Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:17:18.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender differences in follower behavior: An experimental study of reactions to ambitious decision makers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Christopher W. Larimer  and
Rebecca J. Hannagan
Christopher W. Larimer
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science University of Northern Iowa 349 Sabin Hall Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0404 christopher.larimer@uni.edu
Rebecca J. Hannagan
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science Northern Illinois University 406 Zulauf Hall DeKalb, IL 60115 rhannaga@niu.edu
Get access

Abstract

This study investigates whether observers react negatively to overly ambitious leaders, focusing on whether women are more sensitive than men in their perceptions of the traits of decision makers and whether men and women behave differently as a result of such perceptions. Results from two laboratory experiments show how participants react to ambitious decision makers in simple bargaining scenarios. The results indicate that observers tend to equate ambition for decision-making authority with self-interested, unfair, male behavior. Moreover, observers tend to be less satisfied with a decision made by an ambitious decision maker compared to the same decision made by an unambitious decision maker. That is, people generally dislike ambitious decision makers independent of the actual decision that is made. Further, there are important differences in male and female expectations of what decision makers will do that, when combined with perceptions of decision-maker gender, have more nuanced implications for outcome satisfaction and our understanding of “follower behavior.”

Keywords

Ambitiongendersex rolesleadershipfollower behaviordecision making
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 2010 , pp. 40 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Romano, Lois, “Beyond poll numbers, voter doubts about Clinton,” Washington Post July 13, 2006.Google Scholar
2.Cornog, Evan, The Power and the Story: How the Crafted Presidential Narrative Has Determined Political Success from George Washington to George W. Bush (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), p. 61.Google Scholar
3.Cornog, , p. 61.Google Scholar
4.Tyler, Tom R. and Huo, Yuen J., Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002).Google Scholar
5.Tyler, Tom R., Why People Obey the Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
6.Tyler, and Huo, , p. 61.Google Scholar
7.Falk, Dean, “Brain evolution in females: An answer to Mr. Lovejoy,” in Women in Human Evolution, Hager, Lori D., ed. (New York: Routledge, 1997), pp. 114–136.Google Scholar
8.Geary, David C., Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998).Google Scholar
9.Hall, Judith A., Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Falk, .Google Scholar
11.Hibbing, John R. and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, Stealth Democracy: Americans' Belief About How Government Should Work (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
12.Tyler, Tom R., “The psychology of public dissatisfaction with government,” in What Is It About Government that Americans Dislike?, Hibbing, John R. and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, eds. (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 227–242.Google Scholar
13.Tyler, Tom R. and DeGoey, Peter, “Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions,” in Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R., eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), pp. 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Larimer, Christopher W., Hannagan, Rebecca, and Smith, Kevin B., “Balancing ambition and gender among decision makers,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2007, 614 (November): 56–73.Google Scholar
15.Dirks, Kurt T. and Skarlicki, Daniel P., “Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues,” in Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, Kramer, Roderick M. and Cook, Karen S., eds. (New York: Russell Sage, 2002), pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
16.Kramer, Roderick M., “Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions,” Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50: 569–598.Google Scholar
17.Kramer, Roderick M. and Cook, Karen S., eds., Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches (New York: Russell Sage, 2004).Google Scholar
18.Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R., Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996).Google Scholar
19.Tyler, Tom R., “The psychology of public dissatisfaction with government,” in What Is It About Government that Americans Dislike?, Hibbing, John R. and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, eds. (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 227–242.Google Scholar
20.Kinder, Donald R., Peters, Mark D., Abelson, Robert P., and Fiske, Susan T., “Presidential prototypes,” Political Behavior, 1980, 2(4): 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana, “Schematic assessments of presidential candidates,” American Political Science Review 1986, 80(2): 521–540.Google Scholar
22.Larimer, , Hannagan, , and Smith, .Google Scholar
23.Hibbing, and Theiss-Morse, .Google Scholar
24.Hibbing, John R. and Alford, John R., “Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators,” American Journal of Political Science 2004, 48(1): 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Smith, Kevin B., Larimer, Christopher W., Littvay, Levente, and Hibbing, John R., “Evolutionary theory and political leadership: Why certain people do not trust decisionmakers,” Journal of Politics 2007, 69(2): 283–297.Google Scholar
26.Hibbing, and Alford, , p. 72.Google Scholar
27.Hibbing, and Alford, .Google Scholar
28.Van Vugt, Mark, Jepson, Sarah F., Hart, Claire M., and De Cremer, David, “Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2004, 40(1):1–13.Google Scholar
29.Boehm, Christopher, “Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy,” Current Anthropology 1993, 34(3): 227–254.Google Scholar
30.Boehm, Christopher, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 44–46.Google Scholar
31.Boehm, , 1993.Google Scholar
32.Boehm, Christopher, “Egalitarianism and political intelligence,” in Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations, Whiten, Andrew and Byrne, Richard W., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 341–364.Google Scholar
33.Erdal, David and Whiten, Andrew, “On human egalitarianism: An evolutionary product of Machiavellian status escalation?” Current Anthropology 1994, 35(2): 175–183.Google Scholar
34.Erdal, David and Whiten, Andrew, “Egalitarianism and Machiavellian intelligence in human evolution,” in Modeling the Early Human Mind, Mellars, Paul and Gibson, Kathleen R., eds. (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, McDonald Institute Monograph, 1996), pp. 139–150.Google Scholar
35.Erdal, and Whiten, , 1994, p. 177.Google Scholar
36.Cross, Susan E. and Madson, Laura, “Models of the self: Self-construals and gender,” Psychological Bulletin 1997, 122(1): 5–37.Google Scholar
37.Gabriel, Shira and Gardner, Wendi L., “Are there ‘his’ and ‘hers’ types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 77(3): 642–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Eagly, Alice H. and Karau, Steven J., “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders,” Psychological Review 2002, 109(3): 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Eagly, Alice H., Johannesen-Schmidt, Mary C., and van Engen, Marloes L., “Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men,” Psychological Bulletin 2003, 129(4): 569–591.Google Scholar
40.Eagly, , Johannesen-Schmidt, , and Engen, , p. 583.Google Scholar
41.Judge, Timothy A., Piccolo, Ronald F., and Ilies, Remus, “The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research,” Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, 89(1): 36–51.Google Scholar
42.Orbell, John, Dawes, Robyn, and Schwartz-Shea, Perregrine, “Trust, social categories, and individuals: The case of gender,” Motivation and Emotion 1994, 18(2): 109–128.Google Scholar
43.Alexander, Deborah and Andersen, Kristi, “Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits,” Political Research Quarterly 1993, 46(3): 527–545.Google Scholar
44.Eckel, Catherine C. and Grossman, Philip J., “Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator game experiments,” The Economic Journal 1998, 108 (May): 726–735.Google Scholar
45.Huddy, Leonie and Terkildsen, Nayda, “The consequences of gender stereotyping for women candidates at different levels and types of office,” Political Research Quarterly 1993a, 46(3): 503–525.Google Scholar
46.Huddy, Leonie and Terkildsen, Nayda, “Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates,” American Journal of Political Science 1993b, 37(1): 119–147.Google Scholar
47.Larimer, , Hannagan, , and Smith, .Google Scholar
48.Leeper, Mark, “The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at voter inference,” American Politics Quarterly 1991, 19(2): 248–261.Google Scholar
49.Cindy Simon Rosenthal, When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
50.Van Vugt, Mark and Spisak, Brian R., “Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups,” Psychological Science 2008, 19(9): 854–858.Google Scholar
51.Larimer, , Hannagan, , and Smith, .Google Scholar
52.Eagly, and Johannesen-Schmidt, , p. 287.Google Scholar
53.Boehm, , 1993, 1999.Google Scholar
54.Knauft, Bruce, “Reply to Erdal and Whiten,” Current Anthropology 1994, 35(2): 181–182.Google Scholar
55.Knauft, , p. 182.Google Scholar
56.Boehm, , 1999, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
57.Güth, Werner, “On ultimatum bargaining experiments – A personal review,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1995, 22(3): 255–268.Google Scholar
58.Henrich, Joseph, Boyd, Robert, Bowles, Samuel, Camerer, Colin, Fehr, Ernst, and Gintis, Herbert, and McElreath, Richard, “In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies,” American Economic Review, 2001, 91(2): 73–78.Google Scholar
59.Geary, , pp. 218–220.Google Scholar
60.Dunbar, Robin, Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
61.Falk, .Google Scholar
62.Hall, .Google Scholar
63.Geary, , pp. 164–165.Google Scholar
64.Eckel, Catherince C. and Grossman, Philip J., “Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games,” Economic Inquiry 2001, 39(2): 171–188.Google Scholar
65.Ortmann, Andreas and Tichy, Lisa K., “Gender differences in the laboratory: Evidence from prisoner's dilemma games,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1999, 39(3): 327–339.Google Scholar
66.Nowell, Clifford and Tinkler, Sarah, “The influence of gender on the provisions of a public good,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1994, 25(1): 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67.Hannagan, Rebecca J. and Larimer, Christopher W., “Does gender composition affect group decision outcomes? Evidence from a laboratory experiment,” Political Behavior 2010, 32 (1): 51–67.Google Scholar
68.Shawn Burke, C., Sims, Dana E., Lazzara, Elizabeth H., and Sala, Eduardo, “Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration,” The Leadership Quarterly 2007, 18(6): 606–632.Google Scholar
69.Van Vugt, Mark and Kurzban, Rob, “Cognitive and social adaptations for leadership and followership: Evolutionary game theory and group dynamics,” in Evolution and the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Social Cognition, Fargas, Joseph P., Haselton, Martie G., and von Hippel, William, eds. (New York: Psychology Press, 2007), p. 240.Google Scholar
70.Hibbing, and Alford, .Google Scholar
71.Smith, et al.Google Scholar
72.Nowak, Martin A., Page, Karen M., and Sigmund, Karl, “Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game,” Science September 8, 2000(289): 1773–1775.Google Scholar
73.Güth, Werner and Tietz, Reinhard, “Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results,” Journal of Economic Psychology 1990, 11(3):417–449.Google Scholar
74.Gujarati, Damodar N., Basic Econometrics, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), p. 124.Google Scholar
75.Boehm, , 1999.Google Scholar
76.Eagly, and Johannesen-Schmidt, , p. 290.Google Scholar
77.Van Vugt, et al.Google Scholar
78.Eagly, and Johannesen-Schmidt, , p. 287.Google Scholar
79.Huddy, and Terkildsen, , 1993a.Google Scholar
80.Hernson, Paul S., Celeste Lay, J., and Stokes, Atiya Kai, “Women running ‘as women’: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter targeting strategies,” Journal of Politics 2003, 65(1): 244–255.Google Scholar
81.Kam, Cindy D., Wilking, Jennifer R., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J., “Beyond the ‘narrow data base’: Another convenience sample for experimental research,” Political Behavior 2007, 29(4): 415–440.Google Scholar
82.Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, “The growth and development of experimental research in political science,” American Political Science Review 2006, 100(4): 627–636.Google Scholar
83.Druckman, James N. and Kam, Cindy D., “Students as experimental participants: A defense of the ‘narrow data base,”’ Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1498843 (accessed March 1, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84.Smith, et al.Google Scholar
85.Orbell, , Dawes, , and Schwartz-Shea, .Google Scholar
86.Ortmann, and Tichy, .Google Scholar
87.Solnick, Sara, “Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game,” Economic Inquiry 2001, 39(2): 189–200.Google Scholar
88.Sell, Jane, “Gender, Strategies, and Contributions to Public Goods,” Social Psychology Quarterly. 1997, 60(3): 252–265.Google Scholar