Research has identified a double-bind for female leaders: When acting in line with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as more likeable but less competent. Here, we test the impact of using gender stereotypical language—characterized by more prevention-focused language (e.g., avoiding risks) and less promotion-focused language (e.g., seeking gains)—on U.S. governors’ approval ratings during COVID-19 and their ability to promote effective social distancing behaviors. With a final dataset of 3,759 documents capturing governors’ communication, a 13-week panel of Google mobility data containing 6,534 observations (Study 1), U.S. nationally representative survey data from 57,532 participants (Study 2), and 24,247 tweets (Study 3), we find that female governors who use less prevention-focused, stereotypical language in their communications are more effective at increasing compliance with social distancing measures but receive lower approval ratings. As such, women leaders’ necessary approaches in crisis situations may undermine their sustainability in positions of power.
BaileyA. H.WilliamsA.CimpianA. (2022). Based on billions of words on the internet, people = men. Science Advances, 8(13), eabm2463. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm2463
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
3.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.
4.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022.
5.
BoghratiR.BergerJ.PackardG. (2023). Style, content, and the success of ideas. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(4), 688–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1346
6.
BrescollV. L.DawsonE.UhlmannE. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1640–1642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384744
7.
BüchnerA.EwertC.HoffmannC. F. A.Schröder-AbéM.HorstmannK. T. (2024). On the importance of being clear about the level of analysis of interest: An illustration using the case of self-compassion. Journal of Personality, 93(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12924
CorrellS. J.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1339. https://doi.org/10.1086/511799
11.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
12.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001
EganM.MatvosG.SeruA. (2022). When Harry fired Sally: The double standard in punishing misconduct. Journal of Political Economy, 130(5), 1184–1248. https://doi.org/10.1086/718964
GamacheD. L.McNamaraG.MannorM. J.JohnsonR. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. The Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1261–1282.
17.
GollwitzerA.MartelC.BradyW. J.PärnametsP.FreedmanI. G.KnowlesE. D.Van BavelJ. J. (2020). Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7
GutermuthD.HamstraM. R. W. (2024a). Are there gender differences in promotion–prevention self-regulatory focus?British Journal of Psychology, 115(2), 306–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12688
20.
GutermuthD.HamstraM. R. W. (2024b). Promotion focus is valued in men more than in women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(5), 764–781. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2781
21.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
22.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
25.
HigginsE. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1203_01
26.
HollanderE. P.JulianJ. W. (1970). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 33–69). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60089-1
27.
HumphreyS. E.NahrgangJ. D.MorgesonF. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
28.
KanzeD.ConleyM. A.HigginsE. T. (2021). The motivation of mission statements: How regulatory mode influences workplace discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 166, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.002
29.
KanzeD.HuangL.ConleyM. A.HigginsE. T. (2018). We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 586–614. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1215
30.
KarkR.Van DijkD. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351846
31.
KasperJ.GilovichT. (2025). Do people prefer to share political information that boosts their ingroup or derogates the outgroup?Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 154(5), 1221–1235. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001683
32.
KilduffG. J.GalinskyA. D. (2013). From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-oriented mindsets lead to greater status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 816–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033667
33.
KumarV.SoodA.GuptaS.SoodN. (2021). Prevention- versus promotion-focus regulatory efforts on the disease incidence and mortality of Covid-19: A multinational diffusion study using functional data analysis. Journal of International Marketing, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X20966563
34.
KuporD.ReichT.LaurinK. (2018). The (bounded) benefits of correction: The unanticipated interpersonal advantages of making and correcting mistakes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 149, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.08.002
35.
LawsonM. A.AnandS.KakkarH. (2023). Tribalism and tribulations: The social costs of not sharing fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(3), 611–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001374
36.
LucasG. M.MoldenD. C. (2011). Motivating political preferences: Concerns with promotion and prevention as predictors of public policy attitudes. Motivation and Emotion, 35(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9214-0
37.
MaderaJ. M.SmithD. B. (2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.007
38.
MarieA.PetersenM. B. (2025). Motivations to connect with like-minded audiences increase partisan sharing on social media. PNAS Nexus, 4(7), pgaf197. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf197
39.
MartinA. E.SlepianM. L. (2021). The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904961
40.
MercadanteE. J.TracyJ. L.GötzF. M. (2023). Greed communication predicts the approval and reach of US senators’ tweets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(11), e2218680120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218680120
41.
NguyenT.TogawaT.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.FujitaK. (2022). A cross-cultural investigation of metamotivational beliefs about regulatory focus task-motivation fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(5), 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211025423
PetersH.GötzF. M.EbertT.MüllerS. R.RentfrowP. J.GoslingS. D.ObschonkaM.AmesD.PotterJ.MatzS. C. (2023). Regional personality differences predict variation in early Covid-19 infections and mobility patterns indicative of social distancing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 848–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000439
44.
RadfordJ.GreenJ.QuintanaA.SafarpourA.SimonsonM. D.BaumM.LazerD.OgnyanovaK.DruckmanJ.PerlisR.SantillanaM.VolpeJ. D. (2022). Evaluating the generalizability of the COVID States survey—A large-scale, non-probability survey. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cwkg7
RathjeS.Van BavelJ. J.van der LindenS. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118
47.
RheeE. Y.FissP. C. (2014). Framing controversial actions: Regulatory focus, source credibility, and stock market reaction to poison pill adoption. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1734–1758. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0686
48.
RiffenburghR. H. (2012). Chapter 28—methods you might meet, but not every day. In RiffenburghR. H. (Ed.), Statistics in Medicine (Third Edition) (pp. 581–591). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384864-2.00028-7
49.
RodriguesD. L. (2022). Regulatory focus and perceived safety with casual partners: implications for perceived risk and casual sex intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology and Sexuality, 13(5), 1303–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.2018355
50.
RodriguesD. L.LopesD.BalzariniR. N. (2022). Having a prevention regulatory focus longitudinally predicted distress and health-protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stress and Health, 38(4), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3132
51.
RossG. M. (2023). Now that everyone else has panicked, well. . . I have to panic: Regulatory focus predicts panic buying during COVID-19. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 40(4), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-06-2022-5409
52.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629.
53.
RudmanL. A.FairchildK. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
54.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
55.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.GlickP.PhelanJ. E. (2012). Chapter four - reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In DevineP.PlantA. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00004-4
56.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
57.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
SassenbergK.BrazyP. C.JonasK. J.ShahJ. Y. (2013). When gender fits self-regulatory preferences. Social Psychology, 44(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000095
60.
ScholerA. A.ZouX.FujitaK.StroessnerS. J.HigginsE. T. (2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019715
61.
SeminG. R.HigginsT.de MontesL. G.EstourgetY.ValenciaJ. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.36
62.
StamD.van KnippenbergD.WisseB.Nederveen PieterseA. (2018). Motivation in words: Promotion- and prevention-oriented leader communication in times of crisis. Journal of Management, 44, 2859–2887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316654543
63.
The KhoaD.WangC.-Y.GuchaitP. (2021). Using regulatory focus to encourage physical distancing in services: When fear helps to deal with Mr. deadly Covid-19. The Service Industries Journal, 41(1–2), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1831477
64.
WilliamsM. J.TiedensL. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039
65.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2019). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Cengage Learning.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
