Is Being Female an Electoral Strength or Weakness for Kamala Harris?

Kamala Harris

Source: U.S. Congress official photo, public domain

This post was coauthored by Adi Wiezel, an assistant professor at Elon University and first author of the series of studies discussed here.

Within minutes of Joe Biden’s announcement of support for Kamala Harris, commentators began raising the question: Is being a woman a critical handicap to Harris’ chances? The only woman previously to head a major-party presidential ticket, Hillary Clinton, lost to Donald Trump in 2016. This concern has persisted even as Harris has pulled ahead in the polls, with political commentators and letters to the editors of major news outlets expressing concern about continuing sexism in the electorate.

Is this a valid concern? We could keep asking individuals how worried they are about how other individuals will vote, or we could look at the data. There is, in fact, relevant data, and it gives an answer many will find surprising: Numerous studies, using diverse methods, indicate that people do not prefer men over women as leaders. Instead, across the whole population, there is a slight, but reliable, bias in the opposite direction: Being a woman gives a candidate an advantage. Averaged across millions of voters, that small advantage can make a big difference.

An analysis of 133 different elections from 50 countries, including the 2008 and 2012 U.S. elections, found that women who run for elected offices, even at the highest levels, have higher chances of winning than men do. Why, then, are there still more men in high offices? Why, for example, are only about 25 percent of U.S. Representatives and Senators women? The answer is that women are less likely to run in the first place. In the 2018, 2020, and 2022 congressional elections, for example, women made up only a little over 20 percent of the candidates.

When Donald Trump, who many (including his current running mate) regarded as unqualified for the presidency, won the 2016 election over a woman who had been a Senator and Secretary of State, social scientists searched for an explanation. One possibility was simply sexism: Maybe people preferred men over women, regardless of qualifications. But election findings do not support that explanation. Another possibility is that, rather than a bias against women, there is a preference in favor of “alpha males.” Because ancestral chiefs and warriors were mostly men, and because most powerful leaders in business, military, and politics have been men, perhaps we spontaneously think of dominant and aggressive men when we think of leaders. If true, stereotypes translate into preferences: Because dominant men fit our leadership prototype, we prefer to follow them.

Prestige Versus Dominance

In a series of studies recently published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, our research team found that one part of that model is true: Despite a half-century of progress following the development of modern feminism, most people continue to think of leaders as men. However, those studies also found the second step is not true: The stereotype of dominant male leaders does not translate into a preference. In fact, the opposite is true.

In one study, most people asked to imagine a leader spontaneously thought of a man. This was true whether people were asked to think of a dominant leader (“… has a lot of power and has authority and control over people. People don’t get in this person’s way”) or a prestigious leader (“… has a lot of prestige and has people’s respect and admiration. People seek this person out.”). This tendency to think of a man first held up whether people were thinking of leaders in the military, politics, business, sports, or science.

After imagining a leader, however, people were asked “How much would you like to work for this person?” Did preferences follow stereotypes? No. In fact, there was a slight preference favoring female leaders. More importantly, there was a strong preference to be led by a prestigious rather than a dominant leader.

In many species, aggression and threat are the primary paths to status, as in alpha male chimpanzees. In humans, status is sometimes achieved by bullying and threats. But human beings have another route to status: via prestige. Because human groups involve cooperation and mutual problem-solving, people often willingly confer status on individuals who are especially socially skilled and who can mediate and reduce conflict within and between groups. Prestige, unlike dominance, is not particularly sex-typed.

In another study looking at political leaders (European Parliamentarians, unknown to American participants), participants judged actual politicians from facial photographs. Participants judged women more likely to use prestige- over dominance-based leadership strategies, and when asked whether they would vote for this person as their state’s governor, people showed a slight preference for women over men and a strong preference for leaders they perceived as likely to lead via prestige rather than dominance.

Leadership Essential Reads

Leadership and Relationships Have This Single-Point Failure

The 6 Words Every Worker Needs to Hear

No doubt many people continue to harbor various biases disfavoring women in positions of power. But there are also many people who harbor various biases favoring women and lots more who don’t care one way or another. Across a large population of voters, the female-favoring biases win the day. The female-favoring bias does not guarantee election: The advantage is only slight, and given the American electoral system, can depend on geographic distribution. Hillary Clinton won 2.9 million more votes than Trump did in 2016, but those votes were not distributed in the right states to win the Electoral College.

Adi Wiezel, Elon University

Source: Adi Wiezel, used with permission

Since 2016, Donald Trump has leaned even more aggressively into the “alpha male” leadership style—demonstrating hostility toward anyone who gets in his way or who disagrees with him. Although this style of leadership is often a turn-off, other research suggests that it can work if voters can be convinced an election is a war of “us” versus “them.” Nevertheless, it is critically important to realize that, all else being equal, the data indicate that being a female should help, rather than hurt, Kamala Harris’ chances of winning the presidency. It’s also important to realize that the same holds true in the business world: People strongly prefer bosses who lead via prestige rather than dominance and don’t much care whether those bosses are women or men.