10 page Leadership Research Paper

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3) 309 –320 © Baker College 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051810368681 http://jlos.sagepub.com

Def ining the  Alpha Female:    A Female Leadership Measure

Rose Marie  Ward1, Halle C. Popson1, and Donald G. DiPaolo2

Abstract

The change in women’s social roles has led to the development of the concept of the alpha female, but currently there is no way to measure the construct. The present study discusses the development of a 14-item measure of an alpha female personality that is consistent with current definitions and examines the measure with respect to similar constructs (e.g., self-esteem, emotional intelligence, leadership, and sex-role). The three scales of the Alpha Female Inventory (leadership, strength, and low introversion) were positively related to self-esteem, emotional intelligence, the Student Leadership Profile Inventory, and masculine traits as measured by Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory. The Alpha Female Inventory can be used to identify women who embody alpha leadership qualities and to aid in our overall understanding of women as leaders.

Keywords

alpha personality, leadership, college women

Women’s social roles have changed significantly during recent decades (Eagly, 1987; Twenge, 2001). More women are earning degrees, more women are employed (Twenge, 2001), and more women are taking on leadership roles (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). As attitudes toward women have become more progressive, earlier stereotypes concerning women have shifted (Diekman & Eagly, 2000). In the United States, girls may now be raised to believe that they can do anything their male counterparts can do. This generational shift has created a new type of woman leader that some call the alpha female (Ward, DiPaolo, & Popson, 2009). The current project sought to develop a short mea- sure assessing the alpha personality in women.

Defining the Alpha Female In the popular press, people in leadership positions are often dubbed alpha males or alpha females. The term alpha male originates from the literature on animal behavior. It is used to designate the male animal that is the leader in a pack (Davies, 1985) and dominates reproductively (Hoelzel, Le Boeuf, Reiter, & Campagna, 1999). Relatively few research articles have used this term to discuss humans, and even fewer studies have used the term alpha to refer to women. In a recent book, Kindlon (2006) defined an “alpha girl” as “a young woman who is destined to be a leader. She is talented, highly motivated, and self-confident” (pp. xiv-xv). He further elaborates that the “alpha girl” must have a high GPA, a leadership position, and demonstrate high achieve- ment motivation. To be more consistent with the collegiate

population examined, the term alpha female will be used. Although Kindlon provided an initial examination of high school aged alpha females, his methods did not provide for a measurement of an alpha female personality.

In the alpha literature, Ludeman and Erlandson (2006) suggest that human alpha males are dominant, confident leaders whose charisma can be detrimental or advantageous in the business world. Whereas Ludeman and Erlandson (2006) and Hawley, Little, and Card (2008) described alpha males as socially aggressive, Hawley et al. (2008) argued that social dominance is not a trait embraced only by alpha males. They argued that both alpha females and males use aggression to dominate others. However, because the nega- tive traits often ascribed to alpha males have been addressed in the female bullying literature, the current study emphasized the more positive alpha traits (leadership and extroversion) similar to the research of Kindlon’s (2006) and Ward et al. (2009). A recent study examined the alpha female charac- teristics through interviews with collegiate alpha females. Ward et al.’s (2009) qualitative study interviewed 13 women who were identified by their peers as being alpha females. The investigators researched the women using resources available to the university community to determine their

1Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA 2University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA

Corresponding Author: Rose Marie Ward, Department of Kinesiology and Health, Miami University, Phillips Hall, Oxford, OH 45056, USA Email: [email protected]

310 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3)

academic major, whether they had a leadership position on campus, and whether they were in good standing with the university. During the interview process, the researchers asked the participants to provide the leadership characteris- tics that they possessed, examples of situations in which they embodied these characteristics, and whether or not they viewed themselves as a leader. At the end of the interviews, the participants were given an extended version of Kindlon’s (2006) alpha female definition. All the participants felt that the definition was in line with their self-concept. In addi- tion, study participants were asked to provide self-descriptive statements. Using these self-statements and themes from the qualitative study, items were written to address the lead- ership characteristics and situations that the interviewees had experienced. Ward et al.’s (2009) research provided guidance in the measurement of the alpha female construct.

The definition of the alpha female that guided the measure- ment development both included many of the characteristics mentioned in the literature concerning women and leaders and extended Kindlon’s original definition. The alpha female is a woman who reports being a leader, feeling a sense of superiority or dominance over other females, having others seek her guidance, feeling extroverted in social situations, believing that males and females are equal, and feeling driven (Ward et al., 2009). The alpha female definition was developed from the leadership and dominance concepts from the alpha male literature and embraces the positive extensions made by Kindlon (2006). In addition, this defini- tion drew from Twenge’s (1997a, 1997b, 2001, 2007) work on how contemporary women are different from previous generations and is inspired by the changing of women’s roles discussed in the context of Eagly’s (1987) social role theory. The primary focus of the definition is the leadership aspects that the alpha female will endorse.

Women as Leaders As the gender landscape changes, women are embracing more leadership positions and characteristics. Although the research indicates that women in prominent leadership posi- tions (i.e., president, chief executive officers [CEOs], etc.) are still rare, 3% of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies are women (Catalyst.org, 2009). Compared with the recent past (in 2002, 1% of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies were women; Catalyst.org, 2002 cited in Eagly & Carli, 2007), the number of women entering these ranks has increased. Even as more women enter into leadership positions, leaders, and subsequently “good” leaders, are described in tradition- ally masculine terms (Eagly, 2007). However, Fondas (1997) noted that textbooks describe successful managers and leaders using feminine terms (e.g., communal).

To break from this gendered framework, the concept of a gender-neutral leadership style has been pursued. Leadership

styles are “relatively consistent patterns of social interac- tion that typify leaders as individuals” (Eagly, 2007, p. 2). Using the concept of gender-neutral leadership style, recent research extends beyond the idea of “the great man” into the idea that types of leadership are accessible by men and women and can be assessed. Leadership styles have been assessed using a variety of leadership measures (e.g., Trans- formational Leadership Questionnaire [Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2007], Multifactor Leadership Question- naire [Bass, & Avolio, 1997], Leader–Member Exchange [Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995]). Some leadership tools have sought to examine skills that traverse the leadership styles. One of these tools is the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 2006a; Posner & Kouzes, 1993). The LPI assesses five dimensions of leadership: Challenging the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others to Act, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the Heart. Because of the collegiate population used in the current study, the student version of the LPI served as a validation measure.

Characteristics Associated With Leaders Leadership and leadership styles have been related to a number of variables. Early leadership research hoped to discover a pattern of personality attributes that were associ- ated with leaders (Bird, 1940; Mann, 1959) in order to detect the next great leader. In contrast, the current leadership literature relates levels of leadership style with personality characteristics. For example, emotional intelligence has been related to the transformational leadership style. Emotional intelligence is one’s ability to understand his or her emotions and the emotions of others around them (Schutte et al., 1998). It has been argued that

Emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leader- ship . . . Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive analytic mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader. (Goleman, 1998, p. 93)

Specifically, the relationship between emotional intelligence and the effectiveness of transformational leadership has been supported in the literature (Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Srivastava & Bharamanaikar, 2004).

In addition to emotional intelligence, a number of other personality characteristics have been associated with lead- ership. For example, masculine gender-role traits, as measured by Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory, have been ascribed to leaders (Eagly, 2007; Grinnell, 2002; Moss & Kent, 1996). Self- esteem has also been associated with leadership (Hill & Ritchie, 1977; Howard & Bray, 1988; Kolb, 1999). Specifi- cally, self-esteem and leadership are consistently positively

Ward et al. 311

correlated. The current project extends the leadership litera- ture by examining the female relationship between self- identification as a leader with the personality characteristics of emotional intelligence, masculine gender-role traits, and self-esteem. These variables serve as validation measures of the leadership measure in the current study.

Summary and Hypotheses The current study seeks to develop a short theoretically sound measure of being an alpha female. The present research hypothesizes that this measure will represent the constellation of behaviors (identification of being a leader, belief of being superior or dominant over other women, extroversion, being deferred to by others, gender equity, and drive) associated with being an alpha female. In addition, we hypothesize that the alpha female measure will be posi- tively associated to activities related to leadership (as measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory). To further validate the measure, it is hypothesized that women who endorse these alpha behaviors will also report higher levels of emotional intelligence, masculine gender-role character- istics (as measured by Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory), and self-esteem.

Method

Participants

A total of 12 small- and medium-sized colleges and uni- versities from the Midwest and Northeast United States participated. A total of 637 women completed the survey. They had a mean age of 20.38 (SD = 3.33) years; were mostly Caucasian (88.1%); were not married (94.3%); were first-year students (35.3%); and had a mean grade point average (GPA) of 3.20 (SD = 0.70). To examine the home environment of the participants, questions addressed their parents’ background. A majority of the participants reported that their parents were married (73.2%), living (94.0%), and well educated (mother’s education—college or above, 63.0%; father’s education—college or above, 65.8%).

Recruitment Procedure Participants were recruited via a two-step method. During the first step, approximately 500 email addresses were randomly retrieved from each school’s respective online directory. For an email address to be eligible for inclusion in the study, the name associated with it had to be identifi- able as female. Some female names were checked using Google.com and baby name Web sites that specified the traditional gender of the name. The second step included the online survey program testing the email address to determine

if it was a working email address. Additional participants at three mid-sized Midwestern universities signed up for the study via an online recruitment tool, Experimetrix.com, or were recruited to take the survey online via emails from school administrators. Many of the students using Experimentrix .com were from an introductory psychology course and received course credit for their participation.

Online Survey Procedure The current project is part of a larger project on relationships, sexual health, and alcohol. Potential participants were sent an email invitation requesting their participation in the study. One reminder email was sent approximately 1 week following the initial contact to participants who did not complete the survey. The online survey was housed by Prezza Checkbox software at the principal investigator’s host institution. All data collected were protected behind the institution’s firewall and IP addresses were not pursued. The host institution’s Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects approved the study.

Measures Participants were asked basic demographic questions regard- ing age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental marital status, parental education levels, and GPA.

Validation Measures Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Classically, the Bem Sex-Role

Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) is a measure of gender- stereotyped personality traits. According to Bem’s (1974) original work, the 60 items provided a measure of mascu- line, feminine, and neutral traits. Each of these categories is scored from 20 characteristics that are stereotypically desir- able for masculine (e.g., self-reliant, athletic, assertive), feminine (e.g., sympathetic, sensitive to others needs, under- standing), and neutral (e.g., helpful, moody, theatrical) traits. The neutral items served as distracting or filler items. The respondent indicated how well the words described her on a 7-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = never or almost never true to 7 = always or almost always true). Scales were summed, and higher scores indicated higher levels of each of the three types of traits. The BSRI-M and BSRI-F have internal con- sistencies of .88 and .81, respectively, in the current study. Bem’s (1977) original mean scores for female participants on the BSRI-M and BSRI-F are 4.57 and 4.76, respectively. A more recent sample using college women and the mascu- linity subscale (Twenge, 1997b) had a mean of 5.16 on the BSRI-M.

Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. Schutte et al.’s (1998) 33-item Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ) is a psychometrically sound measure of one’s ability to experience

312 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3)

and express emotions. Emotional intelligence has been related to successful leadership (Bass, 1990). Participants indicated how much they agree with statements. Sample items include “I have control over my emotions” and “I arrange events that others enjoy.” The participants chose from a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The scale was summed, and higher scores indicated higher levels of emotional intelligence. The EIQ has one scale and a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 in the current study. Therapists in Schutte et al.’s (1998) original study had an average score of 130.94.

Self-esteem. Global self-esteem was assessed using Rosenberg’s (1965) classic 10-item measure. Items on this measure assess the participant’s overall feelings of self-worth. Items were summed, and higher scores indicated more self- esteem. Scores less than 15 were indicative of low self-esteem whereas scores between 15 and 25 were considered normal. Participants selected from four options: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The self-esteem scale had an internal consistency of .90 in the current study.

Student Leadership Practices Inventory. The 30-item Student Leadership Practices Inventory (SLPI; Kouzes & Posner, 2006b) targets five exemplary leadership practices. Each leadership practice is measured by six items. The first sub- scale of the SLPI is Model the Way, which involves providing an example and being a credible leader. The second sub- scale, Inspire a Shared Vision, measures the leader’s ability to forecast the group’s future and lead the group toward common goals. Challenge the Process is a subscale that assesses the leader’s desire to take risks and accept chal- lenges. Enable Others to Act measures the leader’s ability to delegate. The final subscale is Encourage the Heart, which examines the leader’s ability to praise others’ contributions. Participants were instructed to report how frequently they engage in the behaviors and actions listed. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = rarely or seldom to 5 = frequently). Scales were summed, and higher scores indicated that the participant endorsed more of each aspect of leadership. Previous research indicates good inter- nal reliability and good test–retest reliability (Kouzes & Posner, 2006b). For the current study, the five scales had .81, .86, .83, .79, and .87 internal consistencies, respectively. Female leaders have been reported as having an average of 23.48, 22.52, 22.63, 25.79, and 24.44 on the five scales, respectively (Kouzes & Posner, 2006b). Measurement Development Process. The process began with the definition of an alpha female. The alpha female definition, Kindlon’s (2006) work, the alpha male literature (Hawley et al., 2008; Ludeman & Erlandson, 2006), Ward et al.’s (2009) qualitative study, and the authors’ experience guided the creation of the original items. At each stage of the process, decisions concerning the appropriateness of items and wording were made by all three authors collaboratively.

Item generation. Multiple items were written by the pri- mary and secondary authors to assess each aspect of the definition (i.e., leadership, feeling a sense of superiority or dominance over other females, having others seek her guid- ance, feeling extroverted in social situations, believing that males and females are equal, and feeling driven). Approxi- mately, 5 to 20 items were written for each domain. More items were written for more central ideas (i.e., leadership, dominance, and extroversion). After each item was written, it was examined for applicability to response options and phrasing. Between one and five items were written in each domain with the intention of reverse scoring the items (i.e., attempting to assess low levels of the domain). Items were rewritten at this stage if they were unclear (i.e., readability).

Item review. A panel of seven trained undergraduate and graduate student research assistants examined the 80 original items. The panel was comprised of students who had worked with the primary author on several similar projects. The panel was trained to examine the items for redundancy, compre- hension, clarity, and fit to the definition. Members of the panel reviewed the items independently and then met to dis- cuss the items. If they did not cleanly fit into the definition or were not clear, items were reconsidered carefully by the panel. If consensus (five out of seven people needed to agree) was not achieved after discussion by the panel, the item was discarded. Members of the invited panel also proposed additional items. After this stage, 25 of the items were removed and 3 items were added. There were 58 items in the new pool. These items were given to the participants with a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree, disagree somewhat, neutral, agree somewhat, and strongly agree). Items were randomized within the online tool to increase the validity of the resulting construct. Measurement Development Data Analysis Plan. After data collection was complete, the sample was randomly split using SPSS 15.0. The random split allowed for explor- atory and confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation models. Using the exploratory half, the current study pro- ceeded with item selection using information from theory, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis), factor analysis (Cudeck & MacCallum, 2007), Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), and confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling techniques (Marcoulides, 1989). In the first phase, items were removed if their means and standard deviations indicated that they did not vary across participants or represent the full spec- trum of response options. Additionally, items were examined for normality using skew and kurtosis.

During the second phase, maximum likelihood, princi- pal axis factoring, and principal components analysis were used for factor extraction. Factors were interpreted using varimax and promax rotations. Because the measurement development was exploratory, both an orthogonal (varimax)

Ward et al. 313

and oblique (promax) rotation were examined. This process provided information with regard to whether resulting struc- ture had uncorrelated or correlated factors. Parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) and minimum average partial helped determine the number of factors to retain (Zwick & Velicer, 1986). To avoid over- or underextraction, multiple methods were used to converge on a solution. Items were retained on factors if they were fully saturated (loadings >.5) and not complex (difference of loadings on each component >.2). In this same phase, items were removed if they affected the Cronbach’s alpha or decreased the internal consistency of the potential scale in the exploratory sample. For clarity, items were also removed if they loaded on factors that were not theoreti- cally consistent (e.g., gender equity items loading on the same factor as dominance items). After items were removed, another factor analysis examined the remaining items. The iterative process continued until the factor analysis, alpha, and theory indicated that a stable structure remained in the exploratory sample.

During the third phase, a confirmatory factor analysis was run using structural equation modeling techniques. It was fitted to the resulting data structure to examine the rela- tionship between subscales and to allow for a higher order structure. The use of structural equation modeling techniques as a final step in the measurement development process represented a more stringent test of the factor structure due to all of the parameters competing simultaneously for the same variance. The final phase of development consisted of taking the model developed with the exploratory half of the data and fitting the final model to the confirmatory half.

Results

Initial Tests

A number of initial tests were used to examine the entire data set. These initial tests examined the fit of the data for the analyses warranted for this investigation. a = .05 was used for all statistical tests. First, the data were examined to determine if any missing data were missing at random (i.e., the pattern of missing data does not depend on another vari- able). The only pattern that existed in the data was that fewer people completed the SLPI. Because the SLPI was the last measure on the online survey, it was assumed that this lack of completion was due to the length of the survey (21.2% of respondents did not complete part or all of the SLPI). Those who completed the entire series of question- naires had higher self-esteem and more emotional intelligence than those who did not complete the entire study. There was no difference on the demographic or the BSRI variables. This pattern of missing data is a limitation of the current study. Participants with complete data on the variables were used for the primary study analyses.

Second, the measurement development matrix (of poten- tial items) was examined using Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1950), which tests if the correlation matrix is an identity matrix (i.e., a matrix in which the variables are not related to one another), and the Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) test (Kaiser, 1974), which is a measure of sampling adequacy. Barlett’s test indicated that the matrix was not an identity matrix, c2(91) = 1511.02, p < .001, and the KMO test (KMO = .84) was in the “meritorious” category (Kaiser, 1974). Accord- ing to this evidence, measurement development can proceed. In addition, exploratory and confirmatory samples were examined for differences on demographic variables. No statistically significant differences were found.

In addition, a power analysis was run to determine the sensitivity of the research design for a variety of effect sizes. Cohen (1988) suggests that a level of .80 is sufficient in the social science literature. Assuming a two-tailed test with an alpha level of .05 and two groups (alphas vs. non-alphas), the current project had the statistical power of .69, .99, and .99 for small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectivley. For the structural equation modeling procedures, assuming a close fitting model (root mean square error of approxima- tion [RMSEA] < .05) and a large number of degrees of freedom, the current project had sufficient sensitivity (statis- tical power = .97). Given the power analysis results, the current project had adequate statistical power.

Factor Analysis A 58 × 58 correlation matrix of the potential items was used for the initial factor analysis in the exploratory sample. After an iterative series of descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and Cronbach’s alpha, 14 items remained. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in a three-factor structure. The final structure was converged on using information from the maximum likelihood, principal components analysis, and principle factor axis solutions. The three resulting Alpha Female Inventory (AFI) factors were named Leadership (AFI-L), Strength (AFI-S), and Low Introversion (AFI-LI), and account for 48.46% of the variance. The factor loadings and Cronbach’s alphas from the final exploratory factor anal- ysis are given in Table 1. The resulting scales have a Flesch– Kincaid grade level of 4.6.

In the initial stages of the factor analytic process, a factor with items assessing beliefs about equality between men and women was suggested. Whereas these concepts were in the Alpha Female definition, the items had psychometric properties (Cronbach’s a = .56) that precluded them from being retained in the final model. Many of the items violated the assumption of normality and some of the items were complex (i.e., loading on many factors). Items addressing deference by peers and drive initially loaded with the AFI-L scale. Although these items increased the breadth of the

314 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3)

construct, they had low loadings (loadings <.50) and lowered Cronbach’s alpha. To maintain a parsimonious instrument with good internal consistency, the decision was to remove these items. The resulting AFI-L scale assesses the core con- cept of identification as a leader and perceived dominance.

Structural Equation Models After the final run of exploratory factor analysis, the resulting stable structure was examined with a confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling techniques (using MPlus structural equation modeling software; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007). The structural models were examined using four primary criteria: (a) fit with the hypothesized structures (multiple factors); (b) global fit indices (compar- ative fit index [CFI] > .95; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] > .95, Hu & Bentler, 1999; chi-square); (c) micro fit indices (RMSEA < .06, Hu & Bentler, 1999; significant parameter loadings); and (d) parsimony (having the fewest parameters necessary to explain the relationships).

In addition, a number of models were entertained. The first model, predicted by the exploratory factor analytic results, was a three-factor model. This model was examined with the three factors correlated and uncorrelated. The second model examined was a unitary latent construct model. The final model was the null model (none of the variables related). This model was used as a comparison model and was never entertained as a plausible model. The correlated three-factor model parameters are available in Figure 1 and the fit statis- tics for all the models are presented in Table 2. The three-factor correlated model fit the data adequately and better than the

uncorrelated alternative model, Dc2(3) = 81.69, p < .001. The confirmatory sample echoed the results of the exploratory sample. Once again, the three-factor correlated model fit the data globally, adequately, and better than the uncorre- lated alternative model, Dc2(3) = 129.83, p < .001. The parameter loadings for the confirmatory model are avail- able in Figure 1 and the fit statistics for all the confirmatory models are available in Table 2.

Convergent Validity The resulting three scales were correlated with the valida- tion measures. The Pearson correlations are presented in Table 3. All three scales were significantly related to the BSRI-M, self-esteem, EIQ, and most of the SLPI subscales (AFI-LI was not significantly related to SLPI-Enable). The three AFI subscales were not statistically related to the BSRI-F.

Alphas Versus Non-Alphas A series of independent t tests were used to examine differ- ences between those scoring extremely high (agreeing or strongly agreeing to the statements) on the measures, or alpha females, and those scoring low (disagreeing or strongly disagreeing to the statements) on the measures, or non- alphas. To be categorized as an alpha female, the participant had to score 24 or higher on the AFI-L, 16 or higher on the AFI-S, and 11 or higher on the AFI-LI. A non-alpha female needed to score 23 or lower on the AFI-L, 15 or lower on the AFI-S, and 10 or lower on the AFI-LI. The alpha females

Table 1. Factor Loadings From the Exploratory Factor Analysis

Item

Maximum Likelihood Solution

Leadership (a = .82) Strength (a = .72) Low Introversion (a = .83)

I am destined to be a leader .85 .06 -.23 My friends know me as the leader .68 .07 -.35 I like to lead group projects .61 -.06 -.26 I am assertive in what I want and believe .52 .17 -.04 I am a dominant force in my areas of interest .52 .29 -.06 I look forward to challenges .52 .29 -.12 I consider myself tough .15 .72 <.01 I am stronger than most girls I know .16 .70 -.01 I am just a girl, so I don’t consider myself that strong (r) .08 .54 -.03 I enjoy athletics and physical activity .04 .51 -.10 I consider myself rather shy (r) -.20 -.03 .83 In social settings, I am usually quiet (r) -.14 -.06 .82 I consider myself to be more introverted (r) -.13 -.09 .76 I’d rather be behind the scenes as opposed to the forefront (r) -.25 -.03 .49

nOTE: boldface reflects the highest loading; “r” represents the reverse coding.

Ward et al. 315

had higher AFI-L scores, AFI-S scores, and AFI-LI scores than the non-alphas. See Table 4 for the results of the inde- pendent t tests. Cohen’s ds for these three comparisons were large, 2.39, 3.02, and 2.73, respectively. These effect sizes represent a percent nonoverlap between the sample distributions of 87% to 92.8%. Alphas did not differ from

non-alphas by year in school, c2(n = 115, 6) = 9.48, p = .15, mother’s education level, c2(n = 114, 5) = 2.62, p = .76, father’s education level, c2(n = 113, 4) = 6.10, p = .19, family income, c2(n = 115, 9) = 11.16, p = .27, and age, t(111) = -.53, p = .60, Cohen’s d = .10. Alphas (M = 3.41, SD = 0.45) had significantly higher GPAs than non-alphas

.71***

.79***

.59***

.47***

.88***

.57***

.63***

–.48***

.53***

.68***

.78***

.81***

.62***

.83***

.53***

.25***

.52***

I like to lead group projects.

My friends know me as the leader.

I am a dominant force in my areas of interest.

I am assertive in what I want and believe.

I am destined to be a leader.

I look forward to challenges.

I am stronger than most girls I know.

I am just a girl, so I don’t consider myself that strong.

I enjoy athletics and physical activity.

I consider myself tough.

I consider myself to be more introverted.

In social settings I am usually quiet.

I’d rather be behind the scenes as opposed to the forefront.

I consider myself rather shy.

Leadership

Strength

Low Introversion

Figure 1. Confirmatory model of the Alpha Female Inventory

Table 2. Structural Equation Modeling Results

c2 CFI TLI RMSEA

Exploratory Correlated model c2(n = 312, 74) = 186.41 .93 .91 .07, CI90 (.06-.08) Uncorrelated model c2(n = 312, 77) = 268.10 .88 .85 .09, CI90 (.08-.10) Single factor c2(n = 312, 77) = 732.99 .57 .49 .17, CI90 (.15-.18) null model c2(n = 312, 91) = 1624.15 Confirmatory Correlated model c2(n = 314, 74) = 184.60 .93 .91 .07, CI90 (.06-.08) Uncorrelated model c2(n = 314, 77) = 314.43 .85 .82 .10, CI90 (.09-.11) Single factor c2(n = 314, 77) = 621.39 .66 .59 .15, CI90 (.14-.16) null model c2(n = 314, 91) = 1668.56

note: CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI90 = 90% confidence interval.

316 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3)

(M = 3.17, SD = 0.60), t(112) = 2.35, p = .02, Cohen’s d = .44. Alpha females had significantly higher levels of leadership characteristics and more masculine gender-role charac- teristics than the non-alphas but did not differ from the non-alphas with respect to self-esteem and emotional intel- ligence (see Table 4 for the t-test results, means, and standard deviations).

Discussion The newly developed scale is an appropriate measure because the resulting 14-item AFI provides items that rep- resent the ideas discussed in Kindlon’s (2006) work, Ward et al.’s (2009) qualitative study, and the alpha male litera- ture (Hawley et al., 2008; Ludeman & Erlandson, 2006). Furthermore, the three resulting scales performed in predi- cable manners with the SLPI and other validation measures. Higher scores on the three AFI scales were related to higher levels on the validation measures. When identifying alpha

females using high scores on these scales, alpha females were different than non-alpha females on the validation measures.

As a result of the measurement development process, the items retained on the AFI-L scale represent a number of aspects in our original definition. The participants’ desires to be a leader among their peers, to be dominant, and to be assertive are assessed in the items. Kindlon (2006) and Ward et al. (2009) suggested that alpha females are leaders. Hawley et al. (2008) and Ludeman and Erlandson (2006) contended that alphas are dominant leaders. Because these items were presented in the literature as central to the alpha concept, it was crucial that the resulting measure have a strong focus on these traits. Additional research is needed to examine the AFI-L scale with respect to general dominance measures.

The AFI-S scale measures the superiority and perceived strength that are consistent with the alpha male literature (e.g., Hawley et al., 2008; Ludeman & Erlandson, 2006). The items on the AFI-S scale were originally written to

Table 3. Correlations With Alpha Female Scales

Validation Measures Leadership Strength Low Introversion

BSRI–Masculine .70*** .51*** .43*** BSRI–Feminine -.01 .04 .02 Self-esteem .30*** .17*** .23*** Emotional IQ .32*** .16*** .26*** SLPI–Model .43*** .16*** .19*** SLPI–Inspire .48*** .13** .24*** SLPI–Challenge .49*** .12** .21*** SLPI–Enable .24*** .09* .05 SLPI–Encourage .34*** .12** .18***

note: BSRI = Bem Sex-Role Inventory; SLPI = Student Leadership Practices Inventory. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. t-Tests Comparing Alpha Females With non-Alpha Females

Overall Sample (n = 635) Alpha non-Alpha

t-TestM (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

Self-esteem 20.84 (5.20) 61 22.03 (4.22) 55 20.92 (3.59) t(111) = 1.49, p = .14, d = .28 SLPI–Model 22.43 (3.89) 56 24.11 (3.49) 47 21.06 (3.02) t(101) = 4.68, p < .001, d = .93 SLPI–Inspire 22.16 (4.26) 54 23.81 (3.57) 47 20.66 (3.80) t(99) = 4.30, p < .001, d = .85 SLPI–Challenge 22.01 (4.12) 55 23.80 (3.05) 47 20.36 (3.19) t(100) = 5.56, p < .001, d = 1.10 SLPI–Enable 23.59 (3.37) 53 24.26 (3.41) 46 22.65 (3.02) t(97) = 2.47, p = .02, d = .50 SLPI–Encourage 23.22 (4.09) 56 24.09 (4.08) 47 22.04 (3.50) t(101) = 2.71, p = .01, d = .54 EIQ 124.69 (15.63) 62 126.85 (12.70) 53 123.74 (11.91) t(113) = 1.35, p = .18, d = .25 BSRI–Masculine 4.94 (.74) 55 5.44 (.54) 50 4.58 (.59) t(103) = 7.78, p < .001, d = 1.52 BSRI–Feminine 5.05 (.61) 59 5.08 (.56) 50 5.09 (.53) t(107) = .07, p = .95, d = .02 AFI-Leadership 22.28 (4.20) 62 25.81 (1.90) 53 19.74 (3.05) t(113) = 13.02, p < .001, d = 2.39 AFI-Strength 16.20 (2.84) 62 17.92 (1.39) 53 13.45 (1.56) t(113) = 16.19, p < .001, d = 3.02 AFI-Low Introversion 11.01 (3.92) 62 13.47 (2.16) 53 8.28 (1.60) t(113) = 14.41, p < .001, d = 2.73

note: SLPI = Student Leadership Practices Inventory; EIQ = emotional intelligence quotient; BSRI = Bem Sex-Role Inventory; AFI = Alpha Female Inventory.

Ward et al. 317

measure perceived superiority and dominance. The final items on the AFI-S scale are a little surprising given that “being strong” is normally associated with male leaders. Strength and masculinity are considered agentic qualities and ascribed more often to male leaders than female leaders (Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008). Further research is needed to explore this scale. For example, according to role- congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and Ward et al.’s (2009) initial work with alpha females, it would be expected that women who endorse alpha characteristics (particularly those associated with the AFI-S) would be more negatively evaluated than women who do not endorse the alpha characteristics.

In addition, Ward et al. (2009) suggested that alpha females would be extroverted. In the leadership literature, extrover- sion as measured by the Big Five has been related to leadership across multiple studies (Bass & Bass, 2008). The AFI-LI represents the opposite of what we defined as an alpha female. Being quiet and withdrawn from social situations are char- acteristics measured by the AFI-LI. Because introversion may not be the opposite of extroversion (Friedman & Schustack, 2003), the title of “low introversion” was adopted as the sub- scale name. Alpha females have a low level of introversion. The items that resulted in the AFI-LI scale were originally written to be reverse scored on a construct assessing more extroverted, social, or outgoing features. A limitation of the current study is that a traditional measure of extroversion and introversion was not included to validate this scale.

At the beginning of the measurement development process, additional aspects were proposed to be part of the alpha female definition (i.e., having others seek her guidance, believing that males and females are equal, and feeling driven). Because of psychometric complications (i.e., violations of normality, low internal consistencies, and low factor loadings), these items were not included in the final measure. We contend that they are important constructs associated with the alpha female, but further research is warranted to determine if they are central to the concept of the alpha female. For example, additional research could determine whether the concept of gender equality is a necessary component for the determi- nation of an alpha female and whether some other published measures (e.g., Sex-Role Stereotyping scale, Burt, 1980) might be appropriate.

The Alpha Female Inventory and the Validation Measures All the AFI subscales relate to some of the validation mea- sures in predictable ways. In general, it was postulated that higher levels of alpha (i.e., higher leadership scores, higher strength scores, and lower introversion scores) would be related to more positive aspects of the validation measures.

The Leadership scale (AFI-L) relates to higher self-esteem, higher emotional intelligence, having more masculine char- acteristics, and all of the characteristics of leadership outlined by the SLPI. These relationships between the AFI-L and the validation measures are consistent with the leadership litera- ture, which suggests that leaders possess these traits (Bass & Bass, 2008). The AFI-S scale relates positively to self-esteem, masculine gender-role traits, emotional intelligence, and the scales of the SLPI. In congruence with our initial definition that an alpha female would be outgoing, the resulting AFI-LI scale (with reverse scored items) correlates positively with the other AFI scales and with the validation measures. Higher scores on the AFI-LI (or lower levels of introversion tendencies) relate to higher scores on the validation measures (i.e., more self-esteem, higher emotional intelligence, higher levels of masculine gender-role traits, and higher levels of leadership). The exception was that the AFI-LI was not sig- nificantly related to the SLPI-Enable subscale.

Alpha Female Versus Non-Alpha Female t-Tests For the independent t tests, cutoffs were developed to iden- tify the alpha females (n = 62). Given that the three scales represented the central concepts in the alpha female defini- tion, it was decided that, to be an alpha female, a participant needed to have a high score on all three scales. For the com- parison group, alpha females were contrasted with those who had extremely low levels of the alpha traits.

Alphas and non-alphas did not differ on any demographic variables. Alpha females do not come from a background (with respect to maternal and paternal education or parental income) that is different than non-alphas. Alphas also did not differ with respect to age and year in school. Parental edu- cation and income does not seem to increase the likelihood of being an alpha female. This finding is in contrast to the leadership literature, which has found a relationship between family status and leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). In inter- views with Kindlon (2006) and Ward et al. (2009), alpha females reported that the relationship with their parents (especially their father) impacted their development. Many alpha females reported that the support and guidance they received from their parents encouraged and enabled them to take leadership positions. It is possible that family resources (i.e., income and education) do not increase the likelihood of being an alpha female, but rather the family support system does. Quantitative evidence is needed to further examine the development of the alpha female’s closer relationship with her parents.

In contrast to the demographic variables, alphas did differ from non-alphas on some validation measures. Consistent with our hypotheses, alphas had higher levels of all the leader- ship characteristics (as measured by the scales of the SLPI) and higher levels of masculine characteristics than non-alphas.

318 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3)

The alphas had levels of these validation measures higher than published levels. In addition, the large magnitude of difference between the two samples on this validation scale emphasizes the contrast between alpha females and non- alphas. The nonsignificant difference between the alphas and non-alphas on the feminine scale is consistent with social role theory (Eagly, 1987) and the leadership literature (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Women are expected to be feminine or commu- nal regardless of their leadership status.

With respect to self-esteem, both the alphas and non-alphas are in the normal range. The effect size for the self-esteem comparison was in the small effect size range (Cohen’s d = .28), and the analysis did not have sufficient statistical power. Self-esteem had a positive bivariate relationship with the AFI scales, which was consistent with the literature that has found a relationship between leadership and self-esteem (Hill & Ritchie, 1977; Howard & Bray, 1988; Kolb, 1999). The small effect size for the self-esteem relationship might be because of an increase in self-esteem for college students in general (Twenge & Campbell, 2001).

Similar to the self-esteem finding, emotional intelligence was related to the AFI scales bivariately but did not show significant differences in the independent t tests. The signifi- cant correlations between the AFI and EIQ are consistent with the transformational leadership literature (Kerr et al., 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Srivastava & Bharamanaikar, 2004). Analogous to the self- esteem findings, the independent t test comparing alphas to non-alphas on the EIQ had a small effect size and subse- quently lower power. A larger sample is needed to further explore these findings.

Limitations Because our recruitment was via email, we had a very low response rate. Low response rates for online studies, unfortu- nately, are typical (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). However, one strength of this study is that participants were invited randomly from each respective university or college. In addition, the timing of the administration of our study (i.e., late in the spring semester) may have also affected participa- tion. Students may have been concerned with final exams and projects, and therefore did not choose to complete this voluntary study. As is the case of many measurement devel- opment studies, the online questionnaire packet contained many measures and items. Because of the long online ques- tionnaire, we had more missing data with the SLPI. In the future, randomizing the order of the questionnaires would ameliorate this problem. Using a collegiate population for the current sample may have resulted in a higher proportion of alpha females. College students tend to have better psycho- logical functioning (Kaplan, Damphousse, & Kaplan, 1996). Further investigation is needed to determine whether or not there are more alphas in college versus a community sample.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

The current study suggests that the AFI measure can be used to identify alpha females. This development opens up possibili- ties for those who work with female leaders. Opportunities for personal development, self-awareness, and skill enhancement can be identified and promoted. There is also the possibility of being proactive on a number of interventions critical for their personal well-being and development. Parallel to the literature on being an alpha male (Ludeman & Erlandson, 2006), this new measure can be used to examine the relationship between being an alpha female and risk-taking behaviors (e.g., on the job, in the classroom) and health-related risky behaviors (e.g., alcohol use, sexual experience, anxiety). Being an alpha female may be a risk factor similar to being an alpha male. Alpha females may use different coping mechanisms (e.g., risky health behaviors or health-promoting behaviors) to deal with negative perception or may not perceive a negative perception (as indicated by their self-esteem level). In the leadership literature, risk taking is related to effective leader- ship styles. Ludeman and Erlandson (2006) suggest that alpha males are more likely to have these characteristics than females or alpha females, but they provide no data to support this claim. Future research might explore whether their desire to take risks is solely limited to their leadership practices, and whether the alpha females differ from the alpha males.

These personality characteristics would provide infor- mation for future behavior change intervention tailoring. According to the leadership literature, female leaders tend to be more communal and inclusive, thereby interested in not only their own success but also the successes of others (Eagly & Carli, 2007). It is possible that messages that are targeted for alpha females might garner more successful interven- tions as they report that they are able to influence others (Ward et al., 2009). In addition, this personality measure can be used to determine if the alpha characteristics that women are increasingly adopting are related to success in academia and employment opportunities, and thus identify women who will be successful or powerful leaders in the future.

Furthermore, future research might explore the applica- bility of the measure in more diverse samples. The current sample is primarily Caucasian and from educated families. Exploring the measure in populations that do not encour- age leadership or strength in females would extend the comprehension of the measure. Additionally, the measure might be explored in mixed gendered or male samples to determine if the measure differs across gender or if alpha males could be identified with the measure as well.

Alpha females are leaders who believe they are personally strong and low on introversion. In short, these women are women who have benefited from the feminist movement and the expansion of sex role expectations. No longer do they fit the Reviving Ophelia (Pipher, 1994) mold. A large portion of the younger generation of women is no longer failing to

Ward et al. 319

find their authentic voice as Pipher (1994) asserted. They believe they are strong and capable of leading others.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge numerous research assis- tants, without whom this project would not be possible, especially Ryan Jones, Lauren Rosing, Kristen Altenau, Katherine Beavis, Matt Mosconi, Liz Landes, Pat Fleming, Maggie Heffernan, and Jessica Heilman. Thanks to Brad Bates, PhD, who helped us recruit schools for the study. Thank you to Carol Cummins, Molly Matthews, Jeff Potteiger, PhD, and the “Research Alumni” who provided comments on earlier drafts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Alban-Metcalfe, B., & Alimo-Metcalfe, J. (2007). The develop- ment of the (engaging) Transformational Leadership Question- naire (private sector version). Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28, 104-121.

Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 77-85.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership devel- opment. Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leader- ship: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 196-205.

Bird, C. (1940). Social psychology. New York, NY: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Catalyst.org. (2009). U.S. women in business. Retrieved from http:// www.catalyst.org/publication/132/us-women-in-business

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci- ences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Cudeck, R., & MacCallum, R. C. (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davies, N. B. (1985). Cooperation and conflict among dunnocks, Prunella modularis, in a variable mating system. Animal Behaviour, 33, 628-648.

Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social- role interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disad- vantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1-12.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781-797.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of preju- dice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Fondas, N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257-282.

Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2003). Personality: Classic theories and modern research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 93-102.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Apply- ing a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quar- terly, 6, 219-247.

Grinnell, J. P. (2002). Effects of leaders’ and evaluators’ sex on sex-role stereotyping of charismatic leaders. Psychological Reports, 91, 1247-1252.

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 76-88.

Hill, N. C., & Ritchie, J. B. (1977). The effect of self-esteem on leadership and achievement: A paradigm and a review. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 491-503.

Hoelzel, A. R., Le Boeuf, B. J., Reiter, J., & Campagna, C. (1999). Alpha-male paternity in elephant seals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46, 298-306.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

320 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(3)

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 106, 39-60.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 32-36.

Kaplan, D. S., Damphousse, K. R., & Kaplan, H. B. (1996). Moderating effects of gender on the relationship between not graduating from high school and psychological dysfunction in young adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 760-774.

Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership and Orga- nization Development Journal, 27, 265-279.

Kindlon, D. (2006). Alpha girls: Understanding the new American girl and how she is changing the world. New York, NY: Rodale.

Kolb, J. A. (1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward lead- ership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 305-320.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006a). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006b). Student Leadership Practices Inventory: Facilitator’s guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25, 554-564.

Ludeman, K., & Erlandson, E. (2006). Alpha male syndrome. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emo- tional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 387-404.

Mann, R. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

Marcoulides, G. A. (1989). Structural equation modeling for scien- tific research. Journal of Business and Society, 2, 130-138.

Moss, S. E., & Kent, R. L. (1996). Gender and gender-role catego- rization of emergent leaders: A critical review and comprehen- sive analysis. Sex Roles, 35, 79-96.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adoles- cent girls. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Leadership Practices Inventory–updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 191-199.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

Srivastava, K. B. L., & Bharamanaikar, S. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership behavior. Psychological Studies, 49, 107-113.

Twenge, J. M. (1997a). Attitudes towards women, 1970-1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35-51.

Twenge, J. M. (1997b). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305-325.

Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133-145.

Twenge, J. M. (2007). GenerationMe: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321-344.

Ward, R. M., DiPaolo, D. G., & Popson, H. C. (2009). College student leaders: Meet the Alpha Female. Journal of Educa- tional Leadership, 7, 100-117.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 99, 432-442.

Bios

Dr. Rose Marie Ward is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Health at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. She is a health psychologist who examines the impact of college on health behavior change. Her recent publications examined the prevalence of the Alpha Female personality across 12 difference universities and colleges. In addition, this research assessed the risk associated with the alpha personality with respect to alcohol use and sexual assault risk.

Halle Popson is a graduate student pursuing a masters degree in Health Promotion in the Department of Kinesiology and Health at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. She obtained her undergraduate degree in Health Studies at Miami University. Her research interests are women’s health, athletics, and leadership.

Dr. Donald G. DiPaolo is an Associate Professor in the Education Department at the University of Detroit Mercy in Detrit, Michigan. He is a leading, national voice in the area of leadership education and has presented to tens of thousands of college students leaders across the United Stated and Canada. Dr. DiPaolo is the author of  Leadership Education at American Universities: A Longitudinal Study of Six Cases (Mellen Press).