The Center for the Philosophy of Freedom has launched The Freedom Dialogues, a new video series produced by the Center featuring interviews and in-depth conversations surrounding the critical inquiry into the nature and causes of freedom through rigorous research. The series will showcase many diverse perspectives and research initiatives that the Freedom Center faculty and esteemed visiting fellows investigate.
This first episode features Dr. Mary Rigdon, Director of the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom and associate professor of political economy and moral science at the University of Arizona, and Dr. Jennifer Pate, Freedom Center Visiting Fellow and Professor of Economics at Loyola Marymount University. Rigdon and Pate dive into conversation surrounding their recent study on the effects prosocial incentives have on women running for political office and leadership.
Cracking the Political Office Gender-Ambition Gap
Rigdon and Pate’s study finds that the assumptions we tend to have about traits like ambition and altruism in our leadership may be incorrectly placed. It suggests that confidence, risk tolerance, or perceptions of the leadership role may be more important than strength of ability or generosity to determine who decides to run for office.
Watch the full video below, read on to learn more behind the study and how it came about.
Through the study, Rigdon and Pate have opened up a path to future research that could unpack why prosocial people shy away from running, dig further into what it is that makes women less willing to run, test how leadership structures might be better designed to attract prosocial individuals, and evaluate these effects in real world field settings. This work could better inform not only political institutions but any organization seeking to foster leadership that reflects both competence and prosocial motivation—qualities that are often thought of as highly sought after in leaders.
Making the Initial Research Connections
Pate studies women’s underrepresentation in politics and their lower willingness to enter elections, in comparison to men. The partnership with Rigdon began when Pate presented her research in one of Rigdon’s classes at the University of Arizona. While working on finding methods encouraging women to run for office, Pate found Rigdon’s earlier research with Alessandra Cassar, professor of economics at University of San Francisco, on how women become more competitive with prosocial incentives in place of more traditional incentives. Seeing potential overlap, Pate and Rigdon decided to merge their experimental approaches to test whether prosocial incentives could increase women’s willingness to enter elections.
Prosocial Behavior is Key
Prosocial actions benefit others, or society, not just the individual committing the action. Sharing, donating, and volunteering are all examples of prosocial behavior. The study’s structure is based on the professors’ prior works that establish two things:
Women are less likely than men to enter competitive leadership contests, such as political office.
Prosocial incentives tend to make women more competitive.
The study then asks whether introducing mechanisms allowing winners in competitive contexts to share their rewards with others will impact political ambition, and if it can narrow the gender gap in willingness to run for office.
The Political Office Gender-Ambition Gap Study
The laboratory experiment was designed to test how self-perception and prosocial incentives influence men and women’s willingness to pursue leadership roles. Both men and women completed a neutral, non-gendered, mathematical task and were told explicitly that men and women tend to perform equally well on it. Still, when asked to gauge their performance, women consistently underestimated their results compared to men, often believing others in the group did better, though results showed otherwise—even that they, themselves, were best suited for the job. This contributed to what Rigdon and Pate describe as a “gender-ambition gap,” in which women were significantly less likely to be willing to enter the election for group leader despite performing just as well or even better than the men.
When a prosocial incentive was introduced, giving elected leaders the option to share a portion of their earnings with others, the results changed. But interestingly, both men and women became more willing to run after being given a prosocial incentive. Rigdon said, “We do see an increase in women’s willingness to run for election. However, it doesn’t end up closing the gender political gap in ambition because it also encourages men to enter the election more often. So, the gap still exists basically at the same percentage in terms of their willingness to run for election.” In fact, the entire groups’ willingness to run increases—maintaining the gender-ambition gap, but at a higher level of willingness overall.
”Women tend to imagine there's this unicorn leader who is extremely excellent, and who should be running this group—and that person doesn't exist.
Or it's actually them.
Puzzling Out Political Ambition and Prosociality
The study also suggested a surprising paradox. You might expect generous or prosocial individuals to be the ones most interested in seeking leadership positions—but in the lab, they actually avoid running.
The study found that the participants who behaved more generously when given the chance to share were actually the least likely to opt into the election. This was true for both genders. The same pattern appeared in Rigdon and Cassar’s earlier work on competitive tournaments—suggesting a possible connection.
Rigdon and Pate refer to this as “The Puzzle of Political Ambition and Prosociality.” Their counterintuitive finding suggests that those most motivated by helping others are not necessarily the ones most eager, or likely, to seek leadership positions that can make those goals come to reality.
This study brings us to yet another intriguing question; one that will continue to be investigated by Drs. Rigdon and Pate—now that we know the gap can be moved—can the gap be closed?
