IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v614y2007i1p56-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Ambition and Gender Among Decision Makers

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher W. Larimer

    (University of Northern Iowa)

  • Rebecca J. Hannagan

    (Northern Illinois University)

  • Kevin B. Smith

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher W. Larimer & Rebecca J. Hannagan & Kevin B. Smith, 2007. "Balancing Ambition and Gender Among Decision Makers," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 614(1), pages 56-73, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:614:y:2007:i:1:p:56-73
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716207305272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716207305272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716207305272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stokes, Donald E., 1966. "Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(1), pages 19-28, March.
    2. John R. Hibbing & John R. Alford, 2004. "Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 62-76, January.
    3. Miller, Arthur H. & Wattenberg, Martin P. & Malanchuk, Oksana, 1986. "Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 521-540, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klaus Abbink & Jordi Brandts, 2016. "Political autonomy and independence: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 461-496, July.
    2. Heller, William B. & Sieberg, Katri K., 2010. "Honor among thieves: Cooperation as a strategic response to functional unpleasantness," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 351-362, September.
    3. Robert Huckfeldt, 1990. "Structure, Indeterminacy and Chaos," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(4), pages 413-433, October.
    4. David Knoke & Anne Macke & Marcus Felson, 1980. "Using social indicators to forecast partisan alignments in congressional election years," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 47-61, January.
    5. Jordan Mansell, 2020. "Causation and Behavior: The Necessity and Benefits of Incorporating Evolutionary Thinking into Political Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1677-1698, September.
    6. Ron Shachar, 2003. "Party loyalty as habit formation," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 251-269.
    7. John A. Sautter & Levente Littvay & Brennen Bearnes, 2007. "A Dual-Edged Sword: Empathy and Collective Action in the Prisoner's Dilemma," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 614(1), pages 154-171, November.
    8. Janfry Sihite & Sofjan Assauri & Rizal Edy Halim, 2018. "Brand Promise and Reputation Against the Campaign of a Political Party," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 3), pages 227-240.
    9. Martin Fochmann & Björn Jahnke & Andreas Wagener, 2019. "Does the reliability of institutions affect public good contributions? Evidence from a laboratory experiment," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 66(3), pages 434-458, July.
    10. Maciej A. Górecki & Natalia Letki, 2021. "Social Norms Moderate the Effect of Tax System on Tax Evasion: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(4), pages 727-746, September.
    11. Andreas Schedler, 1998. "The Normative Force of Electoral Promises," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 191-214, April.
    12. Jan Sauermann & Ulrich Glassmann, 2014. "Restraining free-riders: The effects of actor types and decision rules in the public goods game," Rationality and Society, , vol. 26(3), pages 290-319, August.
    13. Peter Grand & Guido Tiemann, 2013. "Projection effects and specification bias in spatial models of European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(4), pages 497-521, December.
    14. Gilliam, Franklin D. Jr. & Bales, Susan Nall, 2001. "Strategic Frame Analysis: Reframing America's Youth," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt5sk7r6gk, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:614:y:2007:i:1:p:56-73. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.