Why Trump and Clinton won and lost: the roles of hypermasculinity and androgyny

• Pages: 44-62
• Published date: 14 February 2018
• Date: 14 February 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2017-0166
• Author: Gary N. Powell,D. Anthony Butterfield,Xueting Jiang
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Why Trump and Clinton won and

lost: the roles of hypermasculinity

and androgyny

Gary N. Powell

Department of Management, University of Connecticut, Storrs,

Connecticut, USA and

Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

D. Anthony Butterfield

Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

Massachusetts, USA, and

Xueting Jiang

Department of Management and Marketing, New York Institute of Technology,

Old Westbury, New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of the “Ideal President”(IP) and presidential

candidates in the 2016 US presidential election in relation to gender stereotypes and leader prototypes.

Design/methodology/approach –In all, 378 business students assessed perceptions of either the IP or a

particular candidate on measures of masculinity and femininity. Androgyny (balance of masculinity and

femininity) and hypermasculinity (extremely high masculinity) scores were calculated from these measures.

Findings –The IP was perceived as higher in masculinity than femininity, but less similar to the male

(Donald Trump) than the female (Hillary Clinton) candidate. IP perceptions were more androgynous than in

the 2008 US presidential election. Respondents’political preferences were related to their IP perceptions on

hypermasculinity, which in turn were consistent with perceptions of their preferred candidate.

Social implications –Trump’s high hypermasculinity scores may explain why he won the electoral college

vote, whereas Clinton’s being perceived as more similar to the IP, and IP perceptions’becoming more

androgynous over time, may explain why she won the popular vote.

Originality/value –The study extends the li terature on the linkag es between gender ster eotypes and

leader prototypes in two re spects. Contrary to t he general assumption of a s hared leader prototype , it

demonstrates the existence of different leader prototypes according to political preference.

The hypermasculinit y construct, which was in troduced to interpret lea der prototypes in light of

Trump’s candidacy and electio n, represents a valua ble addition to the lite rature with potenti ally greater

explanatory power than masculinity in some situations.

Keywords Gender stereotypes, Political leadership, Hypermasculinity, Androgyny, Leader prototypes

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The 2016 US presidential election was historic. Hillary Clinton made history, both positively

and negatively, in several ways. First, she became the first female presidential candidate of a

major political party (the Democratic Party) in the nation’s history. Second, she won the

popular vote in the election, thereby becoming the first woman to do so. Third, she lost the

electoral vote (the vote that determined who won the election), also becoming the first

woman to do so. Fourth, she was a highly unpopular candidate according to polls.

Clinton was criticized for, among other things, her e-mail practices and ties to the Clinton

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 1, 2018

pp. 44-62

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-08-2017-0166

Received 17 August 2017

Revised 18 September 2017

Accepted 24 September 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

The authors thank Caroline Gatrell and the Department of Leadership and Management at Lancaster

University Management School for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, which was

presented at the 2017 Academy of Management Meeting in Atlanta.

44

EDI

37,1

Foundation (which her husband founded) while she previously served as US Secretary of

State, her links to major financial services firms she would seek to regulate, and her

husband’s sexual behavior toward women while and before he served as president.

Although she got closer to the nation’s top elected position than any other woman, she failed

to shatter what she called “that highest and hardest glass ceiling”(Clinton, 2016).

Donald Trump, the presidential candidate of the other major political party

(the Republican Party), also made history, both positively and negatively, in several ways.

First, he had never been elected to a political office before, which was rare in history

although not the first instance. Second, he lost the popular vote, becoming only the fifth

candidate elected president to have done so and by the largest number of votes ever. Third,

he was also highly unpopular according to polls. Trump was criticized for, among other

things, his sexual behavior toward women, his sexist comments about women during the

election process, and his constant belittling of and need to dominate his political opponents,

which were collectively regarded as evidence of “hypermasculinity”(Chira, 2016; Mosher

and Tomkins, 1988). However, Trump won the electoral college vote and thus the

presidency, which was the ultimate positive outcome for him.

Overall, the combination of two highly unpopular major-party candidates, with one

being the first female candidate of her party and the other having exhibited a pattern of

problematic behavior toward women over time, created a toxic blend and historic clash.

In the present study, we took advantage of this clash to examine the possible effects of

gender stereotypes and leader prototypes on perceptions of the 2016 presidential candidates

and an “Ideal President (IP).”

Although its context was unusual, this study builds on a rich tradition of theory and

research on the linkages between leader prototypes and gender stereotypes over more than

four decades (cf. Butterfield and Grinnell, 1999; Koenig et al., 2011). Female and male leaders

have been compared in light of gender stereotypes in both an organizational context

(e.g. Powell and Butterfield, 1979, 1989, 2015; Powell et al., 2002) and a political context

(e.g. Dayhoff, 1983; Fox and Oxley, 2003; Powell and Butterfield, 2011). Research subjected

to meta-analysis by Koenig et al. (2011) has examined perceptions of a good manager, ideal

leader, IP, and the like in light of gender stereotypes (Kite et al., 2008) by assessing the extent

to which these perceptions are high in “masculine”traits traditionally associated with males

and high in “feminine”traits traditionally associated with females; a balance in masculine

and feminine traits attributed to a leader has been characterized as an androgynous leader

profile (Bem, 1974; Koenig et al., 2011). Such perceptions represent individuals’implicit

leadership theories (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Epitropaki et al., 2013; Junker and van

Dick, 2014; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann et al., 1994; Schyns and Schilling, 2011) or mental

prototypes of an ideal leader, which have been found to disadvantage female leaders

(e.g. Eagly and Carli, 2007; Johnson et al., 2008; Powell, 1999, 2011; Rudman and Glick, 2001).

The present study was designed to explore these issues further by examining leader

prototypes in light of gender stereotypes (Kite et al., 2008) in the 2016 presidential election.

Specifically, we examined perceptions of the two candidates in relation to each other and

perceptions of an “IP”using the dimensions of masculinity and femininity and the

constructs of androgyny and hypermasculinity. We obtained access to comparable data

from the 2008 presidential election (Powell and Butterfield, 2011), which enabled us to

examine whether the first-time presence of a female major-party presidential candidate in

the 2016 election was associated with a change in perceptions of an IP from those during the

2008 election. Further, we examined whether individuals’preferences for a particular

candidate were related to their mental prototypes of an IP, which in turn were consistent

with the profile of their preferred candidate; such a finding would support the existence of

multiple presidential leader prototypes. The study has potential to shed light on why the

USA continues to be a nation that has never had a female leader, unlike over 70 nations

45

Roles of

hypermasculinity

and androgyny