Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 00, No. 00, 2018, pp.

1--21

Ain’t She a Woman? How Warmth and Competence

Stereotypes about Women and Female Politicians
Contribute to the Warmth and Competence Traits
Ascribed to Individual Female Politicians

Elizabeth R. Brown† ,* Curtis E. Phills† , Dominic G. Mercurio IV,

Matthew Olah, and Candice J. Veilleux
University of North Florida

Hillary Clinton was the first woman nominated for President by a major political
party in the United States. Like most women in politics, she faced negative eval-
uations, in part, due to the inconsistency between the traits typically associated
with leaders (competence) versus women (warmth). Because understanding the
categorization of an individual female politician is essential to the development
of successful bias interventions, we examined the extent to which Hillary Clinton
and a novel female politician were categorized as women versus female politi-
cians. In three studies we investigated how the warmth and competence stereo-
types associated with women and female politicians contributed to the warmth
and competence traits associated with Hillary Clinton and a novel female politi-
cal candidate. Consistent with a subtyping account, the warmth and competence
stereotypes associated with female politicians, but not women, predicted Hillary
Clinton’s warmth and competence traits (Studies 1–3). However, consistent with
a subgrouping account, the warmth and competence stereotypes associated with
both women and female politicians predicted a novel female politician’s warmth
and competence traits (Study 3). Implications for bias reduction interventions are
discussed.

∗
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth R. Brown, University
of North Florida, Psychology, 1 UNF Drive, Building 51, Room 3413 Jacksonville, FL, United States,
32224 [e-mail: [email protected]].
†
Elizabeth Brown and Curtis Phills are sharing first authorship of this manuscript.
1
DOI: 10.1111/asap.12151 
C 2018 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
2 Brown et al.

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over
ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or
over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at
my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me!
And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man –when I could get
it–and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen
most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus
heard me! And ain’t I a woman?
–Sojourner Truth, Women’s Convention, Akron, Ohio, 1851

In 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman nominated for President by
a major political party in the United States and, as such, filled a role that had
been exclusively held by men for centuries. Like all female politicians, Hillary
Clinton faced challenges, including negative evaluations, partially stemming from
leadership being associated more with men than women (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Though these challenges may contribute to the underrepresentation of women in
political office (Dolan, 2010; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993), because Hillary Clinton
was running to become the nation’s President–the top leadership position in the
country–contrasts between the traits traditionally associated with women (i.e.,
warmth) and the traits traditionally associated with leadership (i.e., competence)
may have been especially pronounced in voters’ minds. Just as Sojourner Truth
responded to claims that she was not a woman because her strength and abilities
were equal or better than that of any man, it may be the case that people did not
think of Hillary Clinton as a woman because of her abilities and success as a
political candidate. Because categorizing Hillary Clinton in a way that excludes
her group membership as a woman might inhibit stereotype change (Richards
& Hewstone, 2001) and the effectiveness of anti-bias interventions that target
women’s representation in leadership (see Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004 for an example
intervention), it is critical to understand the extent to which Hillary Clinton and
other female politicians are categorized as women. The current research examines
how the stereotypes associated with women and female politicians contribute to
the traits ascribed to female political candidates like Hillary Clinton.

Stereotypes and Categorization Processes

Stereotypes are beliefs about the attributes associated with a social group
(Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996); when a person is categorized as
a group member, the group’s stereotypes are applied to that person (Fiske & Neu-
berg, 1990). Stereotypic traits can be classified into two fundamental categories
(Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002): warmth (an other-orientation) and competence
(a self-orientation; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). Warmth,
and its related constructs of communion (e.g., Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000)
and relatedness (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000), includes traits such as honest, faith-
ful, and courteous. In contrast, competence, and its related constructs of agency
Ain’t She a Woman? 3

(e.g., Eagly et al., 2000) and autonomy (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000), includes
traits such as independent, industrious, and intelligent. Women are rated high on
warmth and low on competence stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Fiske
et al., 2002), whereas female leaders (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Koenig et al.,
2011) are rated high on competence and low on warmth stereotypes. These traits
(i.e., warmth and competence) are quickly applied to individuals categorized as
members of their associated social categories (i.e., woman, female politician; e.g.,
Allport, 1954; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992;
Tajfel, 1981). As such, voter’s evaluations of political candidates reflect warmth
and competence evaluations (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1982; Wojciszke
& Klusek, 1996).
Because an individual female politician is both a woman and a female politi-
cian, it is important to examine whether the traits applied to her result from a
subtyping categorization process (she is categorized as a female politician but
not as a woman; Richards & Hewstone, 2001) or a subgrouping categorization
process (she is categorized as both a woman and a female politician; Richards &
Hewstone, 2001). If categorization of an individual female politician is driven by
subtyping, how participants stereotype women should not be related to the traits
they ascribe to a female politician. However, if categorization of an individual
female politician is driven by subgrouping, how participants stereotype women
and female politicians should both be related to the traits they ascribe to a female
politician. Notably, categorization of an individual female politician may still be
driven by a subtyping process (i.e., they are not categorized as women) even if
she is rated highly on traits traditionally associated with women like warmth
because multiple categorization processes could result in a specific trait being
associated with a group (De Houwer & Moors, 2015). In this case, a female politi-
cian could be rated high on warmth, not because she is categorized as a woman
(subgrouping), but because female political candidates are rated warmer than their
male political candidate counterparts (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993).

Investigating Categorization Processes

A number of different methodological techniques have been used to investi-

gate subtyping and subgrouping categorization processes. For instance, subtyping
has been examined by investigating the extent to which a compound group (e.g.,
female politicians) was associated with the typicality of the traits of its compo-
nent groups (e.g., women or female politicians; e.g., Johnston & Hewstone, 1992;
Kunda & Oleson, 1995) whereas subgrouping has been examined by investigating
the percentage of individuals within a compound group that possessed traits typi-
cal of its component groups (e.g., Park & Judd, 1990; Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992).
Furthermore, both subtyping and subgrouping have been examined by instructing
participants to sort or list traits associated with a compound group as well as its
4 Brown et al.

related component groups (e.g., Hewstone, Macrae, Griffiths, Milne, & Brown,
1994; Johnston & Hewstone, 1992; Park et al., 1992; Maurer, Park, & Rothbart,
1995; Schneider & Bos, 2011; 2014).
In one such listing study, researchers investigated whether the stereotypes
associated with female politicians were similar or different than the stereotypes
associated with women (Schneider & Bos, 2014). Participants were provided with a
list of stereotypes and asked to identify which stereotypes applied to various social
categories including women and female politicians; the percentage of participants
who selected a particular stereotype were then compared across the social cate-
gories. The top five stereotypes associated with women were warmth-related, and
the top five stereotypes associated with female politicians were competence-related
(Schneider & Bos, 2014), consistent with the idea that women are associated with
warmth and politicians are associated with competence (e.g., Eagly & Karau,
2002). Lending further credence to the subtyping hypothesis, the stereotypes of
women (i.e., feminine, compassionate) were not the same as the stereotypes of
female politicians (i.e., confident, assertive). In fact, 18 stereotypes were ascribed
to women but not to female politicians (Schneider & Bos, 2014).

Moving Beyond the Outcomes of Categorization Processes

Although Schneider and Bos’ (2014) findings are consistent with the subtyp-
ing hypothesis, because they focus on the outcomes of categorization processes
(i.e., the traits associated with groups) and those outcomes could be the result of
multiple categorization processes, it is unclear how compound groups are cate-
gorized. The current research moves beyond examining whether the stereotypes
of female politicians are similar or different than the stereotypes of women (the
outcome of categorization processes) by being one of the first to examine catego-
rization processes directly. We assessed how the warmth and competence stereo-
types associated with women and female politicians are related to the warmth and
competence traits ascribed to individual female politicians like Hillary Clinton.
For example, stereotyping of an individual female politician as competent could
be driven by subgrouping categorization processes if her competence ratings are
related to stereotyping of women and female politicians. Alternatively, they could
be driven by subtyping categorization processes if her competence ratings are only
related to stereotyping of female politicians. This is true regardless of the extent
to which she is rated as competent.
Since evaluations of individuals may be contextualized (Gawronski, Rydell,
Vervliet, & De Houwer, 2010), we also examined how categorization processes
may be influenced by contextual cues. Recent research has shown that the context
in which a trait is associated with a person influences how strong that trait is
associated with the person (Huang, Sacchi, & Sherman, 2017). Thus, we explored
whether presenting an individual female politician in a political context inhibited
Ain’t She a Woman? 5

categorizing her as a woman (subtyping) because of the salience of the political

cues. We also examined whether presenting an individual female politician in a
family context facilitated categorizing her as a woman (subgrouping) because of
the salience of familial cues.

Study Overview and Exploratory Hypotheses

Three experiments used novel methodological and analytical strategies to

examine categorization processes directly by investigating whether specific fe-
male politicians were categorized as women, female politicians, or both. Studies
1 and 2 focused on Hillary Clinton because of her historic achievement and the
importance of understanding how she was categorized. Study 3 examined how
warmth and competence traits were applied to Hillary Clinton and a novel female
politician to investigate whether categorization processes differ for novel female
politicians. Using regression analyses, we examined whether the warmth and
competence stereotypes associated with women and female politicians predicted
the warmth and competence traits applied to specific female politicians, Hillary
Clinton (Studies 1–3), and a novel female politician (Study 3). Using these proce-
dures we disentangled whether the relatively higher competence and lower warmth
ratings of a specific female politician were the results of subtyping (predicted by
stereotyping of female politicians only) or subgrouping (predicted by stereotyping
of both women and female politicians). We also examined how contextualization
might moderate categorization to disentangle whether categorization might be in-
fluenced by political or familial contextual cues. Given the exploratory nature of
the current work, we investigated whether subtyping, subgrouping, or contextual-
ization occurred. The following were our exploratory hypotheses.

Subtyping hypothesis. The warmth/competence stereotypes associated with

female politicians but not the warmth/competence stereotypes associated with
women would predict the warmth/competence traits ascribed to an individual
female politician.

Subgrouping hypothesis. The warmth/competence stereotypes associated

with female politicians and women would predict the warmth/competence traits
ascribed to an individual female politician.

Contextualization hypotheses. In a political context, the warmth/competence

stereotypes associated with female politicians would predict the warmth/
competence traits ascribed to an individual female politician (subtyping), because
the category female politician would be salient. In a family context, the warmth/
competence stereotypes associated with women and female politicians would
6 Brown et al.

predict the warmth/competence traits ascribed to an individual female politician

(subgrouping), because the category women would be salient.

Studies 1 and 2

Because Studies 1–2 utilized the same survey procedures, we combined the
presentation of the method and the results of these studies.

Method

Participants. In Study 1, 241 college students (80.5% women, 0.8% did not
identify a gender; 66.39% White, 5.39% Latino, 9.13% Black, 7.88% Asian,
6.22% other, 4.98% did not identify; ages 18–56, median age = 21; 35.7% liberal,
34.4% moderate, 26.9% conservative) at a mid-sized, southeastern university were
recruited in exchange for partial course credit.
In Study 2, 487 participants (49.9% women, 16.6% did not identify a gender;
64.07% White, 2.46% Latino, 8.01% Black, 4.31% Asian, 3.90% other, 17.25%
did not identify; ages 18–79, median age = 34; 41.7% liberal, 19.7% moderate,
22.1% conservative) were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical TURK system
(MTURK) in exchange for payment.

Procedure. Participants viewed a picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC;

context manipulation) and then completed ratings of the warmth and com-
petence of the following groups/individuals in the order provided: women,
female politicians, and Hillary Clinton. Demographic information was also
collected.

Context manipulation. Participants were told we were interested in their

“thoughts about candidates running for political office” and to “take some time and
look at the candidate pictured below.” Participants were then randomly assigned
to view a picture of Hillary Clinton either in no context, in a political context, or
in a family context (see Appendix A).

Warmth and competence ratings. Next participants rated women’s, female

politicians’, and HRC’s warmth (8 items per group/individual rated) and com-
petence (eight items per group/individual rated; Fiske et al., 2002) using 5-point
scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Warmth and competence
items were interspersed throughout the group ratings. Example competence items
included “As viewed by society, how competent are/is women/female politi-
cians/HRC?” and “As viewed by society, how intelligent are/is women/female
politicians/HRC?”; example warmth items included “As viewed by society, how
warm are/is women/female politicians/HRC?” and “As viewed by society, how
Ain’t She a Woman? 7

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for All Measures in Studies 1–3
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range
Women’s perceived warmth 3.48 0.46 2–5 3.47 0.54 1–5 3.59 .52 1.5–5
Women’s perceived competence 3.08 0.63 1.63–5 3.21 0.66 1.5–5 3.29 .70 1.25–5
Female politicians’ perceived 2.88 0.60 1–4.63 2.85 0.67 1–5 3.10 .72 1–5
warmth
Female politicians’ perceived 2.98 0.68 1–5 3.14 0.75 1–5 3.37 .75 1–5
competence
Hillary Clinton’s perceived 2.64 0.65 1–4.63 2.42 0.82 1–5 2.44 .81 1–4.88
warmth
Hillary Clinton’s perceived 3.09 0.70 1–5 3.27 0.87 1–5 3.37 .86 1–5
competence
Karen Johnson’s perceived – – – – – – 3.40 .63 1.38–5
warmth
Karen Johnson’s perceived – – – – – – 3.59 .61 1.5–5
competence

sensitive are/is women/female politicians/HRC?” Warmth and competence rat-

ings were separately averaged for women, female politicians, and Hillary Clinton
(Warmth: women α St 1 = .751, α St 2 = .798, female politicians α St 1 = .719,
α St 2 = .720, Hillary Clinton α St 1 = .713, α St 2 = .789; Competence: women
α St 1 = .761, α St 2 = .794, female politicians α St 1 = .823, α St 2 = .804, Hillary
Clinton α St 1 = .805, α St 2 = .789).

Results

We present the means, standard deviations, and ranges for Studies 1–3 in
Table 1; correlations between all measures for Studies 1–3 are presented in
Table 2. To examine whether the stereotypes associated with women and/or fe-
male politicians contributed to the impression of Hillary Clinton, first we predicted
Hillary Clinton’s warmth from women’s warmth, female politicians’ warmth, the
context that Hillary Clinton was pictured in (no context = 0 versus a family
context = 1; no context = 0 versus a political context = 1), and their in-
teractions. Next, we predicted Hillary Clinton’s competence from women’s
competence, female politicians’ competence, the context that Hillary Clin-
ton was pictured in, and their interactions. We present effects related to
our key hypotheses for clarity, complete regression tables are presented in
Table 3.

Predicting Hillary Clinton’s warmth. Overall, the model significantly pre-

dicted Hillary Clinton’s warmth (Study 1: F(11, 222) = 9.66, p < .001, R2 = .324;
Study 2: F(11, 393) = 19.09, p < .001, R2 = .348). Consistent with the subtyping
8 Brown et al.

Table 2. Correlations between All Measures in Studies 1–3

Study 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Women’s perceived warmth – – – – – –
2. Women’s perceived competence .293*** – – – – –
3. Female politicians’ perceived warmth .315*** .368*** – – – –
4. Female politicians’ perceived competence .218** .521*** .450*** – – –
5. Hillary Clinton’s perceived warmth .012 .273*** .458*** .271*** – –
6. Hillary Clinton’s perceived competence .146* .340>*** .231*** .484*** .535*** –
Study 2
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Women’s perceived warmth – – – – – –
2. Women’s perceived competence .375*** – – – – –
3. Female politicians’ perceived warmth .289*** .275*** – – – –
4. Female politicians’ perceived competence .348*** .597*** .458*** – – –
5. Hillary Clinton’s perceived warmth .196*** .133** .578*** .317*** – –
6. Hillary Clinton’s perceived competence .299*** .142** .330*** .515*** .536*** –
Study 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Women’s perceived warmth – – – – – – – –
2. Women’s perceived .419*** – – – – – – –
competence
3. Female politicians’ perceived .502*** .442*** – – – – – –
warmth
*** *** ***
4. Female politicians’ perceived .471 .693 .487 – – – – –
competence
5. Hillary Clinton’s perceived .234*** .262*** .519*** .260*** – – – –
warmth
*** *** *** *** ***
6. Hillary Clinton’s perceived .326 .313 .309 .494 .524 – – –
competence
7. Karen Johnson’s perceived .400*** .300*** .533*** .342*** .212*** .258*** – –
warmth
*** *** *** *** ** *** ***
8. Karen Johnson’s perceived .331 .443 .335 .535 .146 .387 .579 –
competence
*
p ࣘ .050; ** p <.01; *** p < .001.

hypothesis, to the extent that female politicians were perceived as warm, Hillary
Clinton was also perceived as warm (Study 1: b = 0.542, β = 0.502, t(11, 222) =
4.48, p < .001; Study 2: b = 0.577, β = 0.469, t(11,393) = 6.136, p < .001).
Women’s perceived warmth was not related to Hillary Clinton’s perceived warmth
(Study 1: b = −0.198, β = −0.140, t(11, 222) = −0.943, p = .347; Study 2:
b = 0.161, β = 0.106, t(11,393) = 1.41, p = .158). No support for either con-
textualization hypothesis occurred in Studies 1 and 2, bs < 0.155, βs < 0.079,
ps >.050.
Ain’t She a Woman? 9

Table 3. Women’s Perceived Warmth/Competence, Female Politicians’ Perceived

Warmth/Competence, Context, and Their Interactions Predicting Hillary Clinton’s and Karen
Johnson’s Warmth/Competence
Karen
Johnson’s
Hillary Clinton’s warmth warmth
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 3
Predictor Variables b β b b β β β β
Family versus no context .105 .077 .113 .067 – – −.006 −.004
Political versus no context −.112 −.083 .113 .061 – – −.120 −.089
Women’s perceived −.198 −.140 .161 .106 −.048 −.031 .324*** .266
warmth
Female politicians’ .542*** .502 .577*** .469 .605*** .534 .345*** .389
perceived warmth
Family × Women’s −.099 −.042 −.140 −.059 – – −.244± −.111
perceived warmth
Family × Female .120 .066 .155 .079 – – .041 .025
politicians’ perceived
warmth
Political × Women’s −.053 −.025 −.126 −.042 – – −.100 −.044
perceived warmth
±
Political × Female −.310 −.167 .107 .046 – – .072 .048
politicians’ perceived
warmth
Women’s perceived 1.093** 0.516 .085 .049 −.067 −.054 .090 .065
warmth × Female
politicians’ perceived
warmth
Family × Women’s −1.158** −.333 .081 .031 – – .087 .038
perceived warmth ×
Female politicians’
perceived warmth
Political × Women’s −.535 −.184 −.004 −.001 – – −.001 .000
perceived warmth ×
Female politicians’
perceived warmth
Karen
Johnson’s
Hillary Clinton’s Competence Competence
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 3
Predictor Variables b β b b β β β β
Family versus no context .078 .053 −.016 −.009 – – .066 .051
Political versus no context −.025 −.017 .029 .015 – – .200** .154
Women’s perceived −.193 −.175 −.184 −.140 −.067 −.055 .318*** .365
competence
Female politicians’ .676*** .633 .667*** .574 .605*** .528 .341*** .418
perceived competence
Family × Women’s .343± .184 −.278± −.137 – – −.429*** −.282
perceived competence
(Continued)
10 Brown et al.

Table 3. Continued
Karen
Johnson’s
Hillary Clinton’s warmth warmth
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 3
Predictor Variables b β b b β β β β
Family × Female −.142 −.074 .221 .119 – – .116 .082
politicians’ perceived
competence
Political × Women’s .470* .257 −.085 −.033 – – −.162 −.108
perceived competence
Political × Female −.418 **
−.245 .031 .013 – – −.041 −.030
politicians’ perceived
competence
Women’s perceived -.054 −.043 .011 .007 −.045 −.034 −.019 −.020
competence × Female
politicians’ perceived
competence
Family × Women’s .162 .078 .190 .084 – – .234* .157
perceived competence
× Female politicians’
perceived competence
Political × Women’s .095 .043 .024 .009 – – −.047 −.030
perceived competence
× Female politicians’
perceived competence

Note. ± p <.100, * p ࣘ.050, ** p ࣘ.010, *** p ࣘ.001. In Study 3, the manipulated context involved Karen
Johnson, not Hillary Clinton. Thus, contextual effects could not be examined for Hillary Clinton in
Study 3.

Predicting Hillary Clinton’s competence. Overall, the model significantly

predicted Hillary Clinton’s competence (Study 1: F(11, 222) = 8.20, p < .001,
R2 = .289; Study 2: F(11, 393) = 17.047, p < .001, R2 = .323). Consistent with
the subtyping hypothesis, to the extent that female politicians were perceived as
competent, Hillary Clinton was also perceived as competent (Study 1: b = 0.646,
β = 0.633, t(11, 222) = 5.59, p < .001; Study 2: b = 0.667, β = 0.574, t(11,393) =
6.27, p < .001). As was the case with warmth stereotypes, women’s perceived
competence was not related to Hillary Clinton’s perceived competence (Study 1: b
= −0.193, β = −0.175, t(11, 222) = −1.38, p = .170; Study 2: b = −0.184, β =
−0.140, t(11,393) = −1.45, p = .147).
Partial support for the contextualization hypotheses arose, but the findings
were inconsistent across Studies 1 and 2, making us hesitant to strongly interpret
the results. In Study 1, a significant interaction emerged between Hillary Clinton
in a political context versus no context and women’s competence (b = 0.470, β =
0.257, t(11, 222) = 2.55, p = .011). To the extent that women were perceived as
Ain’t She a Woman? 11

competent, Hillary Clinton was also perceived as competent when pictured in a

political context (b = 0.277, β = 0.277, p = .018), but no relationship between
women’s perceived competence and Hillary Clinton’s competence emerged in
no context (b = −0.193, β = −0.160, p = .190). Furthermore, in Study 1, a
significant interaction emerged between Hillary Clinton in a political context
versus no context and female politicians’ competence (b = −0.428, β = −0.245,
t(11, 222) = −2.66, p = .008). To the extent that female politicians were perceived
as competent, counter to our hypotheses, Hillary Clinton was perceived as more
competent, but this effect emerged stronger in no context (b = 0.646, β = 0.647,
p < .001) as opposed to a political context (b = 0.227, β = 0.244, p = .029).
No other significant contextualization effects emerged for warmth in Studies 1 or
2 (bs <0.221, βs <0.119, ps >.117). Thus, we did not find consistent support
for either contextualization hypothesis; the pattern of results dramatically differed
between Studies 1 and 2.

Discussion

Across Studies 1 and 2 and consistent with Schneider and Bos (2014), evi-
dence emerged in support of the subtyping hypothesis. Hillary Clinton was per-
ceived as warm and competent to the extent that female politicians were also
perceived as warm and competent. No support for the subgrouping hypothesis
emerged; Hillary Clinton’s perceived warmth and competence was unrelated to
women’s perceived warmth and competence. Furthermore, no consistent evidence
for the contextualization hypotheses emerged across Studies 1 and 2. In Study 1,
but not Study 2, when participants were provided with a political context, support
for the subtyping contextualization hypothesis emerged with Hillary Clinton’s per-
ceived competence being related to female politicians’ perceived competence. Fur-
thermore, contrary to our predictions, Hillary Clinton’s perceived competence was
related to female politicians’ perceived competence, but this effect was stronger
in no context than a political context.

Study 3

One weakness of Studies 1 and 2 was that because of Hillary Clinton’s long
history in politics, the vast majority of participants may have already formed an
impression of her. Therefore, their categorization of her may have been less influ-
enced by contextual cues. However, when little is known about a female political
candidate, beliefs about the roles of men and women within society play an im-
portant role in candidate evaluation (Alexander & Andersen, 1993). Because these
gender role beliefs are associated with the development of stereotypes about men
and women (i.e., Eagly et al., 2000), perhaps when little information is known
about a female political candidate, she will be subgrouped rather than subtyped
12 Brown et al.

because participants will use the stereotypes associated with her group member-
ships (women, female politicians) to categorize her. In Study 3, we addressed these
issues by exposing participants to a novel female political candidate named Karen
Johnson in a context with cues related to politics, family, or neither. We examined
whether participants subtyped, subgrouped, or contextualized Karen Johnson and
whether they subtyped or subgrouped Hillary Clinton.
Another benefit of Study 3’s design is that it allows us to address possible
concerns about reverse causation in Studies 1 and 2. It is possible that initially
viewing an image of Hillary Clinton influenced how participants responded to
questions about women and female politicians. Thus, any relationships between
the traits applied to Hillary Clinton and the stereotypes of those two categories
might depend on first seeing an image of Hillary Clinton. In Study 3, however,
participants did not view an image of Hillary Clinton at any point and always
answered questions about Hillary Clinton only after answering all questions about
women, female politicians, and Karen Johnson. Therefore, reverse causation can-
not be a possible explanation for the pattern of results found in regards to Hillary
Clinton in Study 3.

Method

Participants. Three hundred eighty-four participants (55.2% women, 0.5%

did not identify a gender; 77.34% White, 2.34% Latino, 9.38% Black, 3.65%
Asian, 1.82% other, 5.47% did not identify; ages 18–73, median age = 34.5; 46.4%
liberal, 24.2% moderate, 28.8% conservative) were recruited using Amazon’s
Mechanical TURK in exchange for payment.

Procedure. First, participants viewed a picture of Karen Johnson (context

manipulation) and then completed ratings of the warmth and competence of the
following groups/individuals in a random order: women, female politicians, and
Karen Johnson. Lastly, participants completed ratings of the warmth and compe-
tence of Hillary Clinton. Demographic information was also collected.

Context manipulation. Participants were told that we were interested in their

“thoughts about candidates running for political office” and to “take some time
and look at the candidate, Karen Johnson, pictured below.” Next, participants
were randomly assigned to view a picture of a novel fictional female politician,
Karen Johnson, either in no context, a family context, or a political context. The
name Karen was selected because it was associated with moderate competence
and attractiveness (Kasof, 1993; see Appendix B).

Warmth and competence ratings. Next, participants rated women’s, female

politicians’, Karen Johnson’s, and Hillary Clinton’s warmth (eight items per
Ain’t She a Woman? 13

group/individual rated) and competence (eight items per group/individual rated;

Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) using the same 5-point scales used in Studies
1 and 2. Warmth and competence ratings were separately averaged for women,
female politicians, Karen Johnson, and Hillary Clinton (Warmth: women α =
.773, female politicians α = .794, Karen Johnson α = .852, Hillary Clinton α =
.773; Competence: women α = .854, female politicians α = .826, Karen Johnson
α = .841, Hillary Clinton α = .803).

Results

Similar to Studies 1 and 2, we examined the extent to which the stereotypes

associated with women and female politicians contributed to the traits associated
with Hillary Clinton and Karen Johnson. We predicted Karen Johnson’s warmth
from women’s warmth, female politicians’ warmth, the context that Karen Johnson
was pictured (no context = 0 vs. family context = 1; no context = 0 vs. political
context = 1), and their interactions. To calculate Hillary Clinton’s warmth we
repeated these analyses without accounting for context as we only manipulated
Karen Johnson’s context. Next, we predicted Karen Johnson’s competence from
women’s competence, female politicians’ competence, the context that Karen
Johnson was pictured, and their interactions. To calculate Hillary Clinton’s com-
petence we repeated these analyses without accounting for context. We present
effects related to our key hypotheses for clarity, complete regression tables are
presented in Table 3.

Predicting Karen Johnson’s warmth. The overall model significantly pre-

dicted Karen Johnson’s warmth, F(11, 369) = 16.44, p < .001, R2 = .329. Con-
sistent with the subgrouping hypothesis and participants using their stereotypes of
women and female politicians to categorize a novel female politician, to the extent
that both female politicians and women were perceived as warm, Karen Johnson
was also perceived as warm (female politicians: b = 0.345, β = 0.389, t(11, 369) =
4.59, p < .001; women: b = 0.324, β = 0.266, t(11, 369) = 3.40, p = .001). No
support for either contextualization hypothesis emerged (bs< 0.072, βs< 0.108,
ps >.088).

Predicting Hillary Clinton’s warmth. The overall model significantly pre-

dicted Hillary Clinton’s warmth, F(11, 369) = 47.108, p < .001, R2 = .273.
Consistent with the findings of Studies 1 and 2 and the subtyping hypothesis, to
the extent that female politicians were perceived as warm, Hillary Clinton was also
perceived as warm, b = 0.605, β = 0.534, t(11,369) = 10.51, p < .001. However,
14 Brown et al.

women’s perceived warmth was not related to Hillary Clinton’s perceived warmth,
b = −0.048, β = −0.031, t(11,369) = −0.61, p = .542.1

Predicting Karen Johnson’s competence. The overall model significantly pre-

dicted Karen Johnson’s competence, F(11, 369) = 19.11, p < .001, R2 = .363.
Consistent with the subgrouping hypothesis and participants using their stereo-
types of women and female politicians to categorize a novel female politician, to
the extent that both female politicians and women were perceived as competent,
Karen Johnson was also perceived as competent (female politicians: b = 0.341,
β = 0.418, t(11, 369) = 4.01, p < .001; women: b = 0.318, β = 0.365, t(11, 369) =
3.701, p < .001).
Evidence inconsistent with the subgrouping contextualization effect also oc-
curred. An interaction emerged between Karen Johnson in a family versus no
context and women’s competence, b = −0.429, β = −0.282, t(11, 369) = −3.58,
p < .001. In no context, to the extent that women were perceived as competent,
Karen Johnson was perceived as more competent, b = 0.318, β = 0.350, p < .001,
but when Karen Johnson was pictured in a family context, women’s perceived com-
petence was not related to Karen Johnson’s perceived competence, b = −0.111,
β = −0.133, p = .194. No additional contextualization effects emerged, bs <
0.116, βs < 0.082, ps >.200. We again did not find consistent and substantial
support for either contextualization hypothesis, making us hesitant to strongly
interpret these effects.

Predicting Hillary Clinton’s competence. The overall model significantly

predicted Hillary Clinton’s competence, F(11, 369) = 41.263, p < .001, R2 =
.247. Consistent with Studies 1 and 2 and the subtyping hypothesis, to the extent
that female politicians were perceived as competent, Hillary Clinton was also
perceived as competent, b = 0.605, β = 0.528, t(11,369) = 8.48, p < .001. Again,
women’s perceived competence was not related to Hillary Clinton’s competence,
b = −0.067, β = −0.055, t(11,369) = −0.88, p = .378.2

Discussion

Consistent with Studies 1 and 2 and Schneider and Bos (2014), when partic-
ipants evaluated Hillary Clinton, support for the subtyping hypothesis emerged.
1
The pattern of results remained when the context manipulation and its interactions were ac-
counted for in the analyses. To the extent that female politicians were seen as warm, Hillary Clinton
was also perceived as warm, p <.05. Again women’s perceived warmth was not associated with Hillary
Clinton’s perceived warmth, p >.10.
2
The pattern of results remained when the context manipulation and its interactions were ac-
counted for in the analyses. To the extent that female politicians were seen as competent, Hillary
Clinton was also perceived as competent, p <.05. Again women’s perceived competence was not
associated with Hillary Clinton’s perceived competence, p >.10.
Ain’t She a Woman? 15

Hillary Clinton was rated as warm and competent to the extent that female politi-
cians were rated as warm and competent. Because Hillary Clinton has a long
history in politics, many participants likely had a well-formed impression of her
within the political domain, leading to Hillary Clinton being subtyped as a politi-
cian. As anticipated, when participants evaluated a novel female political candidate
named Karen Johnson, support for the subgrouping hypothesis emerged. Karen
Johnson was rated as warm and competent to the extent that both female politi-
cians and women were rated as warm and competent, which is consistent with
the idea that participants’ lack of knowledge about Karen Johnson caused them to
rely on the stereotypes associated with her category memberships (both a woman
and a female politician) for categorization. Consistent with Studies 1 and 2, no
evidence for either contextualization hypothesis emerged. Inconsistent with the
subgrouping contextualization hypothesis, in a family context, Karen Johnson’s
competence was not predicted by women’s perceived competence.

General Discussion

Using regression analyses to directly investigate categorization processes,

the current findings provide evidence for both the subtyping (Studies 1–3) and
subgrouping (Study 3) of individual female politicians. Across student (Study 1)
and MTurk (Studies 2 and 3) samples, the warmth and competence traits applied
to Hillary Clinton, a well-known political candidate, were solely predicted by
the warmth and competence stereotypes of female politicians and not the warmth
and competence stereotypes of women (subtyping). In contrast, Study 3 provides
evidence that the warmth and competence traits applied to a novel fictional female
politician, previously unknown to participants, were predicted by the warmth and
competence stereotypes of both female politicians and women (subgrouping).
The latter results are notable because if we had solely examined the outcomes
of categorization processes by examining the content of stereotypes associated
with both women and female politicians, it might have led to the conclusion that
a novel female politician was subtyped similarly to Hillary Clinton. Though this
conclusion would have been consistent with the findings of Schneider and Bos
(2014), our strategy of testing the extent to which group stereotypes predicted
the traits associated with individuals provided additional insight into how specific
female politicians are categorized.
Notably, we did not find consistent evidence that the categorization of female
politicians was moderated by context for both, the well-known, Hillary Clinton
and a novel female politician previously unknown to participants. In fact, only in
Study 1, but not in Studies 2 and 3, did support for the subtyping contextualization
hypothesis emerge. When Hillary Clinton was pictured in a political context,
female politicians’ perceived competence predicted Hillary Clinton’s perceived
competence. The lack of consistent findings related to context across Studies 1–3
16 Brown et al.

suggest that context is not a consistent or strong moderator of categorization

processes.
By understanding how well-known and novel female politicians are catego-
rized, we can develop better anti-bias strategies in the future. Evidence that a
well-known female politician is categorized as only a female politician (subtyped)
whereas a novel female politician is categorized as both a woman and a female
politician (subgrouped) has important implications for strategies to reduce bias.
Since subtyping means that an individual female politician is essentially kicked
out of the broader social group of women, subtyping serves to maintain the stereo-
types associated with the broader social category by removing inconsistent group
members (Richards & Hewstone, 2001). However, subgrouping means that an in-
dividual female politician is now included in a more diverse representation of the
broader social group of women that includes both individuals that fit and do not fit
the stereotypes associated with women, leading to more stereotype differentiation
(Richards & Hewstone, 2001).
To develop effective interventions that target the stereotypes applied to in-
dividuals, it is necessary to know how those individuals are categorized. For
instance, because well-known female politicians are subtyped, the most effective
interventions to change the traits applied to them as individuals should only tar-
get stereotyping of female politicians at the group level. However, because we
found in Study 3 that novel female politicians are subgrouped, the most effective
interventions to change the traits applied to them as individuals should target both
the stereotyping of women and the stereotyping of female politicians at the group
level. Put another way, interventions that change stereotyping of female politi-
cians at the group level should influence the traits applied to well-known female
politicians like Hillary Clinton but may have little influence on the traits applied
to novel female politicians.
Thus, as Phills et al. (2017) argue, understanding how an individual is cat-
egorized is critical to predicting whether interventions that target bias at the
group level (e.g., Kawakami, Phills, Steele, & Dovidio, 2007; Phills, Kawakami,
Krusemark, & Nyguyen, 2017; Phills, Kawakami, Tabi, Nadolny, & Inzlicht, 2011)
will influence the traits associated with that individual. For example, using an in-
tervention that reduces gender bias in hiring decisions by instructing participants
to repeatedly associate counterstereotypes with women (Kawakami, Dovidio, &
Van Kamp, 2005; 2007) should also influence the traits applied to novel female
politicians (because they are subgrouped) but should not influence the traits asso-
ciated with well-known female politicians (because they are subtyped). To change
the traits applied to a well-known female politician it may be necessary to instruct
participants to repeatedly associate counterstereotypes with female politicians
rather than women. Within a political context, if voters were repeatedly encour-
aged to think about how female politicians are associated with counterstereotypic
traits or female politicians were repeatedly paired with counterstereotypic traits,
Ain’t She a Woman? 17

the traits applied to well-known female politicians might change over time. Thus,
if the goal is to change the traits applied to all female politicians, the best strategy
may be to target stereotyping of female politicians rather than women because the
traits of both well-known and novel female politicians are related to stereotyping
of female politicians.
An alternative strategy to reduce bias against both well-known and novel
female politicians would be to change how they are categorized rather than the
stereotypes associated with the categories they belong to. For example, training
people to categorize female politicians as leaders might be effective at changing
the traits applied to all female politicians. In an experimental setting, participants
could be repeatedly presented with an image of a female politician on a computer
screen and instructed to drag that image into an onscreen circle representing
the group “Leaders” and away from an onscreen circle representing the group
“Followers.” Alternatively, political campaigns could repeatedly present voters
with imagery pairing a female politician with words and concepts related to being
a leader. Learning to categorize female politicians as “Leaders” in this way should
cause the stereotypes associated with leaders to be applied to individual female
politicians.
Effective anti-bias strategies would ultimately increase women’s representa-
tion in leadership positions and help the U.S. to achieve a government that is reflec-
tive of its population. Additionally, because women are more likely than men to
endorse social policies that are compassionate, moral, and promote the equal rights
of women, gays, and lesbians (Eagly, Diekman, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Koenig,
2004), and people prefer voting for politicians who endorse gender-consistent
political policies (Eagly, Diekman, Schneider, & Kulesa, 2003), increasing the
number of women in politics will likely increase the prevalence of sociopolitical
policies that women value as well as increase the percentage of women who vote
in general elections.
Future research should also examine whether other well-known female politi-
cians are categorized in the same way as Hillary Clinton (subtyped) or if they
are categorized more similarly to the fictional Karen Johnson (subgrouped). The
fact that Hillary Clinton is well-known is just one possible reason why she is
subtyped and excluded from the category women in participants’ minds. Another
possibility is that she is subtyped because she is so strongly associated with the
attribute “competence” and women are rated as less competent than men. If this
is true, then a well-known but less competent female politician (i.e., Sarah Palin)
might also be subgrouped like Karen Johnson rather than subtyped like Hillary
Clinton.
Furthermore, it is important to consider how party affiliation may influence
the categorization of female politicians because previous research has found that
impressions of female politicians are related to perceived party affiliation (King
& Matland, 2003; Huddy & Capelos, 2002; Sanbonmatsu & Dolan, 2009). For
18 Brown et al.

example, Republican voters had more negative impressions of a Republican fe-

male politician than Democratic or Independent voters (King & Matland, 2003).
Moreover, stereotypes about political parties constrain the impact of gender stereo-
types on political candidates (Hayes, 2011), and feminine stereotypes overlap with
partisan stereotypes (Bauer, 2017). Thus, stereotyping of female politicians may
depend not only on whether they are categorized as women and/or female politi-
cians but also on whether they are categorized as a Republican or Democrat. Future
research should use our regression analysis strategy to assess the extent to which
the stereotypes of political groups predict the traits associated with specific female
politicians.
In conclusion, to gain a fuller understanding of individuals who can be catego-
rized into multiple groups like female politicians, future research should measure
categorization directly as well as stereotype overlap between groups. To develop
effective bias reduction strategies, it is especially important to understand whether
a person has been subgrouped or subtyped. If we can understand and help alle-
viate bias against female politicians, we will be better able to address the under-
representation of women within politics and promote a government that is truly
representative of the people.

References

Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components
in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619–630.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.619
Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political
Research Quarterly, 46(3), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600305
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bauer, N. M. (2017). Untangling the relationship between partisanship, gender stereotypes, and
support for female candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1554477X.2016.1268875
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of
social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders
and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
De Houwer, J., & Moors, A. (2015). Levels of analysis in social psychology. In B. Gawronski & G.
Bodenhausen (Eds.), Theory and Explanation in Social Psychology (pp. 24–40). New York:
Guilford.
Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates.
Political Behavior, 32(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9090-4
Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Stereotyping, prejudice and
discrimination: Another look. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes
and Stereotyping (pp. 276–319). New York: Guilford.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2006). Examining gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: It’s not Mars
and Venus. Feminism & Psychology, 16, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959-353506060817
Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps
in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 796–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796
Ain’t She a Woman? 19

Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Schneider, M. C., & Kulesa, P. (2003). Experimental tests of an
attitudinal theory of the gender gap in voting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1245–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255765
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities:
A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The Developmental Social Psychology
of Gender (pp. 123–174). New York: Psychology Press.
Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Compe-
tence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to
individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpreta-
tion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60317-2
Gawronski, B., Rydell, R. J., Vervliet, B., & De Houwer, J. (2010). Generalization versus contex-
tualization in automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4),
683–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020315
Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics
& Gender, 7(2), 133–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000055
Hewstone, M., Macrae, C. N., Griffiths, R., Milne, A. B., & Brown, R. (1994). Cognitive models
of stereotype change: Measurement, development, and consequences of subtyping. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1024
Huang, L. M., Sacchi, D. L. M., & Sherman, J. W. (2017). On the formation of context-
based person impressions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 146–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06011
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candi-
dates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526
Huddy, L., & Capelos, T. (2002). Gender stereotyping and candidate evaluation. In V. Ottati, S. Tindale,
J. Edwards, F. Bryant, L. Health, D. O’Connell, Y. Suarez-Balzacar, E. J. Posavac (Eds.), The
Social Psychology of Politics (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer.
Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: Subtyping and the per-
ceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
28, 360–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90051-K
Kasof, J. (1993). Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 140–163.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.140
Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., & Van Kamp, S. (2005). Kicking the habit: Effects of nonstereotypic
association training and correction processes on hiring decisions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 41(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.004
Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., & Van Kamp, S. (2007). The impact of counterstereotypic training and
related correction processes on the application of stereotypes. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074725
Kawakami, K., Phills, C. E., Steele, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007). (Close) distance makes the heart grow
fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behav-
iors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 957–71. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.92.6.957
King, D. C., & Matland, R. E. (2003). Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of
the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research,
31(6), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03255286
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes mascu-
line? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing
grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565–579.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.565
20 Brown et al.

Maurer, K. L., Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1995). Subtyping versus subgrouping processes in
stereotype representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 812–824.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.812
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173
Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differ-
ences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.553
Phills, C. E., Kawakami, K., Krusemark, D., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Does reducing prej-
udice increase outgroup identification? The downstream consequences of associating
positive concepts with racial categories. Social Psychological and Personality Science.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732817
Phills, C. E., Kawakami, K., Tabi, E., Nadolny, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Mind the gap: Increasing
associations between the self and blacks with approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100(2), 197–210. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022159
Phills, C. E., Williams, A., Wolff, J. M., Smith, A., Arnold, R., Felegy, K., & Kuenzig, M. E.
(2017). Intersecting race and gender stereotypes: Implications for group-level attitudes. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217706742
Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention
and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52–73.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_4
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin-
sic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sanbonmatsu, K. & Dolan, K. (2009). Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research
Quarterly, 62(3), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9090-4
Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2011). An exploration of the content of stereotypes of black politicians.
Political Psychology, 32(2), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00809.x
Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychol-
ogy, 35(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040
Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the ba-
sis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political perception. Polish
Psychological Bulletin, 27, 319–324.

Appendix A: The Context Manipulation for Hillary Clinton (No Context,

Political Context, Or Family Context)–Studies 1 and 2

r No context (modified from http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Hillary+

Chelsea+Clinton+Host+Fundraiser+Washington+Q-Txqv_pet6x.jpg)
r Political context (modified from https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
2008/03/26/clinton-women-take-the-stage-in-dc/?_r=2)
r Family context (modified from http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/
Hillary+Chelsea+Clinton+Host+Fundraiser+Washington+Q-
Txqv_pet6x.jpg)
Ain’t She a Woman? 21

Appendix B: The Context Manipulation for Karen Johnson (No Context,

Political Context, Or Family Context)–Study 3

r No context (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/caucasian-business
woman-speaking-at-podium-royalty-free-image/152838576)
r Political context (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-politi
cian-making-speech-at-podium-royalty-free-image/142021221)
r Family context (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-politici-
an-making-speech-at-podium-royalty-free-image/142018768)

ELIZABETH R. BROWN is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Uni-

versity of North Florida.
CURTIS E. PHILLS is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University
of North Florida.
DOMINIC G. MERCURIO IV recently received his Master’s degree in Psycho-
logical Science from the University of North Florida.
MATTHEW OLAH is working on his Master’s degree in Psychological Science
at the University of North Florida and anticipates graduating in spring 2018.
CANDICE J. VEILLEUX is working on her Master’s degree in Psychological
Science at the University of North Florida and anticipates graduating in summer
2018.