What Is the Difference Between a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull?

• Author: Lindsay Eberhardt,Jennifer L. Merolla,Sarah Burns
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• Date: 01 September 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912471974
• Subject Matter: Mini-Symposium

471974PRQXXX10.1177/1065912912471
974Political Research QuarterlyBurns et al.
Mini-Symposium
Political Research Quarterly
66(3) 687 –701
What Is the Difference Between
© 2013 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull?
DOI: 10.1177/1065912912471974
prq.sagepub.com
Presentations of Palin and
Gender Stereotypes in the
2008 Presidential Election
Sarah Burns1, Lindsay Eberhardt1, and Jennifer L. Merolla1
Abstract
This study explores what effect different campaign information frames have on voters’ evaluations of Sarah Palin
using data from an online experiment. We show that descriptions highlighting more stereotypically feminine attributes
cause individuals to perceive Palin as holding more feminine traits, while those highlighting more masculine attributes
lead to higher assessments of her masculine traits. Those that mix feminine and masculine attributes lead to higher
assessments of Palin’s masculine traits and null effects on her feminine traits. We show that Palin benefits the most in
overall evaluations by being perceived as high on both masculine and feminine traits.
Keywords
Palin, gender stereotypes, campaigns, elections, framing, candidate evaluations, media
Introduction
As a woman running for executive office, it seems
likely that Sarah Palin would find herself subject to the
In August of 2008, as a first-term Alaskan Governor,
tendency among voters to use stereotypes. However, the
Sarah Palin became the vice-presidential nominee on the
literature suggests that some factors, such as Republican
Republican ticket. Her novelty caused a great deal of both
partisanship, may counteract the influence of gender ste-
serious and entertaining media coverage—the content
reotypes (e.g., Brians 2005; Hayes 2005; Huddy and
ranging from focus on her conservative policy stances, to
Capelos 2002). We explore how another factor, namely,
her family life with a pregnant teenage daughter and an
different frames used in the campaign information envi-
infant with Down’s syndrome, to her role as a maverick
ronment, may serve to enhance or diminish the use of gen-
executive, to her wardrobe, and even to her quip equating
der stereotypes, in this case toward a Republican female.
a hockey mom to a pit bull.
Considering the bias in favor of masculine qualities in
Current academic literature tells us that in seeking
executive office, Palin may have felt compelled to down-
executive office, female candidates often face a more
play her femininity and emphasize both masculine traits
challenging electoral arena than men due in part to gender
and issue areas when communicating with voters. However,
stereotyping (e.g., Hayes 2005; Huddy and Capelos 2002;
that is not the persona that Palin put forward, nor was it one
Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a, 1993b; McDermott 1998;
covered by the media. Instead, Palin projected a “Mamma
Sanbonmatsu and Dolan 2009). That is, based solely on
Grizzly” persona, which consists of a blend of feminine
gender, voters tend to ascribe certain characteristics to
and masculine qualities and capabilities. Her famous
female candidates (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a, 1993b).
“hockey mom” quip, for example, shows her desire to
While female candidates can sometimes benefit from
combine femininity (as a hands-on and involved mother)
these stereotypes, they are generally perceived as having
fewer of the characteristics and competencies associated
1Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA
with national executive office, such as strong leadership,
and competence in foreign affairs and the military, placing
Corresponding Author:
Jennifer L. Merolla, Claremont Graduate University, 160 East Tenth
them at a disadvantage (e.g., Duerst-Lahti 2008; Eagly
Street, Claremont, CA 91711, USA.
and Carli 2007; Eagly and Karau 2002; Lawless 2004).
Email: jennifer.merolla@cgu.edu

---

688
Political Research Quarterly 66(3)
and masculinity (as a tough, fearsome “pit-bull”-like can-
man,” which necessarily influences our views of male
didate). Using an experimental design, we are able to
and female candidates. Scholars have explored two
explore the effect of framing Palin as stereotypically femi-
aspects of gender stereotypes in their research on female
nine, stereotypically masculine, and both masculine and
candidates: traits and issue competencies/ideology. With
feminine on candidate trait evaluations.
respect to the former, voters perceive female candidates
We conducted our experiment with a sample of Los
as more compassionate and capable of compromising
Angeles registered voters in October of 2008. We expect to
than men, whereas they see men as more decisive, strong,
find that frames that highlight masculine qualities and
and aggressive (e.g., Dolan 2010; Eagly and Carli 2007;
capabilities will lead individuals to perceive Palin as hold-
Eagly and Karau 2002; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a,
ing more stereotypically masculine traits, while frames that
1993b). Voters also tend to associate each sex with differ-
highlight her feminine qualities and capabilities will lead
ent ideological stances and policy expertise. While they
individuals to perceive her as holding more stereotypically
think of female candidates as more liberal and better
feminine traits. Frames that highlight both masculine and
equipped to handle issues perceived as “feminine” such
feminine traits may lead to higher evaluations on both.
as education, health care, the environment, the arts, and
We also explore how masculine and feminine trait
poverty reduction, voters perceive men as more conser-
evaluations of Palin influence overall feelings toward her.
vative, and better equipped to handle the military, foreign
While scholars have looked at the additive effects of mas-
policy, and crime (e.g., Burrell 1994; Dolan 2010; Koch
culine and feminine traits on candidate evaluations, they
2000; Lawless 2004; McDermott 1998).
have not considered the interplay of these evaluations,
At face value, these stereotypes may not seem

nor whether the effects vary across different partisan
harmful—women have an advantage in some domains,
groups. The literature points in different directions with
while men have an advantage in others.1 Problems arise
respect to whether feminine and masculine traits help
for women, however, at the most powerful and presti-
women running for national executive office (Dolan
gious levels of office, since they are disadvantaged in the
1998; Eagly and Carli 2007; Huddy and Terkildsen
policy arenas and character traits that are deemed most
1993b; Koch 2000), and there is limited scholarship that
relevant. For example, using a hypothetical experiment,
looks at how the combination of highly masculine and
Huddy and Terkildsen (1993a) found that subjects rated
highly feminine traits in one candidate affects percep-
candidates with masculine traits and expertise more
tions. Does the “Mamma Grizzly” persona boost sum-
favorably than those with feminine traits when both can-
mary feelings toward Palin, or does the combination of
didates were described as running for prestigious execu-
both gender traits work at cross-purposes? Does the effect
tive and national offices. In an analysis of state executive
vary across different partisans?
elections, Fox and Oxley (2003) discovered that females
Our results make an important contribution to the lit-
were less likely to run for “masculine” offices, those in
erature on gender stereotypes. For one, there is limited
which “male issues” dominate. Consequently, if voters
research on how gendered frames in communication
use gender stereotypes when evaluating female candi-
influence the masculine and feminine trait evaluations of
dates for executive offices, women may still face obsta-
female candidates running for executive office. As we
cles in that electoral arena.2
mentioned above, scholars have also not explored how
the intersection of masculine and feminine trait evalua-
Factors that Diminish or Enhance
tions affect summary evaluations of female candidates.
Finally, we advance the literature by considering whether
the Expression of Gender Stereotypes
these effects vary across different partisan groups. Our
Since stereotypes are only general tendencies to ascribe
findings also have important implications for women run-
characteristics to female and male political leaders, we do
ning for national executive office: they speak to the par-
not argue that it is necessarily the case that individuals will
ticular mix of feminine and masculine qualities and issues
always and only apply stereotypes when assessing a given
that female candidates may want to emphasize in their
candidate’s traits and capabilities. This leads us to ask
communications with voters, depending on the partisan
whether there are factors that may diminish or enhance the
groups to which they need to appeal.
manifestation or expression of these stereotypes when vot-
ers go about evaluating female politicians. Partisanship is
How Gender Stereotypes May
one such factor, since stereotypically “female” issues and
traits are associated with the Democratic Party, whereas
(Dis)Advantage Female Political
“male” issues and traits are associated with the Republican
Leaders
Party (Hayes 2005; Koch 2003; Winter 2010). Therefore,
gender stereotypes may be diminished for Republican
The tendency for voters to use gender...