A Theory of Gender’s Role on Presidential Approval Ratings in Corrupt Times

• Date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912919838626
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919838626

Political Research Quarterly

2020, Vol. 73(3) 540 –555

© 2019 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912919838626

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Despite traditional doubts concerning female leadership,

women have governed for at least a year in about one in

four countries since 1960.1 This appears as an unequivo-

cal sign of gender progress, but the stakes are high for

female leaders to receive comparable approval ratings—a

key measure of “success” and source of power—as their

male counterparts (Campello and Zucco 2015; Carlin,

Love, and Martinez-Gallardo 2015b; Light 1999;

Neustadt 1990). Executive institutions’ masculinist char-

acteristics are thought to undermine women leaders’ abil-

ity to appear equally competent (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly

1995; Jamieson 1995; O’Brien and Reyes-Housholder

forthcoming), but recent work concludes that gendered

standards and double binds no longer matter (Brooks

2013; Teele, Kalla, and Rosenbluth 2018).

I advance the literature on female leadership with a the-

ory spelling out how gendered standards and discourse in

contexts of corruption can undermine their ratings. The

abuse of political power for personal gain is a top citizen

concern in much of the world (Anderson and Tverdova

2003; Davis, Camp, and Coleman 2004; Seligson 2002).

“Pro-women” stereotypes—such as the idea that women are

more ethical—may favor female leaders, particularly in

countries tainted by these kinds of scandals (Barnes and

Beaulieu 2014; Murray 2010; G. Thomas and Adams 2010).

I instead argue that because of this belief in women’s

integrity, female presidents often face higher standards

for their moral leadership. When corruption accusations

emerge implicating female-led administrations, “pro-

women” discourse may backfire, and the opposition can

resurrect latent doubts about women’s ability to govern.

Therefore, gendered expectations and discourse in these

contexts will likely result in lower approval ratings for

female than male presidents.

I conduct this study in Latin America, known for its

powerful, masculinist presidential regimes as well as its

recent trend of democratically elected female leaders (Cox

and Morgenstern 2001; Jalalzai 2016; Reyes-Housholder

and Thomas 2018). I first illustrate the theory by showing

how beliefs in women’s integrity helped raise the bar for

moral leadership under Chile’s presidenta. When a scan-

dal broke implicating her family, President Michelle

Bachelet played to her traditional strengths by portraying

838626PRQXXX10.1177/1065912919838626Political Research QuarterlyReyes-Housholder

research-article2019

1Centre for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies-ICSO Universidad

Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile

Corresponding Author:

Catherine Reyes-Housholder, Ejército 278, edificio ED, segundo piso,

Santiago Centro, Santiago, Chile.

Email: catherine.reyes@mail.udp.cl

A Theory of Gender’s Role on

Presidential Approval Ratings in

Corrupt Times

Catherine Reyes-Housholder1

Abstract

The rise of female chief executives appears to signal gender progress, but this may not be unequivocally so. This

article advances a contextual theory for the role of gender on leaders’ approval ratings, a key measure of “success”

and source of executive power. I argue that because of gendered expectations and discourse, female presidents will

receive lower approval ratings in contexts of corruption. The study focuses on Latin America, known for its powerful,

masculinist presidential regimes and its democratically elected female leaders. I first trace the gendered construction of

President Michelle Bachelet’s image as an honest mother. Upon a presidential scandal, higher standards and gendered

discourse resulted in deeply disappointed citizens, significantly undermining her popularity. Models of eighteen Latin

American countries next reveal a negative impact of being a female—rather than a male—president on approval

ratings. Marginal effects plots show that female presidents score worse than their male counterparts in contexts of

at least one presidential scandal and higher executive corruption. This article contributes to the growing literature

on gender and corruption. It also challenges some conventional wisdom on the pro-women consequences of female

leadership in providing a more nuanced account of the role of gender in the executive branch.

Keywords

presidency, approval ratings, gender stereotypes, corruption, female presidents, Latin America

Reyes-Housholder 541

herself as an honest, emotionally candid mother. The

opposition, however, discursively leveraged her mother-

hood to discredit her, and others faulted her for not leading

in stereotypically masculine ways. Citizens’ disappoint-

ment deepened, and Bachelet’s ratings plummeted.

Cross-sex and cross-country comparisons further

enhance the theory’s plausibility. Bachelet’s co-partisan

male predecessor had confronted a similar scandal, but

emerged virtually unscathed. Likewise, in Brazil, a male

president won reelection in 2006 despite scandals while

his female successor was impeached in 2016 for less

egregious offenses. Presidential approval models span-

ning eighteen Latin American countries from 2000 to

2016 test the overarching predictions (Carlin et al. 2016).

Models first show a negative impact of being a female—

rather than a male—president on citizen evaluations, con-

trolling for several political and economic confounders.

Marginal effects plots from interaction models reveal that

female presidents score worse than male presidents in

contexts of at least one scandal and medium to high levels

of executive corruption.

Implications are far-reaching and troubling. The mere

presence of women in politics is thought to erode tradi-

tional beliefs about women’s inability to govern, and

chief executives, positioned in the highest offices and

attracting the most media attention, may exert the stron-

gest symbolic effects (Franceschet, Annesley, and

Beckwith 2017; Reyes-Housholder and Schwindt-Bayer

2016). However, if citizens perceive female presidents as

less “successful” than male presidents—particularly on

corruption issues where citizens thought these women

would be more effective—public support for women in

politics may erode. This could affect future female candi-

dacies not only for presidential but also for gubernatorial,

legislative and local offices. In short, rather than foment-

ing a “virtuous cycle” (A. C. Alexander 2012), the recent

rise of female presidents could entail a backlash against

women in politics, slowing or even reversing gains in

gender equality. In contrast to much of the largely san-

guine literature on female leaders (Genovese and

Steckenrider 2013; Jalalzai 2008; Skard 2015), this study

presents a more cautionary tale of the consequences of

female-led administrations.

Existing Research on Gender,

Ratings, and Corruption

Research on the performance of female chief executives

has examined whether they name more women minis-

ters, promote more pro-women policies, and issue fewer

unilateral decrees (O’Brien et al. 2015; Reyes-

Housholder 2016, 2019; Shair-Rosenfield and Stoyan

2018). Some work suggests that female presidents score

lower in public opinion surveys (Carlin, Carreras, and

Love forthcoming; Reyes-Housholder and Thomas

2018), but scholars have yet to systematically theorize

and probe relationships connecting presidents’ gender,

corruption scandals, and approval ratings. Three per-

spectives make competing predictions as to whether citi-

zens will rate female presidents differently from their

male counterparts.

Foundational works suggest that the (over)valuing of

masculine leadership styles means that citizens will judge

women more harshly than men (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly

1995; Jamieson 1995; O’Brien and Reyes-Housholder

forthcoming). Prescriptive role stereotypes dictate how

presidents, men, and women should behave (Prentice and

Carranza 2002), and traits desirable for presidents tend to

overlap with traits desirable for males, for example,

forceful and aggressive (Rosenwasser and Dean 1989).

Women presidents can hardly fulfill expectations to act

both “presidential” and “feminine” without facing public

reprobation for deviating from behaviors assigned to one

of their social roles. The dilemma evokes “double binds.”

Citizens moreover form opinions of their presidents via

sexist media, which will likely assess female presidents

more negatively (Falk 2010; Shorenstein 1997).

This pessimistic viewpoint, which anticipates female

presidents to unduly receive worse ratings, contrasts with

much of the latest research. Influential survey experi-

ments demonstrate that gendered standards and double

binds do not hurt female politicians (Brooks 2013; Teele,

Kalla, and Rosenbluth 2018), and observational studies

show that voters do not penalize women candidates

(Dolan 2014). Some have pointed to these results, derived

mostly from legislative candidates, to draw conclusions

about the diminishing power of gender stereotypes for

presidential candidates (Teele, Kalla, and Rosenbluth

2018). This view posits a relatively neutral role of gender

in predicting that citizens will evaluate female and male

presidents not according to whether they meet gendered

expectations, but instead whether they perform well

according to more objective indicators of good gover-

nance, such as macroeconomic performance.

A third perspective is even more sanguine: some gen-

dered beliefs—such as women’s competence on “com-

passion” issues, their ability to emotionally connect with

voters, and their potential to instigate change—benefit

female politicians (Barnes and Beaulieu 2014; Huddy

and Terkildsen 1993; Murray 2010). Ideas concerning

women’s comparative advantages not only may help

women win elections (Reyes-Housholder 2018), but they

also could buoy their popularity. This perspective further

suggests that women who “shatter the highest glass ceil-

ing” necessarily display extraordinary political skills

(Genovese and Steckenrider 2013; Jalalzai 2008; Skard

2015). Efficacious management of gendered expectations

and strategic leveraging of “pro-women” stereotypes