The Role of Social Dominance Orientation and Patriotism in the Evaluation of Minority and Female Leaders

This research broadens our understanding of racial and gender bias in leader evaluations by merging implicit leadership theory and social dominance perspectives. Across two experimental studies (291 participants), we tested the prediction that bias in leader evaluations stemming from White and masculine leader standards depends on the extent to which people favor hierarchical group relationships (SDO) and their level of patriotism. Employing the Goldberg paradigm, participants read identical leadership speeches attributed to either a woman or a man described as either a minority (Black or Latino/a) or a majority (White) group member. Results show SDO negatively predicted evaluations of minority and female leaders and patriotism positively predicted evaluations of White leaders. Abstract Word Count = 146Word Count = 146 Minority and female leader evaluations 3 The Role of Social Dominance Orientation and Patriotism in the Evaluation of Minority and Female Leaders In America, White men are disproportionately represented in top influence wielding bodies, from presidents of college campuses, to Fortune 500 Boardrooms, to the United States Senate. In the business world, leadership in Fortune 500 companies is dominated by White men: White men hold 95.5% of board chair positions with minority men (3.9%), White women (2.0%), and minority women (.6%) significantly underrepresented in these positions (Alliance for Board Diversity, 2011). In politics, although White men account for only 34% of the electorate (U.S. Census, 2012), 67% of the seats are occupied by White men in the 2013 US Congress. Both women and minorities are underrepresented in the US Congress: women account for 52% of the electorate (U.S. Census, 2012) and only 18.5% of the congressional seats and minorities account for 27.1% of the electorate and only 16.8% of the congressional seats (File, 2013; Manning, 2014). The difficulty of reaching elite leadership positions for minorities and women arises in part because they do not fit preconceived notions of American leaders that revolve around masculinity and being White (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rosette, Leonardelli, & Phillips, 2008). However, not everyone may endorse these notions of leadership, and in rejecting these traditional images of leadership, they may show a leadership bias in favor of minorities and women. In this research, we seek to understand when people support and when they may reject the White and male leader standards. By merging an implicit leadership theory perspective with a social dominance perspective, we argue the extent to which people endorse or reject the masculine and White leader standards depends on the extent to which they favor hierarchical group relationships and adhere to the hierarchy-enhancing ideology of patriotism. Thus, the Minority and female leader evaluations 4 present research adds to the paucity of research investigating individual differences that may influence how people perceive non-traditional leaders. Leader Prototypes Gender, racial, and ethnic identities influence the type of person we see as “fitting” the preconceived notion of a leader. These lay conceptions of what it means to be a leader are called implicit leadership theories, or leader prototypes (Forsyth & Nye, 2008; Lord & Maher, 1991). Leader prototypes are important because individuals who are seen as fitting the image of a leader are evaluated more positively than less prototypical leaders (Eagly &Karau;, 2002; Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Lord & Maher, 1991). These intuitive beliefs about leaders often reflect characteristics associated with traditional leaders and can result in biased perceptions and evaluations of people who do not fit these prototypes, such as women and minorities (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008). Ample research demonstrates implicit leadership theories are culturally masculine and reflect the dominant race (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011; Rosette et al., 2008). The impact of the masculine standard applied to leadership is evident in less favorable attitudes toward female than male leaders and greater difficulty women have in both attaining and being viewed as effective in top leadership roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002). According to the role congruity perspective, bias against women in the domain of leadership emerges from the conflicting expectations between the female gender role and the leader role (Eagly, 2004; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001). The stereotypic beliefs that women “take care” and men “take charge” undergird these biases (Heilman, 2001; Hoyt, 2010). Men, as opposed to women, are seen as possessing traits that ‘fit’ with the leadership role because the agentic qualities used to describe men—emphasizing confidence, self-reliance, and dominance—are the same as those Minority and female leader evaluations 5 used to describe effective leaders (Deaux & Kite, 1993; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000; Williams & Best, 1990). In addition to a masculinity standard, lay theories about the traits and qualities of leaders also impose a White standard. That is, being White is a central component of the leader prototype in America (Rosette et al., 2008). Examining leadership within business settings, Rosette and colleagues (2008) argue this White standard is established through the prototype development process: both historical and persistent exposure to Whites in leadership positions results in the incorporation of race into people’s leadership prototypes. This White standard contributes to a pro-White leadership bias (Gündemir, Homan, de Dreu, & van Vugt, 2014). Social Dominance Perspective While prototypes of leaders may lead people to view non-traditional (i.e., women and racial/ethnic minorities) less favorably, perhaps some people do not disparage these leaders or even support them over traditional White male leaders. In this research, we propose that the extent to which people support or reject the masculine and White leadership standards will be moderated by the extent to which people endorse hierarchical group relationships. According to social dominance theory, group-based hierarchies are fundamental to most societies (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). People vary, however, in how much they endorse these hierarchical group relationships—an individual difference termed social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Higher, as opposed to lower, levels of SDO are associated with endorsing ideologies, policies, and practices that maintain group dominance rather than those that ease inequality. While SDO is distinct from traditional measures of prejudice, it is an individual difference variable that strongly predicts individuals’ prejudicial attitudes toward social groups, Minority and female leader evaluations 6 including attitudes towards Blacks and women (Christopher & Mull, 2006; Christopher & Wojda, 2008; Ho et al., 2012; Levin et al., 2012; Pratto, et al., 1994; Sibley, Robertson, & Wilson, 2006). SDO is also related to ingroup preference indirectly through social identity processes (i.e., ingroup identity; Levin & Sidanius, 1999); however, research on SDO has underscored its power to predict outgroup derogation, perhaps because of its focus on the need and desire to dominate members of low-status groups (Huddy, 2004). In this research we test the prediction that those with a psychological orientation toward unequal group relations and dominance, that is, those high in social dominance orientation, will demonstrate a bias against minority and female leaders. Hierarchical social systems are maintained in part through hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, meaning “consensually held values, attitudes, beliefs, or cultural ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for group inequality, or even the oppression of some groups by others” (Hewstone, Stroebe, & Jonas, 2012, p. 455). Those who have a strong SDO tend to endorse many legitimizing ideologies including traditional gender roles and patriotism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Research examining the role of hierarchy legitimizing myths in biases toward female and racial/ethnic minority leaders is nascent. Not surprisingly, one potent legitimizing myth that predicts evaluations of women in non-traditional roles is gender role beliefs, with more traditional beliefs about women predicting less favorable evaluations of women in non-traditional roles (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000; Simon & Hoyt, 2008). Conservatism, another hierarchy legitimizing ideology, also has been linked to discrimination against women in employment decisions, whereas the hierarchy attenuating ideology of liberalism was associated with showing favor toward women (Hoyt, 2012). These different patterns of bias were driven by their relative adherence to or rejection of traditional gender roles Minority and female leader evaluations 7 (Hoyt, 2012). Similarly, individuals with more conservative values and traditional beliefs devalue and negatively evaluate President Obama (Crawford & Bhatia, 2012; Dirilen-Gümüş, Cross, & Dönmez, 2012; Hehman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 2011), whereas individuals with more liberal and non-traditional values support President Obama (Craemer, Shaw, Edwards & Jefferson, 2013; Dirilen-Gümüş et al., 2012). Research, however, has yet to investigate how legitimizing ideologies influence perceptions of African American leaders beyond Obama. In this research, we examine how ideologies influence perceptions of female and racial/ethnic minority leaders more generally. Furthermore, we investigate a novel and important legitimizing ideology that may guide these prototype fit processes: patriotism. Patriotism. Patriotism, or national attachment, represents one’s commitment to and love for a nation. Patriotic individuals are loyal to the welfare and success of the national group and they identify strongly with the nation (Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). The American identity is one that is infused with a “White male norm” (Devos & Banaji, 2005, p. 449). Devos and colleagues have shown the category of ‘American’ is implicitly associated with one particular ethnic group: ‘White’ (Devos & Banaji, 2005; Devos, Gavin, & Quintana, 2010), and this association is stronger the more people implicitly identify with America. In further support of the association between America and the White race, researchers have found positive associations between patriotic and ethnic identification for White Americans, but negative relationships for racial and ethnic minority group members (e.g., Latino or AfricanAmericans; Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin, & Pratto, 1997). As Levin and colleagues describe it: “although patriotism implied an affirmation of one’s ethnic identity among dominant groups, it implied a negation of one’s ethnic identity among subordinate groups” (Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998, p. 398). Minority and female leader evaluations 8 Patriotism plays an important role in helping justify the existing social system and defending “national institutions, arrangements, and authority figures” (van der Toorn, Nail, Liviatan, & Jost, 2014, p. 52). American patriotism, thus, serves in part to defend a system with masculine and White standards for its leaders (Hoyt, 2014; Rosette et al., 2008). Years of system justification research has shown that these motives to defend the status quo drive favoritism towards society’s most powerful groups, rather than antipathy toward low-status groups (Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). We predict that majority group members who are more, as opposed to less, attached to their American ingroup will be more likely to support prototypical American leaders: White male leaders. The Current Research The primary goal of this research is to gain a more sophisticated understanding of factors that predict gender and racial bias in leader evaluations. Most research examining these social identity-based biases focus on factors associated with the leader or the leader role that might highlight the mismatch between women or minorities and the leader role (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Heilman & Okimoto, 2008; Rosette et al. 2008). In this research we take a novel perspective to understanding these biases by focusing on individual differences that predict either support for or rejection of traditional leader prototypes. In this work we merge both implicit leadership theory and social dominance perspectives to better understand leader evaluation biases from the perceiver’s perspective. Specifically, we independently examine the impact of people’s general psychological orientation toward dominance and unequal group relations (SDO) as well as the specific hierarchy-enhancing ideology of patriotism on racialand gender-biased leader evaluations. By doing this, we shift the focus from the target of the bias to the one making biased evaluations. Minority and female leader evaluations 9 Across two studies we test the prediction that the racial and gender bias demonstrated in leader evaluations is moderated by the extent to which people favor hierarchical group relationships and endorse the hierarchy legitimizing myth of patriotism. We predict those with a greater preference for inequality among social groups and those with a greater attachment to America will demonstrate a bias in favor of White and male leaders and in disfavor of minority and female leaders. Those who reject notions of inequality among social groups and show low levels of American patriotism are predicted to show a bias in the opposite direction. Finally, the pattern of bias may differ across these two belief systems. American intergroup biases can result from either outgroup-directed hostility or ingroup-directed favoritism (Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014). Given the association between SDO and outgroup hostility and patriotism and preference for the dominant group, SDO-based bias may be driven by lowered evaluations of minorities and women, whereas patriotism-based bias may be shown through preferences for Whites and men. We test these predictions across two studies, testing two different racial/ethnic minority groups (Black leaders in Study 1 and Latino/a leaders in Study 2). Given the ideological asymmetry within social dominance theory (Kteily, Sidanius, & Levin, 2011; Fang, Sidanius, & Pratto, 1998; Peña & Sidanius, 2002), we focused solely on White participants for the purposes of our studies. Social dominance theory assumes a greater motivation to maintain the status quo for high-status, relative to low-status, group members. Supporting these ideological asymmetry predictions, research shows that the link between SDO and hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchyattenuating beliefs are not the same across social groups in a hierarchy; specifically, the links are stronger for high status group members and weaker or even reversed for low status group members (Sidanius, Pratto, & Rabinowitz, 1994). Finally, we employ the Goldberg (1968) experimental paradigm such that participants read identical information, in this case a leadership Minority and female leader evaluations 10 speech, and the leader is identified as either female or male and as either a member of a majority or minority racial/ethnic group. Study 1 Method Participants. We recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to voluntarily participate in a study examining evaluations of gubernatorial candidates (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Weinberg, Freese, & McElhattan, 2014). Fifty-one participants indicated a race/ethnicity other than White, and 151 identified as White. Fourteen of the White participants failed the manipulation check leaving a final sample size of 137 (44.5% female; 55.5% male; median age = 33). Procedure and manipulations. After providing informed consent, participants completed a survey including measures of their social dominance orientation and patriotism before evaluating a gubernatorial candidate. We presented campaign statements purportedly written by a political candidate in an ostensible upcoming gubernatorial election. The race and the gender of the candidates were manipulated through the use of raceand gender-specific first names, as well as a brief introduction of the candidate before the campaign statement. The Black candidates’ speeches were preceded with one of these two descriptions, depending on the gender condition: “Lakisha (Jamal) Williams is an African American who has lived in America all of her (his) life. This is the first time she (he) is running for the office of Governor.” The White candidates’ speeches were preceded with this description: “Emily (Greg) Smith is an American who has lived in America all of her (his) life. This is the first time she (he) is running for the office of Governor.” The term “Caucasian” or “White” was omitted given people assume 1 In both studies, participants were compensated $0.50 for their participation. Participation was restricted to people 18 years and older who reside in America Minority and female leader evaluations 11 individuals with stereotypically White names (such as Emily and Greg) to be White (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) and the term American is associated with White (Devos & Banaji, 2005). Furthermore, including race information for Whites is colloquially awkward as racial/ethnic minorities status is often specified (African American, Asian American), whereas majority status (White/Caucasian American) is not. The content of the two campaign statements was based on previous research and included both task-oriented and relationship-oriented statements (Cohen, Solomon, Maxfield, Pyszczynski, & Greenberg, 2004; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Hoyt, Simon, & Reid, 2009). Similar to previous research (Hoyt & Burnette, 2013; Hoyt et al., 2009), the assignment of political statements to candidate was counterbalanced. After reading the campaign statement, participants evaluated the leader, responded to manipulation check items, and completed demographic questions. Measures Participants responded to all measures using a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Social Dominance Orientation. Participants responded to the well-validated 16-item SDO scale from Pratto et al. (1994). Sample items include “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups” and “It would be good if groups could be equal” (R; α = .96). Patriotism. We assessed participants’ patriotism using a 9-item measure adapted from Huddy and Khatib (2007) and McFarland (2010). Example items include: “Being American is important to me” and “I’m for my country, right or wrong” (α = .93). Leader evaluation. Participants evaluated the candidates using a 23-item measure developed working from the 6-items measure used by Hoyt and Burnette (2013). Sample items include “This Minority and female leader evaluations 12 candidate would be an ideal governor,” “I would vote for this candidate,” and “I support this candidate” (α = .97). Manipulation check. Participants were asked to indicate the race/ethnicity of the candidate they read about and were given four options: African American, Caucasian American, Latino American, and Other. They were also asked to indicate the gender of the candidate, male or female. Participants who did not correctly answer either of these questions were excluded from analyses. Because the race of the White candidates was not specified as White, participants in the White condition who indicated White or Other were retained for analyses. Results and Discussion Table 1 presents the scale means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study variables. To test the hypotheses that both leader race and leader gender will moderate the relationship between ideologies (SDO and patriotism) and leader evaluation, we tested multiple additive moderation models using Hayes’ (2012) PROCESS macro. This macro uses an ordinary least squares or logistic regression-based path analytical framework to analyze statistical models involving moderation, mediation, and their combination, termed conditional process modeling. Specifically, we employed Model 2, regressing support for the leader on ideologies, leader race (1= Black, 2=White), leader gender (1=female, 2=male), and two new variables constructed as the product of ideology and race and ideology and gender. In all analyses, we controlled for the counterbalanced candidate statement. First, examining social dominance orientation, neither candidate race nor gender predicted evaluations (ps > .80), but SDO did significantly predict evaluations (B = -.46, p < .001). This direct effect of SDO was unexpected, but does not impede our hypothesis testing. That is, given the general tendency for people with higher levels of SDO Minority and female leader evaluations 13 to evaluate leaders more negatively in this research paradigm, is there also a bias such that this negative evaluation is stronger for minority and female leaders? Next, the interactions between SDO and both race (B = .44, p = .020) and gender (B = .42, p = .025) were significant. To further probe the significant two-way interactions, we conducted separate OLS regressions examining the interaction between candidate race and SDO, as well as candidate gender and SDO on leader evaluation. First, the conditional effects of the significant interaction between SDO and candidate race (B = .37, p = .045) reveal the negative relationship between SDO and evaluation is significantly stronger for the evaluation of Black candidates (B = -.65, p < .001) than the evaluation of White candidates (B = -.28, p = .037; see Figure 1). Similarly, the conditional effects of the interaction between SDO and candidate gender (B = .36, p = .054) reveal the negative relationship between SDO and evaluation is significantly stronger for the evaluation of female candidates (B = -.65, p < .001) than the evaluation of male candidates (B = -.29, p = .027; see Figure 1). We then examined the effects of patriotism. No main effects of individual predictors emerged (p’s > .70). The interactions between patriotism and both race (B = .58, p = .002) and gender (B = .38, p = .040) were significant. Next, we further probed the two-way interactions. First, the conditional effects of the interaction between patriotism and candidate race (B = .58, p = .003) reveal a marginally significant negative relationship between patriotism and evaluation for the Black candidates (B = -.22, p =.086), but a significant and positive relationship for the White candidate (B = .36, p = .011; see Figure 2). The conditional effects of the interaction between patriotism and candidate gender (B = .39, p = .042) reveal there is a negative relationship between patriotism and evaluation of female candidates (B = -.19, p = .182) and a positive relationship for male candidates (B = .20, p = .112; see Figure 2). Minority and female leader evaluations 14 We also explored if participant gender had any effects on the outcomes. First, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance examining the effect of participant gender on patriotism and SDO; there was no effect on patriotism, but consistent with the literature, women did report lower levels of SDO (M=1.98; SD=1.00) than men (M=2.52; SD= 1.09; F(1, 135)= 8.77, p=.004; h=.06). Importantly, the interactions remain significant when adding gender as a covariate to the analyses. In sum, these results show racial and gender leader evaluation bias is moderated by both SDO and patriotism. Specifically, greater levels of SDO strongly and negatively predicted evaluations of the female and the Black leaders. SDO did not positively predict evaluations of the male and White leaders, but the negative relationship was significantly less strong. Patriotism positively predicted evaluations of White leaders and marginally, negatively predicted evaluations of Black leaders. Patriotism also predicted positive evaluations of the male leader and negative evaluations of the female leader, but neither relationship reached statistical significance. Study 2 Study 1 provided an initial demonstration that SDO and patriotism moderate people’s evaluations of political candidates based on the candidates’ gender and race. Study 2 was designed to replicate and extend these findings to another minority group: Latino/a Americans. Method Participants. We again recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Forty participants indicated a race/ethnicity other than White, and 166 identified as White. Twelve of the White participants failed the manipulation check leaving a final sample size of 154 participants (43.5% female; 56.5% male; median age = 32.5). Minority and female leader evaluations 15 Procedure and manipulations. The procedure for this study was identical to Study 1. Participants provided informed consent and were first asked to respond to questionnaires assessing their SDO and patriotism. Next, participants were asked to evaluate the gubernatorial candidate. In the Latino leader condition, participants read one of the following candidate descriptions depending on condition: “Maria (Miguel) Hernandez is a Latina (Latino) American who has lived in America all of her (his) life. This is the first time she (he) is running for the office of Governor.” The White candidate descriptions were identical to Study 1. Again, the assignment of political statements to the candidate’s sex was counterbalanced. After completing these evaluations, participants responded to the manipulation check and demographic questions. Results and Discussion Table 1 presents the scale means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations. We used the same analytical approach as in Study 1 to test the hypotheses that leader ethnicity (1= Latino, 2=White) and leader gender (1=female, 2=male) will moderate the relationship between ideologies (SDO and patriotism) and leader evaluation. Neither SDO, candidate race, nor candidate gender predicted candidate evaluations (all p’s > .20), but both the interactions of SDO and ethnicity (B = .56, p = .002) and gender (B = .37, p = .044) were significant. We probed the two-way interactions with OLS regressions examining the interaction between candidate ethnicity and SDO, as well as candidate gender and SDO on leader evaluation. First, the conditional effects of the significant interaction between SDO and candidate ethnicity (B = .57, p = .002) reveal a significant negative relationship between SDO and evaluation for the Latino candidate (B = -.37, p = .004) and a non-significant but positive relation for the White candidate (B =.20, p = .120; see Figure 3). Similarly, the conditional effects of the interaction between SDO and candidate gender (B = .35, p = .061) reveal the Minority and female leader evaluations 16 relationship between SDO and evaluation is significant and negative for the evaluation of female candidate (B =-.25, p = .049) and non-significant and positive for the male candidate (B =.10, p = .452; see Figure 3). Next, we examined the effects of patriotism. There were no significant effects of candidate race, patriotism, or candidate gender on evaluations (although candidate gender was marginally associated such that the female candidate was evaluated more positively; B = -.30, p = .087). Once again the interaction between patriotism and ethnicity (B = .36, p = .022) was significant but the interaction between gender and patriotism was not significant (p = .703). We further probed the significant interaction with a separate OLS regression examining patriotism, candidate ethnicity and their interaction (B = .33, p = .033) and found the conditional effect of patriotism on evaluation was non-significant and negative for Latino leaders (B = -.11, p = .305) but significant and positive for White leaders (B = .22, p =.048; see Figure 4). Exploring if participant gender had any effects on the outcomes, a MANOVA revealed no difference between women and men on patriotism, but once again women reported lower levels of SDO (M=1.81; SD=.82) than men (M=2.39; SD= .97; F(1, 152)= 12.44, p<.001; h=.09). Again the interactions remain significant (the interaction between gender and SDO moves from p= .04 to p= .05) when adding gender as a covariate. The results from Study 2 demonstrate again that racial and gender leader evaluation bias is moderated by both SDO and patriotism. Once again, greater levels of SDO strongly and negatively predicted evaluations of the female and the minority leader (i.e., Latino/a leaders). In this study, SDO positively, yet not significantly, predicted evaluations of the male and White leaders. Finally, patriotism was once again positively associated with evaluations of the White leader; however, patriotism did not predict gender-biased evaluations. Minority and female leader evaluations 17 General Discussion Although there has been an increase in accepting minorities and women as leaders over the last half century, these non-traditional leaders still have more difficulty than Whites and men in being evaluated positively for top-level leadership positions, from the boardroom to the senate floor. The absence of non-traditional leaders both contributes to and is a product of the masculine and White standards that represent the prototypical leader in America (Hoyt, 2010, Rosette et al., 2008; Eagly & Chin, 2010). In this research we take an individual differences perspective to investigate factors that predict either support for or rejection of these traditional leader prototypes. Specifically, we investigated whether and how people’s endorsement of hierarchical group relationships and their patriotism predict their response to leaders who are either congruent or incongruent with the White and male leader standards. In support of predictions, those with a greater levels of social dominance orientation and patriotism for America showed bias in favor of White and male leaders or in disfavor of minority and female leaders, whereas those with lower levels of patriotism and SDO show an opposite pattern of bias. That is, people with lower levels of SDO and patriotism reported leadership biases favorable to women and minorities or unfavorable to men and Whites. Importantly, the effects of SDO and patriotism on racial and gender bias in leader evaluations are independent of each other; results across both studies show the same pattern when covarying out the other factor. Across two studies, SDO negatively predicted evaluations of racial minority and female leaders, but did not reliably predict positively evaluations of racial majority and male leaders. Conversely, patriotism positively predicted evaluations of racial majority but did not reliably predict negative evaluations of racial minority leaders. We must interpret the relationship between patriotism and gender bias with caution, as the interaction between candidate gender Minority and female leader evaluations 18 and patriotism was only significant in Study 1 and neither simple main effect (evaluation of the male or female leader) was significant. Overall, both SDO and patriotism predicted bias in the evaluations of leaders, but in opposite ways. These findings support Greenwald and Pettigrew’s (2014) thesis arguing that, in addition to negative feelings toward an outgroup, ingroup favoritism can be responsible for discrimination in modern day bias. The present research suggests specific individual differences may differentially predict ingroup love versus outgroup hate. Thus, the present research has important theoretical implications for predicting whether individuals express bias or prejudice in the form of ingroup favoritism, outgroup derogation, or both. Our research provides a more nuanced understanding of racial/ethnic and gender biases in the leadership domain and has important theoretical and practical implications. First, we broaden the traditional scope of implicit leadership theories by merging this perspective with an SDO perspective. Much other work takes a target perspective by focusing on leaders’ traits or behaviors (e.g., Cohen et al., 2004; Hoyt et al., 2009). Here we take a perceiver perspective and show how people’s belief systems and ideologies inform their basic perceptions/evaluations of leaders. Our perspective puts the focus on those who discriminate, as opposed to focusing on facets of the target of discrimination. This research also contributes to a growing literature showing the gender and racial bias in counterstereotypical domains, such as leadership, is not always a bias against women and minorities (Hoyt & Burnette, 2013). Importantly, most of the research examining bias in favor of women in leadership focuses on the situational requirements. For example, researchers have shown people show a preference in favor of female leaders during times of organizational crisis (the glass cliff; Ryan & Haslam, 2007). Additionally, research by Brown, Diekman, and Minority and female leader evaluations 19 Schneider (2011) find that people prefer female leaders compared to male leaders under conditions of threat; of importance to the current findings however, this effect is actually accentuated for people who strongly legitimize the system. Furthermore, in line with our findings, under non-threat conditions, high system legitimizers, but not low legitimizers, showed a preference for male leaders. Together, these findings demonstrate the importance of investigating both individual differences and situational factors to fully understand biases in favor of prototypical or non-prototypical leaders. The present research also has important practical significance for helping to understand, and eventually mitigate, bias in leadership processes. As demonstrated through the literature on implicit leadership theories, leadership is an inherently social process driven in large part by social perceptions. Our findings that subtle cues to a leader’s race and gender can, in concert with ideologies, influence evaluations of leaders is particularly worrisome to the extent that these biases can challenge the rationality of voting preferences. Related research has shown, for example, that prejudicial attitudes influence voting behaviors even among those who do not explicitly endorse prejudicial attitudes (Payne, Krosnick, Pasek, Lelkes, Akhtar, & Tompson, 2009). Ample research shows that subtle cues and unconscious processes can have unintended consequences on voting behavior, contradicting the democratic ideal that our selection of leaders is driven exclusively by logical, deductive deliberation by informed citizens (see also Cohen et al., 2004; Cohen, Ogilvie, Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2005; Landau et al., 2004; Todorov, Mandisodza, Goen, & Hall, 2005). Research has shown people’s reliance on peripheral cues in elections, a situation that would enable these biases, most often occurs in elections for less-visible offices and when people do not have a lot of other information on the candidates (e.g., Miller & Krosnick, 1998). One of Minority and female leader evaluations 20 the most powerful weapons to fight these biases is being aware of them and understanding how these subtle processes can influence evaluations. Additionally, a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of bias in leadership can contribute to designing interventions to attenuate harmful effects. For example, understanding the role of SDO and patriotism in leader bias may enable minority and female political leaders to target certain populations who may be more prone to these biases and develop political strategies to constrain the influence of these factors in actual voting (e.g., Augoustinos & De Garis, 2012). Limitations and Future Research Despite the theoretical advances and practical implications, there are limitations needed to be addressed in future research. First, we relied on a non-student sample, which helps to generalize beyond a college population; however, the sample was limited to White participants only. Future research should also examine racial/ethnic minorities’ perceptions of leaders. Furthermore, in some leadership contexts the White/male leader prototype may be less prevalent than the current context we used (i.e., the gubernatorial role). For example, a meta-analysis by Koenig and colleagues (2011) demonstrates in certain domains, such as educational organizations, stereotypes of leaders appear to be less masculine. Likewise, there may also domains are perceived as less stereotypically “White” than others. Thus, future research should examine perceptions of minority and female leaders across a variety of contexts. Finally, while we were not investigating intersectional identities of gender and race in the present research, future research would benefit from more closely examining how Black women versus Black 2 We explored the three-way interactions between ideology (SDO or patriotism), race/ethnicity, and gender and found no effects in either study. However, we must interpret this with caution given we are underpowered for analyzing three-way interactions. Minority and female leader evaluations 21 men, for example, are perceived in different leadership contexts (e.g., Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012). Conclusion The present research merged an implicit leadership prototype perspective with a social dominance perspective to examine bias against female and minority leaders. Across both studies we found SDO and patriotism for America were related to bias against female and minority leaders and in favor of male and White leaders. These findings expand leadership prototype theory by focusing on the ways in which unique individual differences of perceivers can influence bias of prototypical and non-prototypical leaders. Understanding the role of social dominance beliefs in leader bias may help female and racial minority leaders effectively target populations that are likely to hold negative biases against them and aim to develop political strategies to influence voting behavior. Minority and female leader evaluations22 ReferencesAlliance for Board Diversity (2011). Missing pieces: Women and minorities on Fortune 500boards. Retrieved from http://theabd.org/ABD_datasheet.pdfAugoustinos, M., & De Garis, S. (2012). ‘Too black or not black enough’: Social identitycomplexity in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 42, 564-577. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1868Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakishaand Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American EconomicReview, 94, 991-1013.Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new sourceof inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.doi:10.1177/1745691610393980Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative Ideology and AmbivalentSexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223-230. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.xChristopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wingauthoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 32, 65-73. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.xCohen, F., Ogilvie, D. M., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2005). Americanroulette: The effect of reminders of death on support for George W. Bush in the 2004presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5, 177-187.Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2004). Fatal attraction:the effects of mortality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and Minority and female leader evaluations23 relationship-oriented leaders. Psychological Science, 15, 846-851. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00765.xCraemer, T., Shaw, T. C., Edwards, C., & Jefferson, H. (2013). ‘Race still matters, however...’:Implicit identification with Blacks, pro-Black policy support and the Obamacandidacy. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36, 1047-1069.doi:10.1080/01419870.2011.628999Crawford, J. T., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Birther nation: Political conservatism is associated withexplicit and implicit beliefs that President Barack Obama is foreign. Analyses of SocialIssues and Public Policy (ASAP), 12, 364-376. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01279.xDeaux, K., & Kite, M. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark, & M. A. Paludi(Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 107-139).Westport, CT: Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group.Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White?. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 88, 447-466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.447Devos, T., Gavin, K., & Quintana, F. J. (2010). Say “adios” to the American dream? Theinterplay between ethnic and national identity among Latino and Caucasian Americans.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 37-49. doi:10.1037/a0015868 Dirilen-Gümüş, Ö. Cross, S. E., & Dönmez, A. (2012). Who voted for whom? Comparing supporters of Obama and McCain on value types and personality traits. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 42, 2879-2900. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00965.xEagly, A. H. (2004). Prejudice: Toward a more inclusive understanding. In A. Eagly, R. M.Baron, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and socialconflict: Theory, application, and practice (pp. 45-64). Washington, DC: APA Books. Minority and female leader evaluations24 Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women becomeleaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward femaleleaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders:A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences andsimilarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes, & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), Thedevelopmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers' preferences for charismaticleadership: The influence of follower values and personality. The Leadership Quarterly,12, 153-179. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00074-1Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions andattribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 92, 52-66. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00066-9Fang, C. Y., Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1998). Romance across the social status continuum:Interracial marriage and the ideological asymmetry effect. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 29, 290-305. doi:10.1177/0022022198292002File, T. (2013). The diversifying electorate—Voting rates by race and Hispanic origin in 2012(and other recent elections). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf Minority and female leader evaluations25 Forsyth, D.R. & Nye, J.L. (2008). Seeing and being a leader: The perceptual, cognitive, andinterpersonal roots of conferred influence. Leadership at the Crossroads, 116-131.Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women?. Society, 5, 28-30.Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some:Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69, 669-684.doi:10.1037/a0036056Gündemir, S., Homan, A. C., de Dreu, C. K., & van Vugt, M. (2014). Think Leader, ThinkWhite? Capturing and Weakening an Implicit Pro-White Leadership Bias. PloS one, 9,e83915. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083915Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved fromhttp://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdfHehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2011). Evaluations of presidential performance:Race, prejudice, and perceptions of Americanism. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 47, 430-435. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.011Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women'sascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., & Jonas, K. (Eds.). (2012). An introduction to socialpsychology (Vol. 17). West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.Hoyt, C. L. (2010). Women, men, and leadership: Exploring the gender gap at the top. Socialand Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 484-498. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00274.x Minority and female leader evaluations26 Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Gender bias in employment contexts: A closer examination of the roleincongruity principle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 86-96.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.004Hoyt, C. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicittheories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39,1306-1319. doi:10.1177/0146167213493643Hoyt, C.L., & Chemers, M.M. (2008). Social stigma and leadership: A long climb up a slipperyladder. Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology, 1, 165-180.Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (2009). Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects ofmortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. The LeadershipQuarterly, 20, 233-246. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.016Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. PoliticalPsychology, 25, 947-968. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00404.xHuddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and politicalinvolvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 63-77.Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory:Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo.Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.xKoenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypesmasculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137,616-642. doi:10.1037/a0023557Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalisticattitudes. Political Psychology, 257-274. Minority and female leader evaluations27 Kteily, N. S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2011). Social dominance orientation: Cause or ‘mereeffect’?: Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination againstethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 208-214.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.009Levin, S., Matthews, M., Guimond, S., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Kteily, N., Pitpitan, E. V., &Dover, T. (2012). Assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated andmoderated relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 48, 207-212. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States andIsrael: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation?. Political Psychology, 20, 99-126.doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00138Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizingideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology,19, 373-404. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00109Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions andperformance. Cambridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.Manning, J.E. (2014). Membership of the 113th Congress: A profile. Retrieved fromhttp://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0AMcFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalizedprejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 425-449.Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on electionoutcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 291-330. Minority and female leader evaluations28 Payne, B. K., Krosnick, J. A., Pasek, J., Lelkes, Y., Akhtar, O., & Tompson, T. (2010). Implicitand explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 367–374. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.001Peña, Y., & Sidanius, J. (2002). U.S. patriotism and ideologies of group dominance: A tale ofasymmetry. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 782-790.doi:10.1080/00224540209603936Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: Apersonality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741Rosette, A., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008). The White standard: Racial bias inleader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 758-777. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.758Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward femaleauthority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315-1328.doi:10.1177/0146167200263001Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding theappointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of ManagementReview, 32, 549-572.Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755-768. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x Minority and female leader evaluations29 Sidanius, J., Feshbach, S., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1997). The interface between ethnic andnational attachment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance?. Public Opinion Quarterly,61, 102-133. doi:10.1086/297789Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy andoppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Simon, S., & Hoyt, C. L. (2008). Exploring the gender gap in support for a woman forpresident. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 8, 157-181.doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00167.xTodorov A, Mandisodza AN, Goren A, Hall CC (2005) Inferences of competence from facespredict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.US Census Bureau. (2012). Voting and registration in the election of November 2012. Retrievedfrom:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.htmlvan der Toorn, J., Nail, P. R., Liviatan, I., & Jost, J. T. (2014). My country, right or wrong: Doesactivating system justification motivation eliminate the liberal-conservative gap inpatriotism?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 50-60.Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and resultsof an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruitedsample. Sociological Science, 1, 292-310.Williams, J. E, & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Minority and female leader evaluations30 Table 1. Scale Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study 1 and Study 2Dependent VariableMSD 12 3STUDY 11. Social Dominance Orientation 2.28 1.092. Patriotism3.79 1.17 .23*3. Leader evaluation4.05 1.28 -.40** .04 STUDY 21. Social Dominance Orientation 2.14 .952. Patriotism3.88 1.15 .33**3. Leader evaluation3.87 1.09 -.07.06