Women’s Goals and Their Rejection of Political Careers
Abstract: The institutions of the U.S. government are still dominated by men (Center for American
Women and Politics 2012). We argue that understanding this women’s underrepresentation can be
done, in part, by examining the goals that men and women tend to prefer. We hypothesize that women,
who tend to value communal goals (such as helping others, working with people) (Diekman et. al.,
2010, 2011), will see political careers, similarly to STEM careers, as not fulfilling those communal
goals. In Study 1, we intend to demonstrate that political careers are seen as antithetical to fulfilling
communal goals and, for women, this means that they will not express an interest in a political career.
In Study 2, we demonstrate that goals are malleable. By framing politics as a way to accomplish the
altruistic and communal goals that women have shown desire in achieving, we expect that the political
interest gap will shrink (Diekman et al. 2011). Achieving quality representation cannot be realized until
we understand the causes of women’s lack of interest in running for and holding political office.
1
Twenty years after the so-called ―Year of the Woman,‖ significant gains in achieving quality
political representation for women have not yet been realized (Center for American Women and
Politics 2012). Some would say that progress for women in elected offices will take time, but with
such a slow rate of progress, immediate scholarship on explaining women’s lack of success in
achieving electoral parity is crucial for the advancement of women. The traditional explanations for
women’s underrepresentation have failed to fully explain the lack of women in politics. For instance,
the overwhelming majority of Americans now say they would be willing to vote for a qualified female
candidate (Welch and Sigelman 1982) and explaining the gender gap in elected office by considering
stereotypes of women seems to fail when taking party into account (e.g., Matland and King 2002). As a
result, recent explanations for women’s underrepresentation have focused on explaining why fewer
women run for office, since when women do run, they seem to win at similar rates as men (Lawless
and Fox 2005, 2010).
The long-term goals of our research program are to explain women’s underrepresentation by
focusing on why women do not show an interest in running for office compared to men and offer
potential solutions for closing that gap. Our first specific aim for this project is to show that the reason
why women express disinterest in political careers is because their career goals lie in helping and
working with others (communal goals), which are not perceived to be fulfilled by politics. Our first
working hypothesis is that political careers will be seen as more likely to fulfill agentic than communal
goals. The results of previous work explaining women’s career choices suggest that women have a
preference for communal goals (such as helping and working with others) over agentic goals (such as
power, prestige, and working alone) (Diekman et al. 2010; Diekman et al. 2011). Our second working
hypothesis is that women’s preference for communal goals and their belief that political careers impede
those goals will result in their lack of desire to pursue a political career.
2
The second goal of this project is to identify the factors that might improve women’s interest in
political careers. Drawing on the idea that goals can be activated by a particular context (Diekman et
al. 2011), we anticipate that the goals of women and men are malleable. Our third hypothesis is that
the framing of the activities involved in political careers in communal terms will increase women’s
stated interest in political careers, but will have no effect on men.
Relevant Theory
According to social role theory, individuals adopt the personality traits necessary to succeed in
the roles that they play in society. Since women traditionally occupy roles that involve helping others
(e.g., caring for children), they consequently adopt the communally oriented personality traits (i.e.,
caring, nurturing) essential for success in these positions (Diekman and Eagly 2008). Men’s traditional
roles include leadership positions and require agentic personality traits, such as competitive and
aggressive. The social role perspective posits that the uneven distribution of the sexes in social roles
explains the tendency of men and women to identify as having such agentic and communal
characteristics respectively. As a result of socialization into preferring these roles, women will show
an inclination for communal goals (such as helping and working with others) and should seek out
activities or roles that fulfill these communal goals. Indeed, Diekman et al (2010) hypothesize and find
that female undergraduates have a preference for communal goals over the agentic goals associated
with masculine roles, such as power and recognition.
From this perspective, one explanation for women choosing to avoid a particular career is
because it is incompatible with their communal goals. Diekman and her colleagues’ (2010) research
tested this idea by examining pursuit of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
careers – another area where women have had a difficult time breaking through the glass ceiling. They
find that because of perceptions that the STEM fields are particularly unlikely to fulfill communal
3
career goals, women are unlikely to express interest in STEM careers even when their ability in this
area is high.
Political careers may be analogous to STEM careers. We argue that to the extent that women
view a political career as antithetical to their communal goals, they will be disinterested in running for
office. Thus, by applying Diekman’s theory and findings to a political arena, we posit in Hypothesis 1
that political careers will be seen as fulfilling agentic far more than communal goals, even compared to
other male-stereotypical careers. We offer two addenda to this hypothesis. First, there are many
different levels of political office – such as federal, state, and local. Each of these levels may be
perceived differently in their fulfillment of communal goals. Prior studies have already found that
female gender stereotypes are associated with lower levels of office (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993). We
hypothesize, therefore, that lower levels of office will be perceived to give more opportunities to fulfill
communal goals compared to higher levels of office. Second, there are two different aspects of
political careers – campaigning or running for office and holding office. These too might differ in
affording opportunities to fulfill communal goals. Lawless (2012) found that negative campaigning
and fundraising elicited the most pessimistic responses from respondents when asked how comfortable
they would be in various activities that are essential to running for office. In conjunction with these
findings, we suspect that running for office will be perceived as less likely to fulfill communal goals
than holding office and may be a particularly antithetical to communal goals for women. For example,
the activities involved in running for office – asking for money, competing against an opponent and
negative campaigning – are closely associated with agentic goals of self-promotion, competition, and
focus on the self – and have very little to do with the goals that women prefer, such as helping others,
serving the community, and working with people (Diekman et al. 2010). In contrast, actually holding
office might be nearly as communal as stereotypically female careers because part of holding office
4
involves meeting with constituents and serving one’s community. Considering both running for and
holding office can give us a well-rounded picture of perceptions of the political career.
After receiving anticipated confirmation for Hypothesis 1 – that a political career, in particular
running for a high level office, is not associated with communal goals – we next intend to replicate
Diekman’s finding that the belief that the political career is antithetical to communal goals mediates a
desire to pursue it (Diekman et al. 2010). This is Hypothesis 2: Women’s preference for communal
goals and their belief that political careers, in particular running for high level office, impedes those
goals will cause them to be less interested in a political career.
Despite the anticipated finding that women will generally not prefer a political career, we do not
intend to imply that all hope for the possibility of women entering the political arena is therefore lost.
Indeed, Diekman et al (2011) hypothesize that goals can be situationally activated and, in this way,
highly malleable. In an experiment prompting participants to view STEM careers in either a communal
way (as helping and working with others) or an agentic way (working alone), women’s interest in
STEM careers improved when they thought of the career as fulfilling communal goals. We hope to
extend this theory to political careers. In Hypothesis 3, we posit that framing of political careers – both
holding and running for office – in communal terms will increase women’s stated interest in political
careers, but will have no effect on men.
These hypotheses fit nicely as a deeper understanding of prior studies’ examination of women’s
decisions when choosing whether or not to run for office. In particular, Lawless and Fox’ (Lawless
2012; Lawless and Fox 2005, 2010) combined correlational and in-depth interview approach to
understanding the factors that affect women’s ambition and subsequent consideration of and actually
running for office has yielded important insights into the gender gap in political ambition. By
examining responses from professionals in ―political pipeline‖ careers (lawyers, business executives,
professors, and secondary school teachers), Lawless and Fox were able to examine the decision making
5
processes of those most likely to go into office – women who have already achieved a certain level in
their professional careers. One of the largest obstacles, according to the authors, is that women are less
likely to be recruited by party officials than men. Individual level factors seem to matter too. Women
lack self-confidence, underestimate their chances of winning and their qualifications, and hold
themselves to a higher standard. The stereotypes and perceptions that women hold about their own
chances and qualifications are therefore reinforced by the institutional reality. These studies have been
instrumental in identifying many of the factors that limit women’s ambition to run for office.
By delving further into the psychology of why women do not seem to enjoy the activities
involved in running for and holding office, we hope to expand upon Lawless’ (2012) findings that
some aspects of the political career are distasteful to women. In particular, we expect to show that the
perceptions surrounding political careers do not match with the career goal set that women have.
Rather, the more masculine nature of political careers appeals more to those with more agentic career
goals and the lack of communal aspects of political careers, particularly when considering running for
office, is an impediment to women. However, we expect to demonstrate that having women think
about political careers in communal terms will change their perceptions of a political career and
improve their interest in it. To the best of our knowledge, no experimental work has been done on the
psychology behind why women are choosing not to run for office.
Methods
Study 1 is designed to test our first and second hypotheses that political careers are seen as
impeding communal goals and to the extent that they are perceived to impede communal goals, women
who endorse those goals will be less likely to express interest in political careers. Our experimental
design is a 2 (goal: communal vs agentic goals) x 4 (career type: female-dominated, male-dominated,
running for office, holding office) x 2 (participant sex: male vs female). The first two factors are within
subject, the last factor is between subjects. For each career/activity, participants will rate how likely the
6
respective career path is to fulfill agentic and communal goals on a seven point scale. The list of
communal (working with people, helping others, serving humanity) and agentic goals (power,
achievement, self-promotion, and success) come from prior research (Diekman et al. 2010). The chosen
careers are as follows: traditionally male dominated fields (lawyer and business executive), traditionally
female dominated fields (social worker and nurse), and political careers (candidate for office, City
Council Member, Member of Congress). We can also analyze the data in a 2 (goal: communal vs
agentic) x 3 (aspect/level of political career: candidate for office, City Council Member, Member of
Congress) x 2 (participant sex: male vs female) design to address our hypothesis that lower level office
will be more associated with communal goals compared to higher levels of office and holding office will
be more associated with communal goals compared to running for office. The intended sample size (N)
will be 80 total participants with 40 males and 40 females. The sample will be drawn from an
undergraduate population. Those students choosing to participate will be given either $2 or extra credit
for the course in which they are enrolled in (with instructor approval). We believe that an undergraduate
student sample is an ideal match for this research. While using college students as a convenience sample
has been highly criticized (e.g., Sears 1986), in this instance college aged students present a unique
research opportunity to examine the career thought process during a time in life where future career
choices are being considered and made. Thus, college students are a convenience sample that overlaps
with the characteristics in which we are interested (Druckman and Kam 2011).
Study 2 is designed to test Hypothesis 3, which is that framing political careers in communal terms
will increase women’s stated interest in running for and holding office, but will have no effect on men.
Participants will read a short paragraph that summarizes a life in the day of a political career. This
experiment will be a 2 (goal frame: communal vs agentic) x 2 (aspect of political career: running for
office vs. elected official) x 2 (gender: male vs. female), where all factors will be between subjects.
Participants will randomly be assigned one of the four daily summaries and then answer a questionnaire
7
that is meant to gauge their interest or potential interest in the career about which they read. The total
intended sample size (N) will be 320 with 80 participants (40 male and 40 female) per each of the four
potential daily summaries. Participants will be gathered from an undergraduate population and those
choosing to complete the survey will be awarded $2 mixed with course extra credit (contingent upon
instructor approval). Those participants who complete the survey will also be entered into a drawing for a
chance to win one of two $100 gift cards.
8
References
Center for American Women and Politics. 2012. Women in Elective Office. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University.
Diekman, Amanda B., Elizabeth R. Brown, Amanda M. Johnston, and Emily K. Clark. 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.
Diekman, Amanda B., Emily K. Clark, Amanda M. Johnston, Elizabeth R. Brown, and Mia Steinberg.
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.
Diekman, Amanda B., and Alice H. Eagly. 2008. "Of Men, Women, and Motivation: A Role Congruity
Account." In Handbook of Motivation Science, eds. James Y. Shah and Wendi L. Gardner. New
York: Guilford. 434-447.
Druckman, James N., and Cindy D. Kam. 2011. "Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of
the "Narrow Data Base"." In Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N.
Druckman, Donald Green, James H. Kuklinski and Arthur Lupia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women
Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office. Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 503525.
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2012. Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for
Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for
Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Matland, Richard E., and David C. King. 2002. "Women as Candidates in Congressional Elections." In
Women Transforming Congress, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press. 119-145.
Sears, David O. 1986. College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on
Social Psychology's View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51
(3): 515-530.
Welch, Susan, and Lee Sigelman. 1982. Changes in Public Attitudes toward Women in Politics. Social
Science Quarterly 63 (2): 312-322.
9