

21, 2008, from:


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/11/poll_blacks_support_obama_ove

r_clinton/8139/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007). Historical CPS employment from 1983-99 on the 2002

Census industry and occupational classifications. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/constio198399.htm


Footnotes

1. There were no differences between communal and agentic items when analyzed separately;

thus we combined all items into one measure.

2. Before we began testing our predictions, we confirmed that the priming manipulation did not

impact participants’ reported attitudes toward female authority and political attitudes. These

attitudes were reported after the priming manipulation for concerns that responding to them

before might adversely impact the efficacy of the primes, particularly reporting attitudes toward

female authority in the non-gender prime condition. We conducted independent groups t-tests to

make sure that there was no difference in political attitudes or attitudes toward female authority

across the two experimental groups (student vs. gender prime). As expected with random

assignment, there was no difference in political attitudes across experimental conditions (student

prime: M = 2.64, SD = .98; gender prime: M = 2.55, SD = 1.15; t(80) = .39, p = .695) and there

was no difference in attitudes toward female authority (student prime: M = 3.87 SD = .72; gender

prime: M = 3.88, SD = .66; t(80) = -.04, p = .965).


Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and reliability for all measures as well as

the intercorrelations among study variables.

Scale M SD α 1 2 3 4 Study 1 1. Attitude toward female president 3.94 .94 .82 1 2. ATW 5.39 .65 .83 .53** 1 Study 2 1. Attitude toward Clinton 3.8 1.5 .96 1 - 2. GAM 3.9 .69 .79 -.30** 1 - 3. Political Attitudes 2.6 1.1 -- -.67** .24* 1 - 4. Trait Perceptions of Clinton 4.38 1.0 .94 -.84** -.30** -.61** 1

* = p < .01 ** = p < .001


Table 2

Study 1: Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Support for a Female President from

Attitudes toward Women and Sex

β Δ R2 Fchange Sig. Fchange Step 1 .30 47.19 .000 ATW .55 Step 2 .06 9.25 .003 ATW .47** Sexa -.25*

aCoded as 1 = female, 2 = male * = p < .01 ** = p < .001


Table 3

Study 2: Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Support for Hillary Clinton from Gender

and Authority Measure, Sex, and Political Attitudes

β Δ R2 Fchange Sig. Fchange Step 1 .13 11.91 .001 GAM -.37*** Step 2 .07 6.31 .014 GAM -.23* Sexa .29** Step 3 .33 52.82 .000 GAM -.07 Sexa .25** Political Att. -.60***

aCoded as 1 = male, 2 = female * = p = .05 ** = p = .01 *** = p < .001


Figure Captions

Figure 1.Study 2: Attitudes toward Clinton as a function of participant sex and gender identity

prime.

Figure 2. Study 2: Trait perceptions of Clinton as a function of participant sex and gender

identity prime.



Documents

Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for a Woman for ...online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Simon_Hoyt_2008.pdf · Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for a Woman for