{"id":45919,"date":"2024-03-02T02:39:27","date_gmt":"2024-03-02T02:39:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/2024\/03\/preferences-for-female-political-leaders-in-times-of-threat\/"},"modified":"2024-03-02T02:39:27","modified_gmt":"2024-03-02T02:39:27","slug":"preferences-for-female-political-leaders-in-times-of-threat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/preferences-for-female-political-leaders-in-times-of-threat\/","title":{"rendered":"Preferences for Female Political Leaders in Times of Threat"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Preferences for Female
\nPolitical Leaders in Times of Threat: The Roles of Group Membership and System
\nJustification<\/h4>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Women are underrepresented in the United States government despite accounting for approximately half of the U.S. electorate. Therefore, investigation into the types of contexts in which female candidates may emerge may improve gender parity. This study seeks to investigate preferences for female candidates in times of threat, as evidence from the glass cliff literature indicates that female leaders may be preferred to male leaders in times of crisis, that this preference may be driven, in part, by system justifying ideologies (Brown, Diekman, & Schneider, 2011), and that the type of threat may influence preferences for female leaders. Therefore I propose to investigate preferences for female political leaders as a function of the membership of the group posing the threat and whether the leader is described as upholding cultural traditions. University students will read vignettes about a terrorist attack perpetrated by ingroup member (i.e., White supremacists) or outgruop members (ISIS) and then view responses from male and female presidential primary contenders who either voice support for cultural traditions or do not mention them. Participants then rate their perceptions of the candidates\u2019 warmth and competence and indicate how likely they would be to vote for the candidate in the primary and how electable they believe the candidate to be in a general election.<\/p>\n

Preferences for Female
\nPolitical Leaders in Times of Threat: The Roles of Group Membership and System
\nJustification<\/h4>\n

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump beat presumed frontrunner<\/a>, Hillary Clinton, after a bruising political campaign. In her concession speech, Clinton directly addressed those who had hoped to see a female president in their lifetime, stating, \u201cI know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but some day someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now\u201d (Clinton, 2016). Certainly, there are many potential reasons why Clinton\u2019s campaign was unsuccessful. Some have blamed an overemphasis on identity politics (Lilla, 2016), whereas others see Trump\u2019s win as a repudiation of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations (Guo, 2016). However, some, including Clinton herself (e.g., Suliman, 2017) have attributed her loss at least partially to sexism, prompting some to wonder more generally under what conditions a female political leader might be desirable.<\/p>\n

The
\npurpose of the proposed research is to investigate conditions under which a
\nfemale U.S. presidential candidate would be preferred to a male U.S
\npresidential candidate among American college students. One condition in which a
\nfemale head of state might be desirable is when the nation is under threat, as
\nevidence suggests women are more likely to be nominated to precarious
\nleadership positions when organization is in crisis (Ryan & Haslam, 2005)
\nand that this phenomenon may be motivated by system justifying ideologies
\n(Brown, Diekman, & Schneider, 2011). It also seems likely that this effect
\nlikely also depends on the type of threat, as some studies (e.g., Bruckm\u00fcller & Branscombe, 2010) show a
\ndiminished preference for a male leader, whereas others (e.g, Brown et al., 2011) show a pronounced preference for a
\nfemale leader. I therefore investigate
\npreferences for male and female candidates as a function of system
\njustification (i.e., whether the candidate is described \u00a0as endorsing cultural tradiitons or not), and
\nthe type of threat, that is whether the threat comes from members of the
\ningroup (i.e., domestic terrorism) or members of the outgroup (i.e.,
\ninternational terrorism). <\/p>\n

Gender Roles <\/h2>\n

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

Several
\nstudies indicate support for this theory, For example, in a series of studies,
\nDiekman and Eagly (2000) demonstrated that perceptions of the traits that men
\nand women have vary as a function of occupational role. For example, women were
\nperceived as having more agentic traits over time, consistent with women\u2019s
\nincreasing participation in the labor force since 1950. There is also evidence
\nsuggesting that social role theory may apply more generally to perceptions of
\ndifferent groups (e.g., ethnic, racial, and religious groups). Koenig and Eagly
\n(2014) found that perceptions of group traits for different racial, ethnic and
\nreligious groups varied as a function of their occupational roles. In other words,
\nregardless of whether the target group is gender or another group (e.g.,
\nreligious groups), representation in occupational roles appears to impact
\nperceptions of the types of traits that people in that group may typically
\nposess.<\/p>\n

Role Congruity Theory. <\/strong>Of course, judgments
\nof group members not only depend on individuals\u2019 perceptions of traits that
\ngroups are likely<\/em> to have (i.e.,
\ndescriptive stereotypes) but also judgments of the types of traits that group
\nmembers should<\/em> have (i.e.,
\nprescriptive stereotypes). Therefore, social role theory was augmented by role
\ncongruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), which describes the prescriptive<\/em> content of gender roles.
\nAccording to role congruity theory, individuals whose actions do not align with
\ntheir prescribed gender roles are be judged harshly or punished for role
\nincongruity, whereas those who behave in ways that are consistent with gender
\nroles are rewared. <\/p>\n

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

Evidence
\nalso suggests that conformity to gender roles is rewarded. For exampole,
\nevidence suggests that young children are rewarded for conforming to gender
\nroles (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) and that among individuals who placed
\nimportance on gender roles, gender role-congruent behavior was associated with
\ngreater self-esteem and smaller discrepancies between ought and ideal selves
\n(Wood, Chistensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). Therefore, it appears that self-regulating
\nmechanisms and societal mechanisms reward individuals for engaging in
\nrole-congruent behaviors.<\/p>\n

Gender and Leadership<\/h2>\n

Female Leadership Disadvantage. <\/strong>Role congruity
\ntheory makes two specific predictions about female leaders. In particular, it describes
\na \u201cdouble-bind\u201d for female leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The first part of
\nthis bind describes how women may be passed over for promotion to leadership
\npositions because descriptive theories of gender roles do not align with
\nperceptions of leaders. That is, individuals may assume that because women are
\nless commonly found in leadership positions, they are less qualified for them
\nthan are men. The second part of the bind describes the experiences of women
\nalready in leadership positions. As leadership may require displays of agency,
\nwomen in leadership may be judged harshly for violation of prescriptive gender norms.
\nTherefore female leaders may be regarded as cold, cutthroat or manipulative.<\/p>\n

Indeed,
\nresearch on gender and leadership generally supports the double bind described
\nby role congruity theory. For example, meta-analytic evidence suggests that
\nstereotypes of men align more closely with stereotypes of leaders than do
\nstereotyeps of women across three different paradigms measuring aspects of
\nagency and communion (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Similar
\nresearch on implicit leadership theories (ILTs) indicates that protytypes of
\nsuccessful leaders are closer to prototypes of men than prototypes of women (Hall, Workman, &
\nMarchioro, 1998) and that leadership prototypes are more descriptive of
\nmasculine than feminine traits (Schein, 1973).<\/p>\n

Furthermore, there is
\nevidence that man and women may be held to different standards in leadership
\npositions. For example, meta-analytic evidence from 61 studies suggests that
\nperceptions of leaders are more positive when the leader is male rather than
\nfemale, particularly when judged by men (vs. women) and when the leader was
\ndescribed as displaying agentic qualities, such as being directive (Eagly,
\nMakhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). There is also evidence suggesting that leader
\nbehaviors may be judged differently depending on the gender of the leader. For
\nexample, leaders exhibiting both masculine and feminine traits were judged more
\npositively than those exhibiting only masculine or feminine qualities. However,
\nthis was only the case if the leader was described as a man instead of a woman
\n(Wolfram & Gratton, 2013). Similarly, Kark, Waismel-Manor, and Shamir
\n(2012) found that transformational leadership styles were associated with
\nmasculine and feminine qualities. However, women were judged more harshly for
\nfailing to embody these qualities than were men. Thus, there is evidence that
\nfemale leaders may be held to a higher standard than are male leaders.<\/p>\n

Political Leaders<\/em><\/strong>.
\n<\/em>Research
\non female politicians, in particular, similarly suggests that women may be disadvantaged in leadership positions.
\nFor example, in two studes, one experimental and one using data from incumbant
\nelections from the 2000 and 2004 congressional elections, Bauer (2015)
\ndemonstrated that the presensence of feminine stereotypes in political ads was
\nassociated with lower ratings of female (vs. male) leaders\u2019 potential effectivenss
\nas a senator and fitness as a presidential candidate. She also found that the
\npresence of feminie stereotypes in ads was associated with a decreased likelihood
\nof voting for a female versus male candidate. Other work similarly suggests
\nthat female leaders may be perceived as unqualified for political offices
\nbecause political offices (e.g., president, senator) may not be associated with
\ncharacteristics typically ascribed to women (Schneider & Bos, 2014).<\/p>\n

Additionally,
\ntheer is some evidence that both parts of the double-bind described by role
\ncongruity theory may affect perceptions of female political candidates. For
\nexample, Gervais and Hillard (2008) found in a study on perceptions of Sarah
\nPalin and Hillary Clinton that Clinton was perceived as less feminine and warm
\nbut more competent than was Palin, suggesting that perceptions of both
\ncandidates may have, in part, been driven by perception of how closely each
\ncandidate\u2019s behavior aligned with stereotypically feminie gender roles. Additionally,
\nGervais and Hillard found that the probabiliby of voting for Palin over Clinton
\nwas much stronger among participants who strongly endorsed gender role
\ntraditionalism, suggesting that participants\u2019 voting behavior may, in part, be
\nmotivated by whether female candidates\u2019 behaviors align with prescribed gender
\nroles. Therefore, it is possible that female political candidates who display
\nagency may be viewed as competent but unlikeable, whereas those who display
\ncommunion may be well-liked by risk being viewed as incompetent. <\/p>\n

Female
\nLeadership Advantage. <\/strong>However,
\ndespite definite disadvantages facing female leaders, there are some instances
\nin which female candidates may be advantaged relative to their male colleagues.
\n\u00a0For example, some evidence suggests that
\nbecause women face more barriers to leadership roles than do men, female
\nleaders may be perceived as more qualified than male leaders in the same
\nposition (Foschi, 2000). Indeed, Rosette and Trost (2010) found that
\nparticipants judged female leaders who displayed agentic behaviors as more
\neffective than male leaders in top management positions. However this effect
\nonly emerged when female leaders\u2019 success could be internally attributed.Thus, under some circumstances
\nindividuals may view female leaders as being more successful than male leaders.\n<\/p>\n

Other evidence suggests
\nthat preferences for female leaders may emerge in leadership positions that
\ncomplement feminine stereotypes. For example, meta-analytic evidence suggests
\nthat female leaders may be preferred in industries such as education and in
\npositions such as middle management, which may require more communication
\nskills than upper-management positions (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, &
\nWoeher, 2014). Similarly, there is also evidence that a female leadership
\nadvantage might exist because women are more likely than men to engage
\nleadership behaviors such as transformational (Vinkenburg, van Engen, Eagly,
\n& Johannesen-Schmidt, 2011) and democratic leadership (Eagly & Carli,
\n2003). Therefore, it is possible that despite negative perceptions of women in
\nleadership positions, there may be some instances in which women are more
\nlikely to excel in leadership positions than are men.<\/p>\n

Political Leaders. <\/em><\/strong>Research on female
\npolitical leaders similarly suggests that female
\npoliticans may benefit from being women in some specific circumstances. For
\nexample, female politicians were preferred when issues such as education and
\nhealth care were important to participants (Dolan, 2010). Similarly, evidence
\nsuggests that women may be preferred at lower levels of government, where issues
\nthat are more consistent with feminine steroetypes (e.g., education) are more
\nsalient (Kahn, 1994). Other evidence indicates that female leaders may be less
\nsuceptible to negative campaign ads than are male candiates (Fridkin, Kenny,
\n& Woodall, 2008),suggesting that despite the fact that political offices
\nare ssociated with agency, there are some situations in which female
\npoliticians may be preferred to male politicians.<\/p>\n

The Glass Cliff<\/h2>\n

There is also another
\ncontext in which women might be preferred to men. Some evidence that there is a
\nselection bias that favors women over men when leadership positions are
\nprecarious (e.g., when the organization is in crisis), known as the \u201cglass
\ncliff phenomenon.\u201d Ryan and Haslam (2005) coined the \u201cglass cliff\u201d after
\ndemonstrating that historically, women were disproportionately nominated to
\norganizational boards after dips in the organization\u2019s performance and stock
\nprices. Evidence for the glass cliff has been demonstrated in both archival
\n(e.g., Ryan & Haslam) and experimental data (e.g., Brown et al., 2011).\u00a0 It is important to note that the glass cliff
\neffect is generally considered a phenomenon rather than a theory (Ryan, Haslam,
\nMorgentroth, Rink, Stoker, & Peters, 2016). That is, the class cliff is a
\nphenomenon is an effect that can be observed, which can be explained through
\nother theories such as role congruity theory. <\/p>\n

This may be one reason
\nthat mixed evidence has been found for its existence across studies. For
\nexample, although numerous studies have demonstrated the glass cliff phenomenon
\n(e.g., Ryan & Haslam, 2005; Haslam & Ryan, 2008; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby,
\n& Bongiorno, 2011), others studies have not. For example, in an examination
\nof U.S. Fortune 500 there was not evidence of a gender difference in CEO
\nappointments when examining objective accountancy-based measures of company
\nperformance (Adams, Gupta, & Leeth, 2009). Other studies have similarly
\nfailed to find evidence of the glass cliff phenomenon among and
\nCanadian samples (Carroll, Hennessey, & MacDonald 2013). One potential
\nexplanation for this discrepancy is the way in which performance is measured.
\nFor example, accountancy-based measures were unrelated to preference for a male
\nor female leader. However, when performance was conceptualized in terms of stock-based
\nperformance, female leaders were preferred to male leader (Haslam, Ryan,
\nKulich, Trojanowski, & Atkins, 2010). Thus, it is possible that preferences
\nfor female leaders when an organization is in crisis may have more to do with perceived<\/em> performance than actual<\/em> performance.<\/p>\n

The Glass Cliff and
\nPolitical Leaders. <\/em><\/strong>In
\nany case, one area of glass cliff research that has received relatively little
\nattention is the role of the glass cliff effect in the election of female
\nleaders. Using archival data from the 2005 UK general election, Ryan, Haslam,
\nand Kulich (2010) demonstrated that women ran for less winnable seats than did
\nmen, and this was particularly pronounced for the minority party (i.e., for
\nConservative women) than it was for the majority party (i.e., Labour). Thus,
\nthere appears to be at least some archival evidence suggesting that female
\npolitical candidates more often run for precarious seats than do male political
\ncandidates. Some evidence of the glass cliff also exists in experimental
\nstudies. Ryan et al. (2010) found that in a laboratory study using British
\npolitical science students, participants showed a preference for a female
\ncandidate when a seat was described as difficult to win but a preference for a
\nmale candidate when the seat was described as winnable. <\/p>\n

One potential criticism
\nof Ryan et al.\u2019s study is that although they demonstrated that there is a
\npreference for female political leaders when the seat is precarious, that does
\nnot necessarily mean that there is a preference for female political leaders
\nwhen the country is in crisis (as might be the case for a precarious leadership
\nposition in an organization). Therefore, it is possible that individuals may
\nprefer women for precarious leadership seats, but not when the nation is under
\nthreat. Indeed, some evidence suggests that male political candidates are
\npreferred to women on issues of war and national security (e.g., Huddy &
\nTerkildsen, 1993). However, other evidence suggests that there is an increased
\npreference for female political leaders in times of threat. In two separate
\nstudies, Brown et al. (2011) demonstrated the glass cliff effect in two
\nstudies. In response to being primed about threats in their communities,
\nparticipants\u2019 preference for a male leader relative to a female leader was
\neliminated, and in response to a prime about the 9\/11 terrorist attacks,
\nparticipants preferred a female leader relative to a male leader. These studies
\nsuggest that not only do individuals prefer female political candidates when
\nthe election is precarious but that the preference for a female political leader
\nmay occur when the country is in crisis or under threat. <\/p>\n

Therefore, I predict the
\nfollowing:<\/p>\n

H1: I predict that there
\nwill be a preference for a female leader relative to a male leader when
\nparticipants are primed with a threat.<\/p>\n

Causes of the Glass Cliff. <\/h3>\n

Stereotypes.
\n<\/em>There
\nare a few explanations that might explain the glass cliff phenomenon. The first
\nis that stereotypes of leaders in times of crisis may align more closely with
\nstereotypes of women than stereotypes of men. For example, Ryan, Haslam, and
\nBongiorno (2011) codified the \u201cthink crisis think-female\u201d effect, showing that
\nstereotypes of leaders when a firm was in economic crisis were more consistent
\nwith stereotypes of women than stereotypes of men. Other work (e.g., Gartzia,
\nRyan, Balluerka, & Aritzeta, 2012) similarly suggests that consistent with
\nrole congruity theory, individuals may prefer leaders whose traits align with
\norganizational roles, in this case, traits of a leader in a time of crisis.
\nIndeed, this research is consistent with research on ILTs that suggests that,
\nprototypes of typical leaders differ from those of ideal leaders (Junker &
\nvan Dick, 2014). It might therefore be possible that ILTs of a leader in charge
\nof an organization in crisis might differ from those in an organization that is
\nthriving. <\/p>\n

Selection Bias. <\/em><\/strong>There is also some
\nevidence that the glass cliff effect might depend somewhat on participant
\ngender. For example, there is some evidence that when an organization is
\ndescribed as in crisis, women preferred feminine traits to masculine traits
\nmore than did men, whereas men did not differentially prefer feminine or
\nmasculine traits (Ryan et al., 2011). Other evidence similarly indicates that
\nwomen may be more partial to female leaders, especially in times of crisis. However,
\nit is also important to note that these gender effects are not consistent
\nacross studies, as others (e.g., Haslam & Ryan, 2008; Ryan et al., 2010)
\ndid not find that the glass cliff phenomenon depended on participant gender. Additionally,
\nBrown et al. (2011) did not find that preference for a female versus male
\nleader in times of crisis depended participant gender, although they found that
\nwomen more strongly associated women with change than did men. Therefore, the
\neffects of participant gender on the glass cliff effect are somewhat unclear. I
\ntherefore propose to include participant gender as a factor in my experimental
\ndesign so as to control for its potential effects. However, I make no formal
\nhypotheses about the role of gender in preference for a female candidate when
\nthe nation is under threat.<\/p>\n

Glass Cliff and System
\nJustification. <\/em><\/strong>Some
\nwork on the glass cliff work indicates that women may also be nominated to
\nprecarious leadership positions as a means to uphold the status quo (Ryan &
\nHaslam, 2005). Indeed, Ryan et al. (2011) found that one of the reasons that
\nwomen were nominated to leadership positions is that women are expected to take
\nresponsibility for the crisis and therefore may serve as a scapegoat for the
\nfailure of the company. The potential for female leaders in precarious
\npositions to fail also reaffirms stereotypes that women cannot be leaders,
\njustifying existing social systems in which men are more likely to be found in
\nhigh-status roles than are women. Therefore, it is possible that the nomination
\nof a female leader may be a way to maintain rather than upend existing social
\nstructures and it is therefore possible that the preference for a female (vs.
\nmale) leader in times of crisis might be driven by system-justifying motives.<\/p>\n

System justifying
\nideologies allow individuals to believe that existing political, economic, and
\nsocial systems are fair and legitimate, regardless of whether individuals
\nbenefit from these systems (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). Examples of such
\nideologies include social dominance orientation (Ho, Sidanius, Pratto, Levin,
\nKteily, & Sheehy-Skeffinton), the belief that some groups (e.g., Whites,
\nmen) are inherently superior to other groups (e.g., Blacks, women). Other
\nexamples of system justifying ideologies include political conservatism and
\nright-wing authoritarianism, both of which involve a preference for greater
\nsocietal traditionalism (e.g., Jost & Thompson, 2000). Among the
\nconsequents of such ideologies are an increased support for societal institutions
\nand a decreased support for social change (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). In other
\nwords, individuals who strongly system-justifying ideologies have a strong need
\nto maintain the status quo. <\/p>\n

Sometimes a change in
\nleadership might be desirable in order to maintain the existing social system. Donald
\nTrump\u2019s election might be an example of such a change. For example, although some
\nargue that Trump voters were motivated by a desire to change policies that
\nfavored an increasingly globalized economy (e.g., Tumulty, Rucker, &
\nGearan, 2016), others argued that Donald Trump\u2019s election and the election of
\nsimilar populist figures is a backlash against<\/em>
\nsocial change (e.g., Inglehart & Norris, 2016). For example, it is possible
\nthat some voters considered eight years of a Black president and the
\npossibility of a female president to be too
\nmuch<\/em> change to existing social structures in which Whites and men enjoy
\nhigher social status than do Black and women, respectively. Therefore Trump\u2019s
\nelection potentially signaled a return to the status quo rather than a change
\naway from the existing system. <\/p>\n

In a study on the
\neffects of system justification on the outcomes of the 2016 presidential
\nelection, Azvedo, Jost, and Rothmnd (2017) found support indicating that
\nTrump\u2019s election may have been motivated by a need to return to the status quo.
\nAlthough they found that general system justifying ideologies were associated
\nwith stronger support for Hillary Clinton (perhaps supporting claims by some
\nthat she was the \u201cstatus quo\u201d candidate), strong support for economic and
\ngender system justification were associated with greater support for Donald
\nTrump. Indeed, despite Trump\u2019s criticism of an increasingly globalized economy,
\nTrump supporters showed an increased preference for the types of social
\nstructures that drove those inequalities. Therefore, the desire to \u201cMake
\nAmerican Great Again\u201d may have served to signal a return to the status quo rather
\nthan a departure from it.<\/p>\n

These results make a case
\nthat in some cases, change (e.g., the election of a new political candidate)
\nmay serve to uphold rather than change the existing social system. In this
\nsense, it is possible that a female candidate may be viewed as a form of change
\nthat may serve to justify existing social systems rather than change them.
\nIndeed, Brown et al. (2011) found support for this hypothesis, demonstrating
\nthat the tendency to prefer a female candidate relative to a male candidate in
\ntimes of crisis was especially pronounced among individuals high in system
\njustifying ideologies and social dominance orientation. Other evidence suggests
\nthat the presence of female candidates may cue system-justifying ideologies.
\nFor example, in a series of three experiments Brown and Diekman (2013)
\ndemonstrated that the presence of female politicians increased system
\njustification. In particular, they showed that the presence of female
\ncandidates lead to greater perceptions of fairness, a greater acceptance of
\ngender inequality, and a preference for the constancy rather than change. Therefore,
\ncounter-intuitively, although female candidates may represent a change in the
\nsense that historically, U.S. presidents have been male, female candidates in
\nsome ways may represent a return to the status quo. <\/p>\n

It is likely that given
\nthat individuals are generally motivated to perceive the system is fair that candidates
\nwho are perceived as upholding traditional American values (consistent system
\njustifying ideologies such as political conservatism) will be more electable
\nand more likeable than candidates who are not perceived as upholding
\ntraditions. Furthermore, given the fact that preferences for female candidates
\nmay be driven by system justifying ideologies, it is possible that preference
\nfor a female candidate may be especially strong when she is perceived as
\nupholding the system (i.e., upholding cultural traditions) than when she is
\nperceived as not upholding cultural traditions. Therefore, I predict the
\nfollowing:<\/p>\n

H2: Candidates who
\nendorse cultural traditions will be viewed more positively than candidates who
\nare not viewed as upholding cultural traditions.<\/p>\n

H3: I further expect
\nthis effect to be qualified by candidate gender such that the preference for a
\nfemale versus a male candidate in times of threat will be stronger when the
\ncandidate is portrayed as upholding cultural traditions versus not mentioning
\ncultural traditions.<\/p>\n

Type of Threat<\/h2>\n

There is also some
\nevidence from the glass cliff literature that the type of threat may affect
\npreference for a female leader. For example, effects in the glass cliff
\nliterature are unclear as to whether threats diminish<\/em> the preference for a male candidate relative to a female
\ncandidate or increase <\/em>the presence
\nfor a female candidate relative to a male candidate. For example, a distinct
\npreference for a female leader was found when threat was primed with an
\nunsuccessful company (Haslam & Ryan, 2008) or poor financial performance
\n(Ryan et al., 2011). However, in response to a crisis, Bruckm\u00fcller and Branscombe (2010)
\nmerely found a decreased preference for male leaders. <\/p>\n

Effects across Brown and
\nDiekman\u2019s (2011) experiments were inconsistent as well. For example, when
\nparticipants were asked to write about threats in their local communities
\n(i.e., economic instability, violent crime, or job cuts), preferences for a
\nmale leader decreased in the threat (vs. control) condition. However preference
\nfor a female leader remained unchanged. However, in response to threat primed
\nby the 9\/11 terrorist attacks, participants preferred a female leader to a male
\nleader. One explanation for these effects is that not just the mere presence of
\nthe threat but the type of threat might affect preference for a female leader.<\/p>\n

One such type of threat
\nthat might affect the preference for a female (vs. male) leader might be
\nwhether the threat to the system comes from an ingroup member (e.g., White
\nsupremacist group) rather than an outgroup member (e.g., ISIS), as threats from
\noutgroup members may be perceived as more threatening to the status quo than
\nthreats posed by an ingroup member. For example, non-Black American
\nparticipants were quicker to associate a Black face with a gun than a White
\nface and more often mistook a tool for a gun when presented with a Black face
\nrather than a White face (Payne, 2001). This tendency is also consistent
\nevidence in the United States indicating that although Americans are extremely
\nunlikely to die in an attack perpetrated by a foreign-born terrorist
\n(Nowraseth, 2016) and that nearly half of the deaths from terrorism can be attributed
\nto domestic rather than foreign groups (Willis, 2017), the media often portrays
\nforeign terrorism as a much more serious threat than domestic terrorism
\n(Powell, 2011).<\/p>\n

It is therefore possible
\nthat threats from outgroup members may produce a greater desire for a
\nprotection of the existing system than might threats from ingroup members.
\nTherefore, if system justifying mechanisms produce a preference for a female
\nleader in times of crisis, preference for a female leader may increase when a
\nthreat is posed by an outgroup member than an ingroup member. Furthermore, this
\neffect might be stronger if the leader is perceived as upholding cultural
\ntraditions (i.e., representing a return to the status quo) rather than not
\nmentioning cultural traditions.<\/p>\n

I therefore predict the
\nfollowing:<\/p>\n

H4: Preference for a
\nfemale leader relative to a male leader will be stronger when the terrorist
\nattack is described as coming from an outgroup member (i.e., ISIS) than an
\ningroup member (i.e., a White supremacist group).<\/p>\n

H5: There will be a
\nthree-way interaction between target gender, mention of traditionalism, and
\nthreat type such that preference for a female leader will be stronger when the
\nthreat is posed by an ingroup member than an outgroup member, and this effect
\nwill be stronger when the candidate endorses traditions (vs. no mention).<\/p>\n

Study Overview<\/h2>\n

The purpose of this research was to investigate the glass cliff phenomenon in a political setting in which preferences political candidates may vary as a function of threat (i.e., posed by ingroup vs. outgroup member), and whether that candidate was described as endorsing traditions (i.e., upholding the status quo) or not. Participants were asked to read an online newspaper article describing a terrorist attack perpetrated by either ISIS (i.e., outgroup member) or a White supremacist group (i.e., ingroup member). Next participants were directed to watch two videos of two ostensive presidential primary candidates (one male and one female) responding to the attacks and whose political affiliation matched that of the participant. In their response, the candidates either endorsed traditions or did not endorse traditions. Participants then indicated their perceptions of the candidate, including how warmly the felt towards the candidate, how likely they were to vote for the candidate, how fit the candidate was for office, and how much they though the candidate would win in the general election. Finally, although I made no formal predictions involving participant gender, I propose to keep it as a factor in the design, as some studies have found that the glass cliff effect depends on participant gender. Thus, I have proposed a 2 (Target Gender) X 2 (Threat Type: Ingroup vs. Outgroup) X 2 (System Justification: Mention vs. No Mention) X 2 (Participant Gender) design with repeated measures of the first factor.<\/p>\n

Overall, I expect that there will be a general preference for a female leader to a male leader, as all participants were primed with threat. I also expect a main effect of traditionalism such that participants will generally prefer a candidate who upholds tradition to one that does not. I further expect that preference for a female leader will be stronger when the threat to the group comes from an outgroup member (i.e., ISIS) rather than an ingroup member (i.e., ISIS), as an ougroup threat constitutes a larger threat to the existing system and may potentially prime a greater desire to return to the status quo. Finally, I expect a three-way interaction between target gender, threat type, and traditionalism, such that preference for a female leader will be stronger when the threat comes from outside (vs. within) of the group, particularly when the female leader is described as upholding cultural traditions (vs. no mention of traditionalism).<\/p>\n

Pilot Study<\/h3>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>I propose to pilot the videos of
\nthe candidates as well as the candidates\u2019 scripts to ensure that any of the
\neffects of the study are not due to extraneous variables such as candidate
\nattractiveness. <\/p>\n

Method<\/h2>\n

Participants<\/h3>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I
\npropose to use 50 participants from a small mid-Western university. <\/p>\n

Materials and Procedure<\/h3>\n

Four videos will be made
\nof men and women talking for thirty seconds about their favorite television show.
\nTwo targets of each gender will be included to ensure that no extraneous
\nvariables particular to target might affect results. Participants will be called
\ninto the lab for a study ostensibly on first impressions and will be asked to
\nwatch videos of one man and one women (order counterbalanced across
\nparticipants) and rate their perceptions how attractive each speaker is and how
\nlikeable each speaker is on a 1 (not at
\nall<\/em>) to 7 (very much<\/em>) scale. Thus,
\nthe design is a 2 (Target Gender) X 2 (Target A vs. Target B) mixed model
\ndesign with repeated measures on the first factor.<\/p>\n

After judging videos participants will be routed to a presumably unrelated study on political speeches. As participants in the main study will watch two clips of political candidates, slightly different (but equivalent) versions of each response (upholding vs. not holding traditions) will be necessary in order to be believable. <\/p>\n

Therefore, I propose to
\nwrite four responses to a terrorist attack, two where candidates are described
\nas upholding traditions and two in which they are not. The text of one of the
\nresponses in which participants were described as upholding traditions is
\ndescribed below. <\/p>\n

Our thoughts and prayers
\ngo out to the families affected by the recent attacks. I want to promise the
\nAmerican people that if elected, my administration will stop at nothing to make
\nsure perpetrators of such attacks are hunted down and swiftly brought to justice.
\nWe stand by those who were hurt and lost loved ones today and will be a source
\nof comfort to them in their darkest hour. Let us remember that terror can never win against the American
\ntraditions and values that I pledge to uphold<\/strong> and which make this country
\nso great.<\/strong> Thank you and may God
\nbless America.<\/p>\n

In the no mention
\ncondition, the candidate will state that terror an never win against the will
\nand spirit of the American people, which are indomitable and which make this
\ncountry so great.<\/p>\n

Participants will read two of the four vignettes: one in which candidates were described as upholding traditions and one in which they are not. Thus, the design is a 2 (Version A vs. Version B) X 2 (Traditionalism: Mention vs. No Mention) design with repeated measures on the last factor. After each vignette, participants will indicate how effective they thought each statement was how caring they believed each statement was, and how presidential they thought each statement was on a 1 (Not at all<\/em>) to 7 (Very much) <\/em>likert-type scale. <\/p>\n

Proposed Results and Discussion<\/h2>\n

Participants\u2019 ratings of attractiveness and likeability of videos of candidates bill be submitted to a 2 (Target Gender) X 2 (Version A vs. Version B) mixed model ANOVA with repeated measures on the first factor. In order to move forward, perceptions of likeability and attractiveness will not vary as a function of target gender or version, nor will perceptions vary as a function of the Target X Version interaction.<\/p>\n

Responses to statements will be analyzed as a function of a 2 (Version) X 2 (Traditionalism) mixed model ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. I expect that participants will view candidates who endorse traditionalism more positively than those who do not. In order to move forward with the main study, the critical tests must demonstrate that perceptions of the candidates do not vary as a function of version, nor should the effects of traditionalism depend on version.<\/p>\n

Study 1<\/h2>\n

Method<\/h2>\n

Participants<\/h3>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I
\npropose to recruit approximately 300 college students from a mid-sized
\nMidwestern University. <\/p>\n

Materials and Procedure<\/h3>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Experimental manipulation. <\/strong>Participants
\nwill be given a news report that describes the aftermath of a terrorist attack
\nin which 10 people were killed and 30 injured after a makeshift explosive
\ndevice went off in the middle of a busy city. According to the report, the
\ninvestigation is still ongoing, but federal authorities are crediting the
\nattacks to either members of ISIS or members of a White supremacist group. All
\nother aspects of the report, besides the ingroup (White supremacist) or
\noutgroup (ISIS) status of the attackers will be consistent across reports. After
\nthe article, to participants will indicate their perceptions of how serious the
\nthreat is on a 1 (not at all serious<\/em>)
\nto 7 (very serious<\/em>) scale to serve as
\nan attention check and manipulation check.<\/p>\n

Next, participants will be
\nasked to indicate their political party and will be shown two videotaped
\nstatements from male and female ostensive political candidates (the same men
\nand women from the pilot study) in which candidates will be described as either
\nupholding cultural traditions or not mentioning cultural traditions. Slightly
\ndifferent versions of each statement from the pilot study will be used to
\nensure participants never see the same statement twice. Therefore, the proposed
\ndesign is a 2 (Target Gender) X 2 (Threat Group: Ingroup member vs. Outgroup
\nmember) X 2 (Traditionalism: Present vs. not) X 2 (Participant Gender) design
\nwith target gender varying within subjects.<\/p>\n

Dependent
\nvariables. <\/strong>After
\neach video, participants will indicate their perceptions of how likeable each
\ncandidate is, how effective they perceive each candidate to be, how likely they
\nwould be to vote for each candidate in the presidential primary, and how likely
\nthey think each candidate might be to win the presidential election on a 1 (not at all<\/em>) to 7 (very much<\/em>) scale.<\/p>\n

Finally, participants
\nwill answer a series of demographics questions such as their gender and race.<\/p>\n

Proposed Analyses<\/h2>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I propose
\nto run univariate statistics to assess for skew and kurtosis for the dependent
\nmeasures. I also propose to evaluate the factor structure of the dependent measure
\nusing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as it is possible that a
\nmulti-factor structure (e.g., likelihood of voting for the candidate in the
\nprimary and election) may load on a different factor from perceptions of
\ncandidates\u2019 likeability or competence. Reliability (Cronbach\u2019s alpha) will also
\nbe assessed. <\/p>\n

Next all responses will
\nbe analyzed as a 2 (Target Gender) X 2 (Threat Group: Ingroup member vs.
\nOutgroup member) X 2 (Traditionalism: Present vs. Not) X 2 (Participant Gender)
\nANOVA with repeated measures on the first factor. I propose to analyze the dependent
\nvariable both as a composite scale and as single item measures, as it is
\npossible that analysis of single item measures may yield somewhat different
\nresults from analysis of the composite scale. If participant gender yields no
\nsignificant main effects or interactions, I propose dropping it as a factor
\nfrom the design to improve power. I also propose to test the effects of
\nparticipant ethnicity, although I have no formal hypotheses regarding
\nparticipant ethnicity.<\/p>\n

Discussion and Implications<\/h2>\n

This investigation will
\nseek to determine the types of conditions in which female leaders might be
\nperceived as more attractive than male leaders, specifically when a threat to
\nthe system was posed by outgroup rather than ingroup members, and when candidates
\nsignaled a return to the status quo (i,e., upheld cultural traditions). This
\nstudy would contribute to the literature in a few ways. First, there is
\nrelatively little literature on the glass cliff among female political leaders
\nand it would therefore contribute new understanding to the conditions in which
\nwomen might be nominated to precarious political leadership positions.
\nSecondly, although there is evidence that system-justifying ideologies may play
\na role in preferences for female leaders in times of threat, this study would
\ndirectly manipulate such ideologies, providing stronger evidence for its role
\nin preferences for potential female political candidates as previous studies
\nhave measured system justification as a covariate. Additionally, better understanding
\nthe conditions under which female candidates are more desirable more generally
\nmay contribute to greater gender parity in political representation. <\/p>\n

Although one implication
\nof this study is that female leaders may be more desirable when they are
\ntraditional, I am not advocating for female candidates to be \u201ctraditional\u201d in
\nany sense, particularly not in their endorsement of traditional gender roles. Female
\ncandidates, like male candidates should run on issues that that they consider
\nto be important and should advocate for the public interest as they see fit. However
\none potential implication of this study might be that the first female
\npresident of the United States may be a conservative woman, despite
\nprogressives\u2019 push for more gender parity. Regardless, a better understanding
\nof the existing system may facilitate interventions that help female candidates
\nrun for office and may contribute to greater gender parity in politics and in
\nleadership positions more generally. <\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hillary
\nClinton\u2019s call for a female president candidate is a lovely vision, but not one
\nwithout potential struggles for the candidate to be. There is no doubt that
\ndespite some advantages, female leaders, and female political leaders more
\nspecifically have an uphill battle. However, there may be some situations and
\naspects of the candidate that increase the likelihood of a female candidate,
\nsuggesting that female candidates need not necessarily be dissuaded from
\nrunning when the nation is faced with threats (e.g., military threats) that
\ncomplement agency. Indeed, these may increase preference for a female
\ncandidate, who might finally shatter that \u201chighest hardest glass ceiling.\u201d<\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n