This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Larimer, C. W. Articles by Smith, K. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Balancing Ambition and Gender Among Decision Makers

University of Northern Iowa

Rebecca J. Hannagan

Northern Illinois University

Kevin B. Smith

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

In this article, we use an original laboratory experiment to test how people react to ambitious decision makers, allowing for interactions with gender. In the experiment, participants are told two decision makers will be dividing some valuable resource on their behalf. One decision maker (either high or low in ambition) is "appointed." Participants vote from a slate of candidates, about whom they have information on gender and ambition, for the second decision maker. We find that people tend to associate high ambition with male and self-interested behavior and that the selection of the second decision maker depends on the level of ambition of the first decision maker as well as perceptions of gender of that decision maker. We conclude by suggesting important implications for research on vote choice and representation.

Key Words: ambition • gender • big man • representation

References

• Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Anderson. 1993. Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly 46:527-45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Ammeter, Anthony P., Ceasar Douglas, William L. Gardner, Wayne A. Hochwarter, and Gerald R. Ferris. 2002. Toward a political theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 13:751-96.[CrossRef]
• Bartels, Larry M. 2002. The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In Leaders' personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections, ed. Anthony King. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Boehm, Christopher. 1993. Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology 34:227-54.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• ———. 1997. Egalitarianism and political intelligence. In Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations, ed. Andrew Whiten and Richard W. Byrne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ———. 1999. Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Buss, David M. 1996. Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insights into feminism and the "battle of the sexes." In Sex, power, conflict, ed. David M. Buss and Neil M. Malamuth. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, Anne. 2002. A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American voter. New York: Wiley.
• Cornog, Evan. 2004. The power and the story: How the crafted presidential narrative has determined political success from George Washington to George W. Bush. New York: Penguin.
• Eagly, Alice H. 1995. The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist 50:145-58.[CrossRef]
• Ehrenhalt, Alan. 1992. The United States of ambition: Politicians, power, and the pursuit of office. New York: Times Books.
• Erdal, David, and Andrew Whiten. 1994. On human egalitarianism: An evolutionary product of Machiavellian status escalation? Current Anthropology 35:175-83.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• ———. 1996. Egalitarianism and Machiavellian intelligence in human evolution. In Modeling the early human mind, ed. Paul Mellars and Kathleen Gibson. McDonald Institute Monograph. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
• Ferree, Myra, Judith Lorber, and Beth Hess. 1999. Introduction. In Revisioning gender, ed. Myra Ferree, Judith Lorber, and Beth Hess. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Funk, Carolyn L. 1996. Understanding trait inferences in candidate images. In Research in micropolitics, ed. Michael X. Delli Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Y. Shapiro. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• ———. 1999. Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics 61:700-720.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Hibbing, John R., and John R. Alford. 2004. Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science 48:62-76.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as public enemy: Public attitudes toward American political institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ———. 2002. Stealth democracy: Americans' belief about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37:119-47.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Kennedy, Carole. 2003. Gender difference in committee decision-making: Process and outputs in an experimental setting. Women and Politics 25: 27-45.[CrossRef]
• Kinder, Donald R. 1986. Presidential character revisited. In Political cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kinder, Donald R., Mark D. Peters, Robert P. Abelson, and Susan T. Fiske. 1980. Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior 2:315-37.[CrossRef]
• King, Anthony. 2002. Do leaders' personalities really matter? In Leaders' personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections, ed. Anthony King. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Knauft, Bruce. 1994. Reply to Erdal and Whiten. Current Anthropology 35:181-82.
• Lau, Richard R. 1986. Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In Political cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1515/2004. The prince. Edited by Quentin Skinner, and Russell Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Madison, James. 1788/2003. Federalist no. 51: The structure of the government must furnish the proper checks and balances between the different departments. In The federalist papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter. New York: Signet Classics.
• Maestas, Cherie. 2003. The incentive to listen: Progressive ambition, resources, and opinion monitoring among state legislators. Journal of Politics 65:439-56.[Web of Science]
• Miller, Arthur H., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Oksana Malanchuk. 1986. Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 80:521-40.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Miller, Warren E., and J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the mind works. New York: Norton.
• Pratto, Felicia. 1996. Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet. In Sex, power, and conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives, ed. David M. Buss and Neil M. Malamuth. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Rahn, Wendy M., John H. Aldrich, Eugene Borgida, and John L. Sullivan. 1990. A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In Information and democratic processes, ed. John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Ridgeway, Cecilia, and Lynn Smith-Lovin, 1999. The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology 25:191-216.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Ridley, Matt. 2003. Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. New York: HarperCollins.
• Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998. When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science 46:20-34.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and politics: Political careers in the United States Senate. Chicago: Rand NcNally.
• Shapiro, Virginia. 2003. Theorizing gender in political psychology research. In The Oxford handbook of political psychology, ed. David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stokes, Donald E. 1966. Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency. American Political Science Review 60:19-28.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Tyler, Tom R. 2000. Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35:117-25.[CrossRef]
• Tyler, Tom R., and E.A. Lind 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:115-91.[Web of Science]
• Van Vugt, Mark, Sarah F. Jepson, Claire M. Hart, and David De Cremer. 2004. Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40:1-13.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Witt, Linda, Karen Paget, and Glenna Matthews. 1995. Running as a woman: Gender and power in American politics. New York: Free Press.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 614, No. 1, 56-73 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716207305272


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Larimer, C. W. Articles by Smith, K. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?