further research on this topic has found that the degree of femininity a women possesses may have a major effect on the way a woman of political power is perceived. gervais and hillard (2011) cite the case studies of hillary clinton and sarah palin to prove their point. gervais and hillard suggest that clinton and palin may be perceived negatively by viewers because they are women in roles of power and leadership in the government, which violates the stereotypical gender norm that women can not be leaders. because of this contradictory notion, they will be viewed less favorably. gervais and hillard then go on to argue that both clinton and palin "violate gender norms" in different ways, perhaps leading to different evaluations of their warmth and competence. hillary clinton presents herself in a more masculine way and this is viewed as congruent with the leadership role, but not with the feminine archetype. this type of woman who violates feminine gender roles is typically seen as competent, but harsh. sarah palin, on the other hand, presents herself with a very feminine attitude that falls in line with her gender role but not with the leadership role. a woman in this position is typically seen as warm, but incompetent. due to the implications of this finding, gervais and hillard hypothesized that clinton would be rated as more competent but less warm and palin would be rated as less competent but more warm.