Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women's Political Ambition

Political Psychology

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 515-531

  Schneider, Monica C ^a   Holman, Mirya R ^b   Diekman, Amanda B ^a   McAndrew, Thomas ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TULANE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

conflict avoidance; gender; political ambition; political behavior; role congruity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84931095178     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/pops.12268     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
2. Beaman, L., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2012). Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: A policy experiment in India. Science, 335(6068), 582–586.
3. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
4. Black, J. H., & Erickson, L. (2003). Women candidates and voter bias: Do women politicians need to be better? Electoral Studies, 22(1), 81–100.
5. Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
6. Campbell, D. E., & Wolbrecht, C. (2006). See Jane run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 233–247.
7. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71–84.
8. CAWP. (2013). Current numbers of women officeholders: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutger's University.
9. Congressional Management Foundation (CMF). (2013). Life in Congress: The member perspective. Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation; Society for Human Resource Management.
10. Coffé, H., & Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles, 62(5), 318–333.
11. Costantini, E. (1990). Political women and political ambition: Closing the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 741–770.
12. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.
13. Deckman, M. M. (2007). School board candidates and gender: Ideology, party, and policy concerns. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28(1), 87–117.
14. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057.
15. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918.
16. Diekman, A. B., & Steinberg, M. (2013). Navigating social roles in pursuit of important goals: A communal goal congruity account of STEM pursuits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(7): 487–501.
17. Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. (2010). A social role theory perspective on gender gaps in political attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 486–497.
18. Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32(1), 69–88.
19. Dolan, K. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates: What really matters? Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 96–107.
20. Duerst-Lahti, G., & Johnson, C. (1990). Gender and style in bureaucracy. Women and Politics, 10(1), 67–120.
21. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 1–12.
22. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
23. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. The developmental social psychology of gender, New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35.
25. Escobar-Lemmon, M., & Taylor Robinson, M. M. (2008) How do candidate recruitment and selection processes affect representation of women. In Pathways to power political recruitment and candidate selection in Latin America. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
26. Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2005). To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 642–659.
27. Franceschet, S. (2005). Women and politics in Chile. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
28. Fulton, S. A., Maestas, C. D., Maisel, L. S., & Stone, W. J. (2006). The sense of a woman: Gender, ambition, and the decision to run for Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 235–248.
29. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. Journal of Politics, 73(03), 692–706.
30. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.
31. Greenlee, J., Holman, M. R., & VanSickle-Ward, R. (2014). Making it personal: Assessing the impact of in-class exercises on closing the gender gap in political ambition. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(1): 48–61.
32. Hannagan, R., & Larimer, C. W. (2010). Does gender composition affect group decision outcomes? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Political Behavior, 32(1), 51–67.
33. Hannagan, R. J., Larimer, C. W., & Hibbing, M. V. (2013). Who serves? Gender, personality and their impact on decision-making groups in local politics. Retrieved from http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/papers/docs/Who%20Serves%20-%20Hannagan,%20Larimer,%20and%20Hibbing%20-%20WPSA%202013.pdf
34. Hayes, D., & Lawless, J. L. (2013). A non-gendered lens: The absence of stereotyping in contemporary Congressional elections. American University. Unpublished manuscript.
35. Holman, M. R., Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2011). Sex, stereotypes, and security: A study of the effects of terrorist threat on assessments of female leadership. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 32(3), 173–192.
36. Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 165–196.
37. Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425.
38. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147.
39. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.
40. Kam, C. D. (2012). Risk attitudes and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 817–836.
41. Kathlene, L. (1989). Uncovering the political impacts of gender: An exploratory study. Political Research Quarterly, 42(3), 397–421.
42. Kennedy, J. A., & Kray, L. J. (2013). Who is willing to sacrifice ethical values for money and social status? Gender differences in reactions to ethical compromises. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 52–59.
43. Kenny, M. (2013). Gender and political recruitment: Theorizing institutional change. New York, NY:Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Kittilson, M. C. (2006). Challenging parties, changing parliaments: Women and elected office in contemporary Western Europe. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
45. Koch, J. (1997). Candidate gender and women's psychological engagement in politics. American Politics Quarterly, 25(1), 118–133.
46. Kray, L., Galinsky, A., & Thompson, L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 386–409.
47. Krook, M. L. (2010). Beyond supply and demand: A feminist-institutionalist theory of candidate selection. Political Research Quarterly, 63(4), 707–720.
48. Lang-Takac, E., & Osterweil, Z. (1992). Seperateness and connectedness: Differences between the genders. Sex Roles, 27(1), 277–289.
49. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2005). It takes a candidate: Why women don't run for office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don't run for office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2013). Girls just wanna not run: The gender gap in young Americans' political ambition. Washington, DC: American University.
52. Lawless, J. L., & Pearson, K. (2008). The primary reason for women's underrepresentation? Reevaluating the conventional wisdom. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67–82.
53. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
54. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Hackett, G., & Brown, D. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In Career choice and development. New York, NY: John Wiley.
55. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
56. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological methods, 7(1), 83–104.
57. Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.” Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.
59. McCarty, M. K., Monteith, M. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Communally constrained decisions in workplace contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 175–187.
60. Miller, P. M., Danaher, D. L., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and seven. Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 543–548.
61. Morrill, C., & Rudes, D. (2010). Conflict resolution in organizations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 627–651.
62. Mutz, D. C. (1995). Effects of horse-race coverage on campaign coffers: Strategic contributing in presidential primaries. Journal of Politics, 57(04), 1015–1042.
63. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.
64. Niven, D. (1998). Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias. Women & Politics, 19(2), 57–80.
65. Norris, P., & Lovenduski, J. (1995). Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British Parliament. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
66. Ondercin, H. L., & Jones-White, D. (2011). Gender jeopardy: What is the impact of gender differences in political knowledge on political participation? Social Science Quarterly, 92(3), 675–694.
67. Palmer, B., & Simon, D. (2003). Political ambition and women in the US House of Representatives, 1916–2000. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 127–138.
68. Pew. (2014). Who runs for office? A profile of the 2%. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/03/who-runs-for-office-a-profile-of-the-2/.
69. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
70. Richey, S., & Taylor, B. (2012). How representative are Amazon Mechanical Turk workers? The Monkey Cage.
71. Rios, D., Stewart, A. J., & Winter, D. G. (2010). “Thinking she could be the next president”: Why identifying with the curriculum matters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(3), 328–338.
72. Rosenthal, C. S. (2000). Gender styles in state legislative committees: Raising their voices in resolving conflict. Women & Politics, 21(2), 21–45.
73. Rosenwasser, S. M., & Dean, N. G. (1989). Gender role and political office: Effects of perceived masculinity/femininity of candidate and political office. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(1), 77–85.
74. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Political parties and the recruitment of women to state legislatures. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 791–809.
75. Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.
76. Schwindt–Bayer, L. (2011). Women who win: Social backgrounds, paths to power, and political ambition in Latin American legislatures. Politics & Gender, 7(1), 1–33.
77. Streb, M. J., Burrell, B., Frederick, B., & Genovese, M. A. (2008). Social desirability effects and support for a female American president. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 76–89.
78. Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653–677.
79. Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture. New York, NY: Random House.
80. Taylor, A., MacKinnon, D., & Tein, J. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241–269.
81. Tilly, L., & Gurin, P. (1990). Women, politics, and change. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
82. Ulbig, S. G., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior, 21(3), 265–282.
83. Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051–1072.
84. Williams, M. (2000). The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy. In Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 124–152.
85. Williams, M. S. (2008). Ambition, gender, and the judiciary. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 68–78.
86. Wojcieszak, M. (2011). Pulling toward or pulling away: Deliberation, disagreement, and opinion extremity in political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 92(1), 207–225.
87. Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (1992). Toward a feminist understanding of women and power. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(4), 381–388.
88. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
89. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.