Leaders' Gender and Public Support for Foreign Policy Decisions

• In Event: The Effects of Leaders' Gender on Foreign Policy Decision-making

Abstract

Do citizens evaluate female vs. male leaders’ foreign policy decisions differently? As women often face a ‘double bind’ wherein “they experience disapproval for more masculine behaviors, such as asserting clear-cut authority over others, as well as for their more feminine behaviors, such as being especially supportive of others” (Eagly, 2007), women in national leadership positions may be limited in their ability to navigate foreign policy well if they cannot anticipate how domestic audiences will receive their actions. On the one hand, if women are more likely to be supported in pursuing peace than men, then there may be more room for reconciliation between adversarial nations when a woman is elected to the executive office. This may represent a reason to elect females more frequently and may light the way for more female leadership in other arenas. On the other hand, if women are only supported by voters when initiating or escalating a conflict, or when acting outside of ‘soft’ or feminine gender stereotypes, then women leader may select more hostile foreign policy outcomes, to the detriment of international peace. As a state’s decision to work towards compromise with another country or go to war with them is one of the most consequential, the uncertainty around the way gender and public opinion interact to create incentives and penalties for leaders during conflict is of great concern. This paper uses a survey experiment (a sample of 2400 US respondents) to measure how a leader's gender influences citizens' support for pro-peace as opposed to escalatory foreign policy decisions.

Authors

• Anna O. Pechenkina, Utah State University

• Micala Gillespie

• Kiron Kanina Skinner, Carnegie Mellon University

• Eunbin Chung, University of Utah