charismatic leadership case study with ronald reagan as exemplar

Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Key leadership style, why reagan was a charismatic leader, if i were the president, works cited.

In this paper, the actions/ behaviors that led to the conclusion that Ronald Reagan was a charismatic leader will be evaluated. Generally, charismatic leadership refers to “a leadership style where the leader engages in extraordinary behaviors and exhibits considerable expertise” (Lussier and Achua 46).

Reagan used the charismatic leadership style during his tenure as the president of the US. Charisma is a trait associated with leaders based on their behaviors, expertise, and the situational context. Charismatic leaders often include emotional appeals in their speeches to improve the effectiveness of their communication (Bonnici 63). This involves using symbolism and metaphors to inspire and motivate followers. Charismatic leaders are expected to have a clear ideological vision to encourage radical change among their followers. Additionally, they must demonstrate high standards of honesty to earn the trust of their followers. In this respect, a charismatic leader has to be honest in his actions. Furthermore, “demonstrating courage and conviction enables charismatic leaders to manage follower impression” (Bonnici 69).

Reagan demonstrated the traits discussed in the foregoing paragraph in the following ways. To begin with, he was an effective communicator who used symbolism and metaphors in public speeches to inspire the citizens (Greenstein 220-230). For example, he described the USSR as the evil empire. Metaphorically, this description highlighted the moral superiority of democracy and freedom of choice over communism.

Reagan had a clear vision, which he encouraged the citizens to support to promote economic development. His ideological vision was to create a conservative society (Bell 66-74). In this respect, Reagan focused on reducing government expenditure, cutting tax rates, and protecting citizens’ constitutional rights. Thus, his vision was considered as the change that Americans needed to correct the mistakes made by the Carter regime. Reagan earned the trust and respect of the citizens through his candid honesty. He portrayed courageous convictions and focused on pursuing what he and his followers considered to be right. For example, “he took responsibility for the Iran Arms and Contra Aid controversy in 1987, thereby regaining the trust of the pubic” (Bell 66-74).

Unlike most former presidents of the US, Reagan showed his expertise in managing the country through effective delegation of tasks and authority (Greenstein 220-230). He believed that empowering members of his administration would ensure successful implementation of national policies. Thus, he established effective teams that worked independently, thereby improving the effectiveness of his administration.

As the president, I would use transformational leadership to lead the country. A transformational leader is an individual who is capable of guiding, directing, and influencing others to achieve the desired change (Bonnici 78). Unlike charismatic leadership, transformational leadership does not require special traits and behaviors, which some leaders might lack. Transformational leadership would facilitate power sharing through consultations and widespread participation in my administration. This would ensure effective leadership by promoting responsiveness and accountability among administrators.

Having charisma is a fundamental requirement for being a charismatic leader. This involves having charismatic traits such as trust, a clear vision, excellent communication skills, and ability to delegate authority effectively. President Ronald Reagan had these traits and used them to lead the country. As a result, he was considered a charismatic leader who had extraordinary expertise in leadership.

Bell, Mark. “Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar.” Emerging Leadership Journeys 6.1 (2013): 66-74. Print.

Bonnici, Charles. Creating a Successful Leadership Style, London: Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2011. Print.

Greenstein, Fred. Presidents, their Styles and their Leadership, Princeton: Center for Public Leadership, 2008. Print.

Lussier, Robert and Christopher Achua. Leadership: Theory, Application, and Skill Development, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.

Mayor Rob Ford’s Ethical Issues
Robert McNamara's Leadership in The Fog of War
The Speeches of Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan
Speech Analysis: Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama
Reagan and the Arms Race
Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney’s Economic Plans
Australian Prime Ministers: John Curtin and Ben Chifley
Australian Politicians: Scullin, Lyons and Menzies Contributions
John Howard and Kevin Rudd: Political Leadership Comparison
John Howard's Leadership Style
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 19). Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ronald-reagan-as-a-charismatic-leader/

"Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader." IvyPanda , 19 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/ronald-reagan-as-a-charismatic-leader/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader'. 19 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader." June 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ronald-reagan-as-a-charismatic-leader/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader." June 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ronald-reagan-as-a-charismatic-leader/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader." June 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ronald-reagan-as-a-charismatic-leader/.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the ‘great communicator

Related Papers

Don Waisanen

Using the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) and the State of the Union (SOTU) as stimuli, our experiment (N = 403) examines the differential effect of exposure to humorous vs. serious presidential speech on the likelihood of engaging in post-exposure message elaboration. The results suggest that viewers are more likely to engage in message elaboration when viewing serious presidential speech like the SOTU rather than the more humorous WHCD. Additionally, disposition toward the president fails to moderate the impact of varied speech exposure on message elaboration. Our results ultimately show that, while WHCD humor may be quickly discounted, it can also provide a strategic distraction from political content. We discuss the implications of these results and confirm our main findings across the two most recent U.S. presidential administrations.

Journal of Broadcast & Electronic Media

Courtney Johnson , D. Jasun Carr , Leticia Bode

Shows blending humor and information are on the rise, and many such shows incorporate live studio audiences. Using two separate experimental studies, we test whether audience laughter on humorous political talk shows affects audience perceptions. We find that the effects of audience laughter depend on context, boosting perceptions of host and program credibility when a host is unknown, while reminding viewers of the comedic intentions and appeal of a known comedic host. If humor allows the hosts of comedic political talk shows more freedom to pointedly question their guests without turning off viewers, it may better engage and inform audiences.

Media, Culture & Society

Göran Eriksson

Politics and the Life Sciences

Patrick Stewart

Presidential Studies Quarterly

chad bowman

Journal of Language and Politics

Argyro Kantara

Previous conversation analytic work on the use and function of laughter in broadcast talk has mostly focused on its affiliative use as response to something the participants had constructed as humorous (Eriksson 2009, 2010; Ekström 2009, 2011; Baym 2013). Fewer studies have focused on its disaffiliative use as a response to something that has not been constructed as humorous (Clayman 1992; Romaniuk 2009, 2013a, 2013b). This paper contributes to this second line of research by investigating the use of laughter by a specific politician, namely Alexis Tsipras, in interview openings in three out of four one-on-one election campaign interviews he gave during the 2012 double Greek general elections campaigns. I will argue that Alexis Tsipras’ laughter is not only disaffiliative, undermining the journalists’ questions and projecting either an evasive answer or a counterchallenge, but that it also establishes a “cool but assertive” persona for the ears of the overhearing electorate.

Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales

Tanya Romaniuk

This paper discusses a previously undescribed phenomenon in broadcast news inter- views, namely the practice of interviewees laughing in response to an interviewer's question prior to providing a substantive response. Specifically, it does so through an investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton's (HRC) use of laughter in news interviews during her 2007 campaign for the Democratic nomination for President of the

Christopher P Kelley

Rebecca Higgie

This article reports findings of a project that examined people’s attitudes toward politicians who participate in political satire and comedy programs. It surveyed 489 participants on their attitudes about satire’s political function and the politicians who play along or satirize themselves on those programs. The politicians’ own communication skills were found to be important, but the key to their success was also related to factors such as the format of the performance, the type of humor used, the status of the satire program in broader political discourse, and the role of the satirist as either facilitator or combatant. It was found that satire is a complex practice that can endorse as it criticizes and create sympathy as it ridicules.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Grigore Georgiu

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Catherine Riordan

Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching

Niken Putri

Nawal Abbas

Beth Haller

International Journal of Communication

Kristen Landreville

Jay Hmielowski

Jayeon (Janey) Lee

Discourse & Communication

Valerie Drew

Frontiers in psychology

Annals of the International Communication Association

Nathan Miczo

The European Journal of Humour Research

Liliya Duskaeva

Yair Galily

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Howard Leventhal

Maria Elizabeth (Betsi) Grabe

The Leadership Quarterly

Loren Naidoo

Benny Cvofz

Lillith Kighal

Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)

William Sabadie

The Journal of social psychology

Harry Weger

Argumentation and Advocacy

Jason T Peifer

Motivation and Emotion

Patrick A. Stewart

Howard Journal of Communications

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Stephanie Edgerly

Charismatic Leaders

Reference work entry
First Online: 22 November 2023
Cite this reference work entry

Mara Del Baldo ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7912-8573 7

358 Accesses

Effective leadership ; Positive leadership ; Transformational leadership

There are several approaches to leadership and management, based on different assumptions and styles. The latter can be grounded on a combination of personal and organizational attributes of tangible and intangible nature, such as charisma. Visioning, empathy, and empowerment are all components of charismatic leadership.

Charisma is a unique type of influence in which followers believe their leader possesses exceptional qualities, such as effective communication, vision, trust, and impression management (Bell, 2013 ). Personal responsibility, integrity, responsibility, and solidarity are typical characteristics of charismatic leaders (Becker, 1998 ) who help organizations foster a virtuous corporate culture in organizations (Bruni & Sena, 2013 ; Cardona, 2000 ).

Charisma has been identified as an essential component of transformational leadership (Jacobsen & House, 2001 ). Transformational leadership...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1987). Charisma and Beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp. 29–49). MA: D. C. Heath and Company.: Lexington.

Google Scholar

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 , 441–462.

Article Google Scholar

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Becker, T. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23 (1), 154–161.

Bell, M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. In Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), 66-74 . Leadership: Regent University School of Business &.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge . New York: Harper & Row.

Brown, J. B. (2011). The Building of a Virtuous Transformational Leader. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership, 2 (1), 6–14.

Bruni, L., & Sena, B. (Eds.). (2013). The Charismatic Principle in Social Life . New York: Routledge.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York: Harper & Row.

Cardona, P. (2000). Transcendental leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21 (4), 201–206.

Choi, J. (2006). A motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership: Envisioning, Empathy and Empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13 (1), 24–43.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (7), 747–767.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ Preferences for Charismatic Leadership: The Influence of follower Values and Personality. The leadership Quarterly, 12 , 153–179.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Jacobsen, C., & House, R. C. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12 (1), 75–112.

Martin, R. L. (2002). The virtue matrix: Calculating the return on corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 80 (3), 68–75.

Olsen, O. K. (2010). Are good leaders moral leaders? The relationship between effective military operational leadership and morals Dissertation for the philosophiae doctor degree (PhD) at the University of Bergen.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4 (4), 577–594.

Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43 , 1703–1725.

Weber, M. (1922). Gesammeltze aufsaetxe zur wissenschafslehre . Tuebinge: Morh.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10 , 285–305.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Society and Politics, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy

Mara Del Baldo

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mara Del Baldo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law London Metropolitan University, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

Samuel O. Idowu

BFH - Bern, Bern, Switzerland

René Schmidpeter

College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

Nicholas Capaldi

International Training Centre of the IL, International Labor Organization, Turin, Italy

Liangrong Zu

Instituto Politécnico da Guarda, Guarda, Portugal

Section Editor information

Department of Quality Management and Standardization, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

Ivana Mijatovic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Del Baldo, M. (2023). Charismatic Leaders. In: Idowu, S.O., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del Baldo, M., Abreu, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25984-5_1040

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25984-5_1040

Published : 22 November 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25983-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25984-5

eBook Packages : Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Browse Topics
Executive Committee
Affiliated Faculty
Harvard Negotiation Project
Great Negotiator
American Secretaries of State Project
Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
Negotiation Programs
Mediation Programs
One-Day Programs
In-House Training – Inquiry Form
In-Person Programs
Online Programs
Advanced Materials Search
Contact Information
The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
Frequently Asked Questions
Negotiation Journal
Harvard Negotiation Law Review
Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
40th Anniversary Symposium
Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

Upcoming Events
Past Events
Event Series
Our Mission
Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

Charismatic Leadership: Weighing the Pros and Cons

Charismatic leadership was once promoted as a cure-all for struggling organizations. But recent research and theory suggest potential downsides to putting a charismatic leader in charge.

By Katie Shonk — on August 8th, 2024 / Leadership Skills

Jack Welch. Lee Iacocca. Ronald Reagan. Steve Jobs. Sam Walton.

These prominent leaders from the 1980s embodied a leadership style held up at the time as highly desirable and effective: charismatic leadership.

Leadership trends wax and wane, and charismatic leadership has more recently taken a back seat to less hierarchical and paternalistic leadership styles , such as participative leadership and facilitative leadership . But as long as charismatic leaders such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump continue to hold and seek power, the benefits and pitfalls of charismatic leadership deserve consideration.

Claim your FREE copy: Real Leaders Negotiate

If you aspire to be a great leader, not just a boss, start here: Download our FREE Special Report, Real Leaders Negotiate: Understanding the Difference between Leadership and Management , from Harvard Law School.

What Is Charismatic Leadership?

In his 1947 book, Theory of Social and Economic Organization , German sociologist Max Weber defined charisma as a “gift” that leads a person to be “treated as a leader” based on their perceived “supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” that are “not accessible to the ordinary person.”

In the 1970s, management scholar Robert House developed his charismatic leadership theory , which describes leaders who “by force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers.” These effects, he wrote, include “commanding loyalty and devotion” and “inspiring followers to accept and execute the will of the leader without hesitation or question or regard to one’s self-interest.” Charismatic leaders, House wrote, are often enlisted to “break with the established order” and to accomplish “major social change.”

Early writings on charismatic leadership, House noted, described the charismatic leader as prompting an emotional response in followers that inspires them to “enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty, commitment and devotion to the leader and to the cause that the leader represents.” Through their self-confidence, charismatic leaders were thought to motivate followers to pursue organizational goals more confidently.

The Downside of Charismatic Leadership

By 1996, charismatic leadership had become the “predominant paradigm in organizational leadership theory and research,” wrote University of Alabama researcher J. Bryan Fuller and his coauthors in a research review of the topic for Psychological Reports . But although everyone seems to know charisma when they see it, “the ambiguity of the phenomenon and the difficulty of its measure have hindered researchers from firmly comprehending it,” they wrote.

As a result, pitfalls of charismatic leadership may have been overlooked. Anecdotal evidence from business, government, and beyond suggest charismatic leadership can trigger both the best and worst of humankind. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, drew on his charisma to encourage his followers to push for needed social change, while Adolf Hitler used his charisma to motivate his followers to scapegoat others and commit evil acts.

Because charisma is rooted in emotional manipulation, it can lead followers to abandon rational thought and accept ideas uncritically, writes organizational psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in a 2012 Harvard Business Review article . In addition, he writes, charismatic leaders tend to become “addicted” to the unquestioning approval of their followers, which distorts their judgment and distracts them from their goals. Followers, in turn, “become addicted to the leader’s charisma.” The result is a “reciprocal dependence” that leads both parties to “distort reality,” according to Chamorro-Premuzic.

Is Charismatic Leadership Effective?

In 2017, Jasmine Vergauwe of Gent University and her colleagues tried to quantify the overall effectiveness of charismatic leadership by conducting three studies on a total of 800 business leaders and about 7,500 of their superiors, peers, and subordinates. In one study, they gave leaders a personality assessment that measured four indicators of charisma (namely, how bold, colorful, mischievous, and imaginative they were). Those who scored as more charismatic were also perceived as highly charismatic by their subordinates, the researchers found.

In a second study, leaders’ charisma was assessed, and their coworkers rated their overall effectiveness on a 10-point scale. “As charisma increased, so did perceived effectiveness—but only up to a certain point,” write Vergauwe and her team in Harvard Business Review . When leaders scored above the 60th percentile on charisma (just above average for the general population of working adults), their effectiveness began to decline in the eyes of their subordinates, peers, and supervisors. (Perhaps not surprisingly, the more charismatic leaders were, the higher they rated their own effectiveness.)

In a third study, the researchers found that highly charismatic leaders were strategically ambitious but had difficulty realizing their vision due to difficulties managing day-to-day operations. The opposite was true for those lower in charisma: They may have been competent at execution but didn’t spend enough time on long-term planning and promoting innovation.

The Bottom Line on Charismatic Leadership

Charisma in a leader can be linked to innovation and breakthroughs. Yet highly charismatic leaders are prone to overconfidence; eccentricity; and attention-seeking, manipulative behavior, Vergauwe and colleagues conclude. Coaching, training, and feedback from coworkers might help these leaders more accurately assess their strengths and weaknesses, they suggest.

Chamorro-Premuzic, meanwhile, advises organizations to avoid the “charisma trap” by choosing leaders based on unbiased assessment tools and by considering “hidden talent”—those who may not self-nominate themselves for leadership roles.

What pros and/or cons of charismatic leadership have you observed on the job?

Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
Counteracting Negotiation Biases Like Race and Gender in the Workplace
What Is Collective Leadership?
The Trait Theory of Leadership
How to Negotiate in Cross-Cultural Situations

Click here to cancel reply.

Negotiation and Leadership

Download Program Guide: Fall 2024
Register Online: Fall 2024
Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

Download Program Guide: November 2024
Register Online: November 2024
Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

Download Program Guide: December 2024 and June 2025
Register Online: December 2024 June 2025
Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

Download Program Guide: February 2025
Register Online: February 2025
Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Beyond the Back Table February 2025 Program Guide

Select Your Free Special Report

Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) December 2024 and June 2025 Program Guide
Negotiation Essentials In-House Program Guide
Negotiation Master Class November 2024 Program Guide
Beyond the Back Table February 2025 Program Guide
Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
Make the Most of Online Negotiations
Managing Multiparty Negotiations
Getting the Deal Done
Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

BATNA and Other Sources of Power at the Negotiation Table
Michael Scott, Negotiation Genius? Lessons from TV Negotiations
BATNA Strategy: Should You Reveal Your BATNA?
Take your BATNA to the Next Level
Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
Negotiation Advice for Buying a Car: Tips for Improving Your Negotiating Position
10 Great Examples of Negotiation in Business
Top 10 Notable Negotiations of 2022
Negotiation Preparation Strategies
Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
3 Types of Conflict and How to Address Them
What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work?
How to Manage Conflict at Work
Conflicts of Interest: How to Avoid and Manage Them
Cognitive Biases in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution – Common Negotiation Mistakes
Crisis Negotiation Lessons: The U.S.-Russia Prisoner Swap
What is Crisis Management in Negotiation?
Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
AI Negotiation in the News
Trust and Honesty in Negotiations: Dealing with Dishonest Negotiators
Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
How to Renegotiate a Bad Deal
Consensus-Building Techniques
How to Manage Difficult Staff: Gen Z Edition
What Leads to Renegotiation?
Does Your Negotiation Process Need Improvement?
5 Dealmaking Tips for Closing the Deal
Trump’s Negotiating Style as President-Elect
Understanding Exclusive Negotiation Periods in Business Negotiations
Settling Out of Court: Negotiating in the Shadow of the Law
What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation
Four Conflict Negotiation Strategies for Resolving Value-Based Disputes
Using Principled Negotiation to Resolve Disagreements
Dear Negotiation Coach: Responding (Or Not) to an Ultimatum in Negotiation
The Importance of Relationship Building in China
Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
The Pros and Cons of Back-Channel Negotiations
The Negotiation Process in China
How to Solve Intercultural Conflict
Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
How Mediation Can Help Resolve Pro Sports Disputes
The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
What Makes a Good Mediator?
AI Mediation: Using AI to Help Mediate Disputes
Price Anchoring 101
For a Mutually Beneficial Agreement, Collaboration is Key
Reservation Point in Negotiation: Reach Negotiated Agreements by Asking the Right Questions
A Difficult but Well-Fought Negotiation Campaign
10 Negotiation Failures
10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
3-D Negotiation Strategy
Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
The Importance of a Relationship in Negotiation
Collaborative Negotiation Examples: Tenants and Landlords
How to Ask for a Salary Increase
Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
Salary Negotiation: How to Ask for a Higher Salary
How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
Teach Your Students to Negotiate a Management Crisis
Learn from the Best with the Great Negotiator Case Studies
The Best New Simulations
Negotiation Journal Now Open Access, New Issue Just Released!
Check Out the Three-Party Coalition All-In-One Curriculum Package
Streaming Toward Win-Win Negotiation: Spotify Upgrades Its Negotiating Strategy
What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
Labor Negotiation Strategies
How to Use Tradeoffs to Create Value in Your Negotiations

PON Publications

Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

BUS603: Managing People

The Nature of Leadership

Transformational, visionary, and charismatic leadership, charismatic leadership.

Ronald Reagan, Jesse Jackson, and Queen Elizabeth I have something in common with Martin Luther King Jr., Indira Gandhi, and Winston Churchill. The effectiveness of these leaders originates in part in their charisma , a special magnetic charm and appeal that arouses loyalty and enthusiasm. Each exerted considerable personal influence to bring about major events.

It is difficult to differentiate the charismatic and the transformational leader. True transformational leaders may achieve their results through the magnetism of their personality. In this case, the two types of leaders are essentially one and the same, yet it is important to note that not all transformational leaders have a personal "aura".

Sociologist Max Weber evidenced an interest in charismatic leadership in the 1920s, calling charismatic leaders people who possess legitimate power that arises from "exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character". Charismatic leaders "single-handedly" effect changes even in very large organizations. Their personality is a powerful force, and the relationship that they forge with their followers is extremely strong.

Exhibit 12.12 Travis Kalanick Travis Kalanick was a praised CEO of Uber who managed to increase the value of the company to over $60 billion. He was forced to resign after taking a leave of absence and having several key executives resign due to allegations of creating a hostile and unethical workplace.

The charismatic leadership phenomenon involves a complex interplay between the attributes of the leader and followers' needs, values, beliefs, and perceptions. At its extreme, leader-follower relationships are characterized by followers' unquestioning acceptance; trust in the leader's beliefs; affection; willing obedience to, emulation of, and identification with the leader; emotional involvement with his mission; and feelings of self-efficacy directed toward the leader's mission. This can work to better the welfare of individuals, such as when Lee Iacocca saved thousands of jobs through his dramatic turnaround of a failing corporate giant, the Chrysler Corporation. It also can be disastrous, as when David Koresh led dozens and dozens of men, women, and children to their fiery death in Waco, Texas. Individuals working for charismatic leaders often have higher task performance, greater task satisfaction, and lower levels of role conflict than those working for leaders with considerate or structuring behaviors. What are the characteristics of these people who can exert such a strong influence over their followers? Charismatic leaders have a strong need for power and the tendency to rely heavily on referent power as their primary power base. Charismatic leaders also are extremely self-confident and convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs and ideals. This self-confidence and strength of conviction make people trust the charismatic leader's judgment, unconditionally following the leader's mission and directives for action. The result is a strong bond between leader and followers, a bond built primarily around the leader's personality.

Although there have been many effective charismatic leaders, those who succeed the most have coupled their charismatic capabilities with behaviors consistent with the same leadership principles followed by other effective leaders. Those who do not add these other dimensions still attract followers but do not meet organizational goals as effectively as they could. They are (at least for a time) the pied pipers of the business world, with lots of followers but no constructive direction.

ETHICS IN PRACTICE

Uber's need for an ethical leader.

Almost since its initial founding in 2009 as a luxury car service for the San Francisco area, controversy has followed Uber. Many complaints are against the tactics employed by the company's founder and former CEO, Travis Kalanick, but the effects are found throughout the business and its operations.

In 2009, UberBlack was a "black car" service, a high-end driving service that cost more than a taxi but less than hiring a private driver for the night. It wasn't until 2012 that the company launched UberX, the taxi-esque service most people think of today when they say "Uber". The UberX service contracted with private drivers who provided rides in their personal vehicles. A customer would use Uber's smartphone app to request the ride, and a private driver would show up. Originally launched in San Francisco, the service spread quickly, and by 2017, Uber was in 633 cities. The service was hailed by many as innovative and the free market's answer to high-priced and sometimes unreliable taxi services. But Uber has not been without its critics, both inside and outside of the company.

In 2013, as the UberX service spread, some UberBlack drivers protested at the company's headquarters complaining about poor company benefits and pay. They also claimed that competition from the newly launched UberX service was cutting into their sales and undermining job security. Kalanick rebuffed the protests, basically calling the complaints sour grapes: most of the protestors had been laid off earlier for poor service. Controversy also arose over the use of contract drivers rather than full-time employees. Contractors complained about a lack of benefits and low wages. Competitors, especially taxi services, complained that they were being unfairly undercut because Uber didn't have to abide by the same screening process and costs that traditional yellow taxi companies did. Some municipalities agreed, arguing further than Uber's lack of or insufficient screening of drivers put passengers at risk.

Uber quickly generated a reputation as a bully and Kalanick as an unethical leader. The company has been accused of covering up cases of sexual assault, and Kalanick himself has been quoted as calling the service "Boob-er," a reference to using the service to pick up women. Uber has been criticized for its recruiting practices; in particular, it has been accused of bribing drivers working for competitors to switch over and drive for Uber.The company was also caught making false driver requests for competing companies and then canceling the order. The effect was to waste the other driver's time and make it more difficult for customers to secure rides on the competing service. Susan J. Fowler, former site reliability engineer at Uber, went public with cases of outright sexual harassment within Uber. Former employees described Uber's corporate culture as an "a**hole culture" and a "'Hobbesian jungle' where you can never get ahead unless someone else dies". One employee described a leadership that encouraged a company practice of developing incomplete solutions for the purpose of beating the competitor to market. Fowler went so far as to compare the experience to Game of Thrones, and other former employees even consider "making it" at Uber a black mark on a resume.

In terms of social acrimony and PR disasters, arguably caused or even encouraged by leadership, Uber's rise to notoriety has arguably been more bad than good. In June 2017, Kalanick made one too many headlines and agreed to step down as the company's CEO.

CONCEPT CHECK

What are the defining characteristics of transformational and charismatic leaders?

Ronald Reagan

By Dean Duggan in Leadership , Political Leaders

By Dean Duggan

“The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become.”

-Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan played a vital role in the history of the United States and the world in an era of constant terror. Reagan served as a beacon to a brighter future. He took charge during an economic crisis when America looked weak and decentralized. However, Reagan was a man who was determined and had perseverance. He quickly changed that mindset in the height of the Cold War. Because Reagan was able to communicate effectively, reflect critically, and rely on the help of a team to end all conflicts with the Soviet Union, tear down a wall separating a country, and lead America, as well as the world, into an era of peace and excellence. Reagan’s broad vision and clear direction made his political ideals appealing. But paradoxically, what made his policy victories possible was his willingness, when faced with political reality, to make pragmatic compromises without seeming to abandon his ideals.

Before Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the United States of America was going through a period of hardship. Other countries saw America as a weak nation, especially its military. It was rumored around the world that America was weak and inferior. The United States was also entering a period of economic turmoil. Taxes were high and jobs were not readily available. Around the world, the Soviet Union was taking advantage of their power by forcing Europe to follow their communist government ideas. As the freedom and democracy of our world shrank, the need for leadership and reliability grew. This is where Ronald Reagan came into action. He took office and change the dynamics of the world in 8 years.

LEADERSHIP & KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Reagan grew up in a background unfamiliar to most presidents. He grew up in a state of poverty whereas most presidents grew up in nobility and wealth. This gave Reagan an advantage because it allowed him to develop and grow having to fight teaching him many life lessons involved in the “Real World”. This could have been another great contribution to Reagan being a good communicator and connecting to the public with widespread fame. One of Reagan’s greatest leadership qualities was his effective means of communicating with others. People- whether it is one of his assistants, a citizen, or powerful leader of another country- gave their ear and undivided attention to Reagan when he spoke and clearly cooperated with his requests. That is why the Cold War came to its peak of cooperation and compliance during Reagan’s time in office.

Reagan’s terms began with chaos in the economy, mass inflation, incredibly high interest rates, and an enormous deficit. Reagan promised a complete turn around, he did just that. Reagan was always an honorable man, sticking to his word no matter the situation. His first goal was to bring back widespread Patriotism, optimism and faith in the United States. It was lost when America’s finances were run into a ditch and debt sprung out through the country. Reagan’s inspirational public speeches and motivational mindset brought America back on its feet. Americans were finally able to take pride in their country for being the powerhouse it always was. Reagan did this especially through the reaffirmation of the economic stronghold that is America. One quote that describes just how Reagan did this was by Mark Bell. ““Follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly determined by the leader’s behavior, expertise, and aspects of the situation” (Bell). Reagan’s behavior and leadership through this low point in American history helped bring the United States back to being the “Land of the Free” over his 8 years in office.

Reagan’s most widespread accomplishment was bringing about the destruction of the Berlin Wall. He spoke in front of the wall to Europeans and Soviets in the name of democracy. Reagan spoke out about the injustices of communism and government control. He remained level headed and challenged many communist beliefs as well as challenging the Soviet Union’s leader, Mr. Gorbachev. Reagan spoke out for all citizens personally effected or even emotionally effected when he demanded Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Those four words catapulted faith to all men women and children that Democracy has prevailed and the United States is the power house of the world. Reagan’s speech forever changed the world demonstrating that words will forever outweigh the strength of war because he stood for what he believed and what is right.

Reagan has many positive memories left by him; however, not too many people really stop and examine what the flip side is. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers. However, the bill also made any immigrant who’d entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.. Reagan is remembered as a tax cutter, but he signed some of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. He is remembered as standing firm against terrorism, yet he withdrew Marines from Lebanon after a terrorist bombing, and he traded arms for hostages. He championed huge increases in defense spending, yet he almost bargained away the U.S. nuclear stockpile. He believed in law and order, but he allowed his White House to break the law by selling arms to Iran and funding the Contras in Nicaragua. He was a staunch foe of communism, yet he led the country to a new understanding of Russia. Reagan was an incredible leader but he did not always stick to his guns. That could be looked at in two different ways though. He might be seen as weak because he caved many times, but he can also be seen as realistic for coming to compromises and realistic situations.

Ronald Reagan has always been an inspirational leader to me since I was a little kid. Granted he was my grandmother’s favorite president and her bias might have led him to be my favorite president, but I still look at Reagan with high regard. He started his office in a time of uncertainty and chaos yet managed to lead this country out of chaos and into a period of excellence. Reagan turned a nearly broke and rundown country into the greatest super power to ever exist. He was able to cease the spread of communism and allow Democracy to flourish. In my eyes, I see Reagan as the most successful president because of all that he accomplished. The horrible economic status and issues of the Cold War were thrown on him from the president before him. He took this mess and turned it into a a shining example of greatness. He made the American Dream for many Americans and even more people not from America whose lives were changed by the betterment Reagan brought to the world. He ensured that no one will tell a person how to live every second of their waking life; he wanted everyone to experience freedom

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dean Duggan, is 18 years old. He was born and raised in Long Beach, California. He graduated from Millikan High School, Class of 2014, and now currently goes to school in Staten Island, New York at Wagner College. He plays college football for Wagner and is looking to major with a degree in Biology in order to become a Physical Therapist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, Mark R., “Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar,” Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 6, 66-74 (Regent University, 2013).

Brands, H.W. “Reagan Reborn,” American History (Weider History Group, 2013) 46.

Pfiffner, James P., The Paradox of President Reagan’s Leadership (Center for the Study of the Presidency, 2013).

Robinson, Peter, Tear Down This Wall (New York: Weider History Group, 2003) 44.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the 'great communicator'

Affiliations.

1 Department of Political Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States of America.
2 Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States of America.
3 School of Psychology, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
PMID: 38630665
PMCID: PMC11023438
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301324

Former United States President Ronald Reagan's use of media and his charismatic connection with viewers earned him the moniker "the great communicator". One aspect of his charisma, the influence of elicited laughter, during a highly critical 5-minute news story by CBS reporter Leslie Stahl during the 1984 US presidential election is examined here. Two experiments examining the effects of audience laughter on perceptions of charismatic leadership are reported. In the first experiment the effects of audience laughter in response to Reagan's comments were investigated. Here, Reagan's perceived warmth as an effective leader significantly diminished when strong laughter is removed, whereas perceptions of competence remained unaffected. The second study carried out on an older cohort replicated and extended the first in a pre-registered design by considering the perception of trait charisma. Here, the presence or absence of audience laughter did not affect judgements of charisma. Additionally, the affective response before, and then after, the presentation of the news story was measured. Emotions associated with a positive appraisal all decreased after being shown the news story while emotions associated negative appraisal all increased. However, only participant anger was significantly increased when audience laughter was removed. Taken together the findings of both studies converge on the fact that subtle changes in media presentation of political leaders can have a significant effect on viewers. The findings show that even after 40 years in office the social psychological effects of presidential charisma can still influence observers.

Copyright: © 2024 Stewart et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Grants and funding

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central
Public Library of Science

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Home
Article citations
Biomedical & Life Sci.
Business & Economics
Chemistry & Materials Sci.
Computer Sci. & Commun.
Earth & Environmental Sci.
Engineering
Medicine & Healthcare
Physics & Mathematics
Social Sci. & Humanities

Journals by Subject

Biomedical & Life Sciences
Chemistry & Materials Science
Computer Science & Communications
Earth & Environmental Sciences
Social Sciences & Humanities
Paper Submission
Information for Authors
Peer-Review Resources
Open Special Issues
Open Access Statement
Frequently Asked Questions

Publish with us

	+1 323-425-8868

	+86 18163351462(WhatsApp)


	Paper Publishing WeChat

Article citations More>>

Bell, R. M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6, 66-74.

has been cited by the following article:

TITLE: Revisiting Innovation Leadership

KEYWORDS: Contemporary Leaderships , Innovation Leadership , Innovation Leadership Attributes

JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Leadership , Vol.5 No.2 , June 9, 2016

ABSTRACT: Innovation leaders must possess multiple attributes in order to effectively manage the increasing demands for innovation in many facets of business organizations, especially in influencing creativity and innovation. Research findings have indicated that the behaviours of innovation leaders differ from the leadership behaviours that are deemed sufficient in conventional leadership situations. However, the literature on leadership suggests that there remains a research gap—what are the attributes required of successful innovation leaders?—That warrants a study to determine more precisely what those attributes are. A review of the current literature indicated that innovation leadership is a multi-leadership phenomenon consisting, inter alia, of charismatic leadership, transformational leadership and innovation leadership attributes and competencies. This paper discussed the innovation leadership attributes as portrayed in the literature, thereby providing a firm, structural foundation for researching the components of innovation leadership and providing insights to define the construct and, ultimately, to develop a psychometric measure.

Open Access Articles Educational Leadership: Characterization of Emerging Practices Mohamed El Wafiq, Malika Tridane, Said Belaaouad Open Journal of Leadership Vol.10 No.1 , January 29, 2021 DOI: 10.4236/ojl.2021.101001
Open Access Articles The Impact of Leadership on Economic Prosperity: A Case Study of United States Global Leadership Post Covid Era Oladapo Rasul, Mona Sabetimani, Biliamin Alli Open Journal of Business and Management Vol.12 No.2 , March 25, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/ojbm.2024.122054
Open Access Articles Gender Leadership Styles in Higher Education: A Transformational Leadership Study Dexter D. Howard Jr. Open Journal of Leadership Vol.12 No.4 , December 15, 2023 DOI: 10.4236/ojl.2023.124024
Open Access Articles Occupational Mobility Patterns: A Case Study of Leadership and Access in the National Football League Carlton Keith Harrison, Scott Bukstein Sociology Mind Vol.3 No.4 , September 3, 2013 DOI: 10.4236/sm.2013.34035
Open Access Articles The Role of Leadership in the Organization and the Administration of Women’s Agricultural Cooperatives in Greece: A Case Study Lassithiotaki Aikaterini Open Journal of Business and Management Vol.3 No.1 , January 8, 2015 DOI: 10.4236/ojbm.2015.31001
Journals A-Z

About SCIRP

Publication Fees
For Authors
Peer-Review Issues
Special Issues
Manuscript Tracking System
Subscription
Translation & Proofreading
Volume & Issue
Open Access
Publication Ethics
Preservation
Privacy Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PMC11023438

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the ‘great communicator’

Patrick a. stewart.

1 Department of Political Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States of America

Reagan G. Dye

2 Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States of America

Carl Senior

3 School of Psychology, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Associated Data

The data for study 1 are publicly accessible by contacting the authors. Study 2 is a preregistered replication and is available here ( https://osf.io/cq5d8/?view_only=fdab9c5c07f94ea0b9c6d01f706121f5 ).

Former United States President Ronald Reagan’s use of media and his charismatic connection with viewers earned him the moniker “the great communicator”. One aspect of his charisma, the influence of elicited laughter, during a highly critical 5-minute news story by CBS reporter Leslie Stahl during the 1984 US presidential election is examined here. Two experiments examining the effects of audience laughter on perceptions of charismatic leadership are reported. In the first experiment the effects of audience laughter in response to Reagan’s comments were investigated. Here, Reagan’s perceived warmth as an effective leader significantly diminished when strong laughter is removed, whereas perceptions of competence remained unaffected. The second study carried out on an older cohort replicated and extended the first in a pre-registered design by considering the perception of trait charisma. Here, the presence or absence of audience laughter did not affect judgements of charisma. Additionally, the affective response before, and then after, the presentation of the news story was measured. Emotions associated with a positive appraisal all decreased after being shown the news story while emotions associated negative appraisal all increased. However, only participant anger was significantly increased when audience laughter was removed. Taken together the findings of both studies converge on the fact that subtle changes in media presentation of political leaders can have a significant effect on viewers. The findings show that even after 40 years in office the social psychological effects of presidential charisma can still influence observers.

Introduction

One of the most important areas of study regarding politics and social psychology considers how social behaviours affect political interaction and, more specifically, how nonverbal signals influence perceptions of political leaders, especially as presented in television news. With the introduction of high-definition portrayals and ubiquitous hand-held devices, the role of the visual media in the portrayal of political leaders has grown. Experimental research on the visual primacy effect has also demonstrated that when there is conflicting information between the verbal and nonverbal channels in an audio-visual presentation, viewers have difficulty processing the verbal attributes of television news reports and remember the visuals with far more fidelity [ 1 ]. More attention is also paid to affectively important nonverbal communication when the nonverbal attributes of televised leader displays appear inappropriately matched to the rhetorical context [ 2 – 4 ].

The majority of research concerning the influence of nonverbal leader communication on social perception focuses on how visual attributes of posture, body movements, and facial display behaviours affect viewer perceptions and trait attributions [ 5 ]. At the same time, there is a small but growing literature that considers the role played by audible signals. Specifically, research considering the influence of the observable audience response to political figures suggests there is a significant intra-audience effect of emotional and evaluative signalling on other audience members while watching mediated events [ 6 ]. Applause-cheering, laughter, booing, chanting and combinations of these audible signals significantly influence how audience members view the televised political event or news coverage [ 6 ]. Viewers may unknowingly monitor and respond to the expressed intensity and type of follower utterance in support or opposition to the speaker and their stated political positions [ 7 ]. Media audiences, whether streaming debates, watching on television, or viewing through other media platforms, and perhaps more crucially, journalists who may be reporting on the event, may likewise be influenced by information conveyed via this audible channel. In other words, the social influence asserted through a specific audience response is similar to emotional contagion effects [ 6 ] and can affect viewer and listener perceptions with or without express awareness. However, the specific influence of different audience responses such as applause-cheering, laughter, and booing has yet to be studied in depth.

Despite the influence that observable audience responses may have on perceptions of leaders, systematic evaluation of these behaviours to political figures and how they affect the efficacy of politician narratives is limited. The few studies providing insight into the social influence of audience behaviour on political figures and policy issues tend to incorporate both audible and visually observable responses. Wiegman’s field experiment involved a videotaped studio audience either reacting positively, negatively, or neutrally to a well-known Dutch politician through audible utterances and different visible nonverbal behaviours [ 8 ]. Likewise, Fein and colleagues’ experiments considering Ronald Reagan’s second 1984 presidential debate performance did not differentiate between applause and laughter nor the moderator’s verbal and nonverbal response [ 9 ]. A study by Axsom and colleagues considering the verbal channel alone with regards to specific policy issues (e.g., imprisonment/probation) provided for comparison of “enthusiastic applause-cheering” to unenthusiastic and polite applause with occasional derisive cries [ 10 ] and found a tendency towards a simple consensus heuristic to make social judgments. Thus, while the limited research regarding political candidates and issues provides useful insights, it does not differentiate between different observable audience response types and often conflates visual and audible stimuli. In the work that follows we focus on one form of observable audience response–laughter–considering first its evolutionary roots and social influence briefly before focusing on its presence in politics and the types of humour that might elicit this type of behavioural response. We then evaluate group laughter’s role in providing a heuristic by which individuals may evaluate a political figure in ambiguous situations.

Laughter has been studied extensively across a broad range of social contexts with a wide range of approaches and techniques. Indeed, it is one of the few positive emotions considered in great detail, likely due to the social and survival benefits it confers. Across such species as canines [ 11 ], rats [ 12 ], and multiple primate species [ 13 ]–including humans–laughter signals playfulness, and with it benign intent [ 14 ]. In other words, social animals are more likely to cooperate and learn when in a playful state of mind as signalled by laughter.

Within humans, laughter emerges early and is seen across different cultures. Spontaneous laughter is observed in infants as young as 17 to 26 days [ 15 ], well before socially stimulated laughter occurs at three-to-four months of age [ 16 ]. Laughter is also observed within individuals who are blind since birth suggesting a possible adaptive function in social bonding [ 17 ].

The study of laughter is thus rightfully situated as a social phenomenon and would benefit from application of multiple different types of inquiry techniques; despite this, the primary method for analysing laughter has been naturalistic observational studies. Here, the effects of laughter tend to be studied in its social ecology. For instance, the ground-breaking work of Provine and colleagues took a “side-walk scientist” approach to laughter, finding that its role as a social lubricant by which mutual conversational grooming occurred was underappreciated, whereas its role as response to humorous comments was over-stated [ 16 ].

Laughter can be seen as socially influential due in large part to it being reliably identified through audible and visual characteristics. When nonverbal signals are easily and accurately identified, the more they are likely to affect perceptions and behaviour by being part of a highly learned (near automatic) repertoire of behaviours and responses that are likely to have been evolutionarily selected for survival purposes [ 18 ]. Thus, accurate recognition of the emotional state and behavioural intent of communicators provides relevant social information that influences perceptions and evaluations of others [ 19 ].

Reliable indicators of emotion may be defined as first, leading to an accurate recognition of the emotional state of the communicator, along with their resultant behavioural intent (e.g., bonding), and second, providing an index of the sender’s underlying state as one that is costly to produce [ 20 ]. Such signals are emotionally costly to produce due to their communicating underlying physiological states potentiating specific behaviour; furthermore, even when such signals are faked, physiological change can and does occur through the posing or acting out of these display behaviours.

Laughter may be classified as a costly, and hence reliable, signal when evoked or when it is difficult to control; even when faked, the initially emitted laughter leads to physiological change [ 21 ]. Individual laughter likewise serves as a social emollient by affecting perceiver mood states by dampening negative affect, increasing positive affect (and pain tolerance), while increasing social cooperation and group identity [ 22 ]. Laughter thus serves as a highly reliable social signal regarding behavioural intent [ 14 ].

Laughter across differing social contexts

Because laughter provides a mechanism for the facilitation of affiliative social interactions that go beyond physical contact and is inclusive of large numbers of individuals, it should be easily and accurately recognized to indicate the underlying behavioural intent of the senders. Socially important utterances, such as laughter, can be seen as stereotyped activities by having coherent and identifiable vocalic, facial and even postural displays reliably associated with them. As pointed out by Gaspar and colleagues, the multimodal nature of this affiliative display behaviour, together with its early emergence in ontogenetic development and its stability throughout an individual’s lifespan, make it a predictable and reliable signal even as context changes [ 13 ]. Thus, due to the important role it plays in facilitating extended social interaction laughter may be one of the most reliable of nonverbal signals [ 23 ].

That is not to say that laughter cannot function in varying contexts, or convey differing or nuanced information, rather, that it is reliably recognized across cultures. Research regarding laughter at the individual level focuses on the role of such expressiveness being a pervasive social signal during interpersonal interactions. Here, laughter may serve to punctuate speech and indicate turn-taking and transitions within conversations [ 24 , 25 ].

Laughter by individuals indicates social intent through the conveyance of vocalic qualities. Voiced laughter, with its sing-song characteristics, can communicate the experience of amusement, contempt, and even schadenfreude [ 26 , 27 ]. Unvoiced laughter on the other hand, with its gruntlike characteristics [ 28 ], can be seen as signalling more competitive intent by being connected with aggressive statements [ 29 ]. This is perhaps due to the interrelationship between vocalic and facial movements seen with laughter and the amusement smile; facial display behaviour immediately after laughter-eliciting comments help convey social intent by punctuating the preceding statement [ 30 ]. In summary, laughter at the individual level serves a multitude of social functions based upon reliable multi-modal nonverbal signalling that is easily recognized. At the same time, the nuanced expression of individual laughter allows for subtle differences in to be conveyed in its meaning.

Intra-audience effects of audience laughter

Laughter, as an important communicative signal, should also be socially contagious, or at least mimicked, to allow for the cohesion, broadening, and building of groups. Hatfield and colleagues [ 31 ] define social contagion as the “tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another person’s and, consequently, to converge emotionally” (p. 169). Thus, laughter would meet the definition of a socially contagious behaviour and indeed might provide the modal behaviour by meeting each of the above criteria in the convergence of mimicry and emotional response [ 13 ]. While group laughter is readily identifiable and distinct from other types of audience responses, it does not appear to have distinguishable characteristics that allow for the differentiation of members of different social groups from each other [ 32 ], nor in identifying nuanced social intent, as is the case with individual laughter.

Experimental research considering how individuals respond to group laughter tends to focus mainly on perceptions of how funny a stimulus is, whether visually with cartoons and written jokes [ 33 – 37 ], audio tapes of jokes, funny stories and stand-up routines [ 38 – 46 ], bloopers [ 47 , 48 ], or scenes from television shows and movies [ 49 – 52 ]. When the source of the humour is taken into account, findings show that group laughter leads to individuals within the group being perceived more favourably across multiple dimensions relevant to leadership, including potential for success [ 45 ], authoritativeness, character, dynamism and interestingness [ 41 ], and credibility, likability, and lowered aggressiveness [ 53 ].

While each of the above studies were influenced by multiple factors, Vraga and colleagues [ 53 ] incisively comment that, “a humorous cue might be more important when faced with a more ambiguous context… as people have substantially less information on which to rely” (p. 145). Much of this research focuses on entertainment figures in which preconceptions either do not play a role due to low awareness, or by being so heterogeneous as to be randomly distributed. Political figures are different. Not only does their humour play a role in audience response, their group membership and social status predisposes perceptions [ 45 ]. Politicians, through their leadership role in society, belong to a clearly demarcated social group that is defined by a more restrictive set of social rules. Thus, the effects of receiving and perceiving laughter within a political context could be manifestly greater than in a non-political context, where it is expected and therefore part of the routine dialogue.

Political laughter

When one considers group level behaviour in political contexts, research regarding observable audience responses tends to focus on the target and intent of verbal statements rather than the social influence process that laughter facilitates [ 30 , 54 , 55 ]. Current analyses describe audience response to political figures, by considering the length, strength, and intensity of audience laughter during political events [ 6 , 56 , 57 ]; however, the results reflect descriptive and correlational findings regarding response to individual speakers rather than group-related outcomes.

In group interactions, laughter is arguably more stereotyped and easily identified than other types of observable audience responses. The vocalic utterances that constitute laughter are much shorter in duration than applause-cheering, for instance. Analysis shows that group laughter in political contexts lasts on average 1–3 seconds in comparison with 2–8 seconds for applause-cheering [ 56 – 59 ]. Booing, another form of observable audience response, is surprisingly rare in political contexts. Interestingly, when an audience shows their appreciation for a humourous comment, applause-cheering prolongs the laughing response [ 30 , 59 ]. This points to high levels of social mimicry in the case of group laughter, and then likely social contagiousness through its continuation via applause.

Studies regarding the use of humour during US presidential primary debates in 2008 [ 30 ] and the 2016 general election presidential debates [ 6 , 56 , 57 ] suggest that the main targets of humour during electoral campaigns tend to be out-group members. Here, ridicule and other forms of disparagement humour are used as a form of political rhetoric. In addition, self-deprecatory humour, where speakers poke fun at themselves or other in-group members, also occurs with regularity. The use of these different types of humour, ridicule and self-deprecation, likely holds strategic value, as ridicule can be used to derogate the competition or set normative boundaries on behaviour. On the other hand, self-deprecatory humour is useful for making a candidate more likable [ 60 ].

While there is an emerging body of research examining the type of humour employed by political candidates and the strength and duration of the laughter response, the correlational nature of this work limits the kinds of inferences that may be drawn. Furthermore, failed humour–which may be defined by the absence of laughter, its muted presence, or even booing–is rarely studied due to the difficulty of identifying enough occurrences for analysis [ 61 ].

The experimental research discussed in the previous section suggests that audience laughter certainly affects perceptions of humorousness and trait evaluations of the speaker. A number of scholars have shown that audience responses affect perceptions of political candidates [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]; however, the question remains as to how robust a role laughter, and the eliciting humour, plays in perceptions of political figures.

This question may be elaborated by considering what leadership traits are influenced by group laughter—and in what direction. The perception of competence and warmth are considered central to the identification and choice of leaders [ 62 – 66 ]. At the same time, these traits may be moderated or mediated by perceptions of leader charisma [ 67 – 72 ]. In the present study the effects of the observable audience response of laughter on the perception of trait charisma is examined by considering an individual considered to be amongst the most charismatic of presidents in United States history, Ronald Reagan.

Humour types and political laughter

When humour in conjunction with laughter has been experimentally studied, the stimuli has tended to have been presented to the participants in the written form [ 73 ]. In other words, vignette studies varying the type of humour used, in combination with the asserted presence of laughter (or its absence), indicates success or lack thereof. As observed by Bitterly, Brooks, and Schweitzer in their extensive analysis of the effect of humour on interpersonal status [ 73 ]:

Though humor can boost status , using humor is risky . Humor attempts can fail in several ways : by being too boring (i . e ., not funny) , too bold (i . e ., inappropriate) , or failing to elicit laughter from the audience . How the audience reacts profoundly influences perceptions . If the audience does not laugh , observers are less likely to view the humor attempt as appropriate or funny , and the joke teller may lose status . (p. 17)

While the work of Bitterly and colleagues’ is indeed informative, their use of written vignettes as experimental treatments limits generalizability. Likewise, their focus on inappropriate humour relied upon sexually-charged quips; while important for the workplace with mixed sexes and fluid power dynamics, this type of humour is not used much by politicians in our technologically mediated era [ 30 , 74 ]. Indeed, the use of sexualized humour in today’s political climate would probably be unsuccessful in eliciting laughter but would also likely alienate a substantial proportion of the electorate.

Regardless, their focus on perceptions of competence and status in response to humour–and the laughter that it elicits–is applicable to contests for leadership within politics. This is especially the case in viewer observations regarding leader competence, which in addition to perceptions of prestige is key to understanding why followers defer to, and confer status on, potential leaders.

Existing research in the use of humour by political figures suggest that it is used to either attack opponents, often through ridicule, or make light of oneself or allies [ 30 , 56 , 75 , 76 ]. Smith and Powell found in the case of other- and self-disparaging humour by group leaders that those making ridicule attempts directed downwards at lower status group members were perceived as less effective, less encouraging, less helpful, and less socially attractive than those using self-directed humour [ 77 ]. However, this investigation also showed that not using humour was perceived as leading to better outcomes; in almost all leadership-based attributions that were considered save for tension relief and opinion offering, leaders who did not attempt any humorous remarks were perceived in a more positive light.

Arguably, the key factor here is the presence or absence of the laughter that is recognized to be an observable audience response to the politician. In the case of other-deprecatory humour, ridicule may increase perceived competence by virtue of martialling an audience together in their response to a tangible target; likewise, failure would see its reduction, negatively affecting the joke-teller. On the other hand, self-deprecatory humour successfully eliciting audience laughter would presumably lead to greater perceptions of warmth and communication effectiveness for the joke-teller [ 77 ]. Ultimately, observable (here audible) support for specific leader comments helps followers to identify leadership potential and other related traits.

Ronald Reagan’s leadership style

Former US President Ronald Reagan’s moniker as “The Great Communicator” inspired a large body of literature assessing his communication style and its effects on public perceptions and the expectations of the American presidency [ 78 ]. As the first “celebrity” politician, Reagan provides insight into the role of media notoriety in politics. Consequently, re-examining Reagan’s relationship with the press and his ability to manipulate public perception is relevant in the current American political climate. The return of the celebrity presidency with the ascension of Donald Trump further warrants an historical examination of Reagan to glean insight into his unique communication style and public perception of populist leaders.

Reagan’s leadership style developed from his natural ability to connect with audiences and years of experience as a recognized film actor and television personality [ 79 ]. Upon entering national politics, Reagan was successful in enjoining his conservative agenda with the Republican Party establishment, garnering successful victories in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections, and passing supply side economic policies. Although he suffered from periods of public scrutiny during his time in office, he was known as the “Teflon president” for his ability to rebound from criticism and controversy and gainfully employed rhetorical strategies to develop a reputation as humorous, charismatic, and likeable [ 75 ]. Now some 30 years since the Reagan era, the study of Reagan’s communication and leadership style has much to offer our current understanding of the normative behaviour of presidents and candidates operating under conditions of constant media scrutiny. Whereas Reagan was adept at connecting with Americans through television, contemporary office holders (and presidential hopefuls) must be able to compete with the flood of media choices now available across numerous platforms [ 80 ] and the fast pace of the issue-attention cycle.

Now more than ever, Converse’s assertion that the public pays more attention to, and takes cues from individuals in politics, rather than to politics and policy making itself is apparent in the individual-centred nature of the contemporary political environment [ 81 ]. If politicians possess the capacity to control the political agenda and how they are perceived by voters, then they have the ability to “go public” without relying on the mass media to set the agenda [ 82 ]. The specific case of Leslie Stahl’s mini-documentary on Reagan from the 1984 campaign is exemplary of this ability to skirt around the media narrative and control perceptions simply through imagery and audience response. Reagan’s mastery of image management in relation to television, including the use of self-deprecatory humour and direct appeals to supporters, provides a blueprint for understanding how presidential contenders must operate to maximize effectiveness in today’s hybrid media era [ 83 ].

The case study approach employed provides a historically relevant example that is recognized by many political communication scholars as a turning point in how nonverbal behaviour and social signals are considered [ 84 , 85 ], it also presents an emotionally evocative stimuli that better reflects the “real world” of media consumption. Here, we test specific hypotheses concerning the influence of the observable audience response of laughter, leadership traits, and also perceived charisma. Reagan’s ability to elicit audience laughter sets up following hypothesis that are addressed in two studies:

H1: Laughter in response to Reagan’s humorous comments will increase perceptions of his competence, warmth, and charisma.

Furthermore, due to Ronald Reagan’s effective and prolific use of a range of humour types with strategic intent, we can further test the effect of successful and unsuccessful humour, as marked by the presence of absence of laughter. Specifically, the literature reviewed suggests differential impact of Reagan’s use of self-deprecatory and ridicule humour.

H2: Laughter in response to Reagan’s ridicule of audience members will increase perceptions of his competence.
H3: Laughter in response to Reagan’s self-deprecatory comments will increase perceptions of his warmth.
H4: Laughter in response to Reagan’s humour will increase perceptions of his charisma.

The perception of audience laughter to Reagan’s humour will increase judgments of his leadership competence and approachability. However, this will be dependent on whether the humour is self-depreciatory or directed to other parties. Thus, there will be a main effect of humour on judgments of leadership traits and an interaction between the different types of humour that Reagan displays.

Content coding of the Reagan-Stahl News Story (1984)

The key news story was shown on Thursday, October 4, 1984 via a CBS network primetime television news broadcast, one month before Reagan’s landslide election victory. The news story as analysed had a video clip length of five minutes and forty-five seconds (5:44.85/100s; 345 seconds) with the story length after the introduction by Dan Rather being five minutes and twelve seconds. In the five-minute (306 seconds) news story, Leslie Stahl narrated for just over three minutes (194 seconds), while Reagan had twenty-seven seconds of speaking time dispersed throughout five sound bites. These sound bites all took place during the second half of the news story.

Throughout the news story, two minutes and five seconds of audience applause cheering, laughter, and mixed response could be heard. Applause-cheering can be heard throughout almost two minutes of the story (111 seconds). This is notable because support from partisans in the form of audible responses took place in over one-third of a purportedly critical news-story. While Stahl talked over much of the applause-cheering and mixed applause-cheering and booing, laughter was presented without interruption. Indeed, of Reagan’s five sound bites, three were presented with elicited laughter uninterrupted. The first of these laughter events started at two minutes and forty-five seconds into Stahl’s story, whereas the last occurred just under 2 minutes (114 s) from the end. This news story contained a range of examples of Reagan’s performative style and is thus an ideal means to study the effects of the different types of humour used and the interaction between observable audience responses.

While the placement of the humorous comments did not give Reagan the first or final word in the story, these three laughter-eliciting comments provided him with punctuated support from the audience when he did talk. ANVIL content coding software was used to characterize and analyse the news story [ 86 ]. ANVIL allows for frame-by-frame analysis of speaking time and the ability to disambiguate the observable audience responses by considering both audible response by the audience [ 59 ], and camera shots of the audience [ 85 ]. Adobe Premier Pro software was then used to edit the video and develop the various experimental conditions.

A content analytic approach was applied to the visual coding of the key news report [ 85 ]. Specifically, the presence of large (16 of 59 camera shots; 80s and 26.2% of camera time) and approving audiences (15/59 shots; 62.12s and 20.3% of camera time) were coded. When the audible response by the audience is considered in tandem with these types of camera shots, it is found that large, yet non-responsive, audiences were presented in three shots (19.72s), whereas thirteen shots and just over a minute of applause-cheering (60.28s) was heard from large audiences. Audiences seen as approving were evident in fourteen shots for just under one minute (55.52s) where applause-cheering occurred, while laughter was seen in one nearly seven second shot (6.60s). It was expected that the applause-cheering would be most likely observed in media coverage of group settings such as political speeches [ 75 , 76 ] and intra-party debates [ 87 ]. This is due to such observable audience responses predominating in political discourse because of the ease with which candidates can evoke it among supporters in partisan settings. As a result, applause-cheering plays a role as an important barometer of a politicians’ individual appeal during speeches [ 76 , 88 ] or when in direct competition with other candidates during debates [ 59 ]. However, the production decision to incorporate applause-cheering as a major part of a critical news story may be seen as at odds with the perceived intent. So too was the decision to incorporate laughter in response to humorous comments by the then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan.

The objective of the first study is to examine the effects of the observable audience response of laughter and how it moderated the perception of Reagan as an effective presidential leader. It can be expected from the literature reviewed that audience laughter in response to Reagan’s humorous comments will affect perceptions of the leadership traits he holds, whether warmth or competence. The question is, to what extent will the presence or absence of laughter, indicating success or failure of Reagan’s humorous comments differentially affect perceptions of these traits.

While Stahl spoke over the great majority of applause, the first three of Reagan’s sound bites led to observable audience laughter in response to his quips. These occurrences were not spoken over and ensued during a middle portion of the story where Stahl commented on Reagan by stating, “This tight control has baffled those who think that Mr. Reagan is at his very best when he is spontaneous….” With this in mind, three edits totalling just under six seconds (5. 46/100s = 2. 93 +. 83 +1. 7 ) were made. The video was presented in a between subjects design with three different conditions. The first, presented unedited video as the control condition, with participants seeing what viewers of the CBS news story viewed in 1984. The second two treatments involved either the audience laughter being removed completely, with no noise from the video during the edits, or the audience laughter being faded-out to a level at just under fifty percent of that presented during the original news story. As a result, the treatment effect being considered equals 0.016% of audio-visual time (5.46s/344.83) for the total video.

The first edit took place at 3:19:02 (until 3:21:25) of the video clip after Reagan was shown commenting “I’ll raise his taxes” in response to audience members shown as heckling him. The audience, presumably at a campaign speech held during the Missouri State Fair (based upon the scene prior) responded with loud laughter followed by mixed cheering and applause. At the same time Reagan, shown with his suit jacket off in front of hay bales, displayed a smile of amusement after delivering his punchline and during the audience’s laughter and applause-cheering.

The second edit, of less than a second (3:26:29–3:27:21), took place after Stahl commented positively on Reagan’s ability for “tossing off one-liners,” Here Reagan, dressed in a suit and tie and presumably sitting down for an interview, quipped “I never get good reviews from TASS” after shaking his head, presumably to a difficult question. As a small group of individuals laughed at his response Reagan smiled in amusement.

The third edit (3:41:26–3:43:03) was set up by Stahl as Reagan being “masterful at deflecting a hostile question” when he responded to a reporter at a press conference commenting on his keeping Republican Party representatives in line. Here Reagan responded with a self-deprecatory comment, “How can you say that about a sweet fellow like me?” and laughed while displaying a smile of amusement.

Participants

Participants were recruited from introductory-level political science classes and were provided extra course credit for taking part in the study. Written consent to participate was obtained prior to taking part. A total of 317 participants took part in the study that lasted from March 2 to April 28, 2018. So as to ensure task compliance, those individuals who stopped engaging within the first 7 minutes and who did not respond to the open-ended prompt “(P)lease list some of the thoughts you had while watching the video clip” were removed from subsequent analysis, which resulted in a final sample of 283 participants. All procedures were approved by the University of Arkansas IRB.

Of these participants, 61.8% identified as female, 81.3% identified as Caucasian (with 5.3% African-American, 2.1% Asian, 8.5% Hispanic, .4% Native American, and 2.5% other ethnicity), and the average age was twenty-one years old (range 18–71, SD = 4.55). The majority of participants identified themselves as identifying with the Republican Party (40.3%), followed by Democratic Party identifiers (35.3%), as independent (15.2%), Libertarian Party (6.7%), Green Party (.7%) and other (1.8%). Random assignment of participants to the different treatments was balanced (unedited video/laughter-in/control [ n = 96], laughter faded out [ n = 95], and laughter removed [ n = 92]) across the three conditions. When tested for randomness in assignment to the treatment condition, we found no statistical bias (all p-values = ns) for sex, ethnicity, age, party identification, and political ideology (social, economic, overall conservative-liberal).

Prior to the taking part in the protocol, participants were asked to provide basic demographic information (age, sex, ethnicity), whether they were registered to vote, the political party they best identify with and their attitudes towards the main US political parties, as well as their own political ideology. At this point, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three different treatment categories (i.e., control condition, laughter faded out or no laughter).

Immediately after the video clips were viewed, participants were first asked to describe their thoughts on the video, how strongly they felt in reference to different emotions at that moment (anxious, proud, angry, reassured, fearful, irritated, disgusted, sad, and happy) on a 0–10 (not at all to extremely). They were then asked their evaluation of the reporter, Leslie Stahl, in terms of their overall impressions of her, as well as how credible, appropriate, and likable she was on a seven-point scale. These items were then combined into an additive index (Cronbach’s a = .873). A final measure, that of how aggressive Stahl was perceived to be, due to weak correlations with the other measures, was analysed separately.

Participants were then asked to evaluate Ronald Reagan’s leadership traits in terms of his competence , which was based upon measures of how sincere, aggressive, strong, active, competent he appeared to be (Cronbach’s a = .779); additional measures considered a scale of his warmth with questions regarding how intelligent, caring, trustworthy, agreeable, and warm (Cronbach’s a = .928) he appeared during the news story. Responses regarding evaluation of both Leslie Stahl and Ronald Reagan ranged from “Not at all” to “Extremely” on a seven-point (0–6) scale. Finally, to evaluate whether participants noticed the treatment, we asked “How believable did you find the video clip to be?” on the same seven-point scale. Throughout the reported statistical tests an alpha level of >0.05 is designated as n/s.

Emotional response to the video showed that, how anxious ( F = .283, p = ns), proud ( F = .465, p = ns), angry ( F = 1.448, p = ns), reassured ( F = .644, p = ns), fearful ( F = 1.848, p = ns), disgusted ( F = .632, p = ns), sad ( F = .192, p = ns), and happy ( F = .119, p = ns) participants felt was unaffected by the laughter. However, when least significant differences are considered, participants felt significantly less irritated ( F = 4.124, p = .017, partial η 2 = .029) when watching the original video ( M = 3.646) when compared with the treatment videos with laughter faded out ( M = 2.611, p = .008) and laughter completely removed ( M = 2.793, p = .029).

Participant ratings of Leslie Stahl in a similar manner suggested the treatment had little effect. Specifically, the index considering overall performance, perceived credibility, appropriateness, and likability, exhibited no significant violations of homogeneity ( F [2, 280] = 1.298, p = ns) according to the Levene’s test. Analysis of the index shows participants were largely unaffected by whether there was laughter present, faded, or removed entirely ( F [2, 280] = 0.480, p = ns). Likewise, Stahl’s perceived aggressiveness failed to reach statistical significance ( F [2, 280] = 2.722, p = ns).

Similarly, participants did not seem to notice a difference between the different videos. When asked “how believable did you find the video clip to be,” there was no significant difference between the treatments ( F = 1.005, p = ns). In combination with the preceding findings, there was not apparently a cognitively perceived effect from the video as participants were not aware of the treatment.

Analysis of the effect of laughter on evaluation of Ronald Reagan’s leadership traits tells a more nuanced story. Tests for homogeneity of variance regarding the competence index finds no significant violations ( F [2, 280] = 1.536, p = ns) as does the between-subjects ANOVA between the three groups: F [2, 280] = 2.677, p = ns. Although the patterns of response mirror those of perceived warmth (Laughter in M = 23.80; Laughter faded out M = 22.31; Laughter removed M = 22.20).

When Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance regarding the index of Reagan’s warmth is considered, no significant violations were found ( F [2, 280] = 1.699, p = ns). However a highly significant between-subjects effect across the three humour groups was revealed: F [2, 280] = 4.078, p = .018, partial η 2 = .028. Here, Reagan’s trait evaluations were enhanced by the presence of the loud laughter evident in the original news story, with post-hoc comparisons showing that the laughter remaining condition (M = 25.94, p = 0.05) was significantly greater than the faded-out condition (M = 23.39) and the complete removal of the laughter (M = 23.60). Thus, while perceptions of his warmth are all relatively high, they are significantly reduced by the laughter either being faded out or removed entirely (p = ns).

Finally, as a control item a single measure of how humorous participants thought Reagan to be was included. No significant violations of homogeneity were found ( F [2, 280] = 1.497, p = ns) and the pattern revealed was similar to that regarding Reagan’s warmth index. Namely, a significant between-subjects effect between the three humor groups, F [2, 280] = 3.411, p = .034, partial η 2 = .024. When post-hoc least significant differences are considered, there were no significant differences between the laughter faded out (M = 5.13) and laughter completely removed (M = 4.96) groups, as was the case with perceptions of Reagan’s warmth . However, Reagan was considered significantly more humorous with the laughter in (M = 5.52) at the .05-level.

The finding that observers’ emotion was largely unaffected by the treatment, with the exception of feeling irritated, is perhaps not unexpected. The treatment, which is comprised of less than five seconds of laughter across the three Reagan excerpts, is a subtle and unobtrusive stimulus that potentially would not have an observable effect on self-reports of introspective evaluation of emotional response. Furthermore, by only considering between-subjects effects we cannot tease out whether the news story had a greater influence on participant emotional response and how this might have differed across the treatments. Even though the sole finding concerning irritation was aligned too the expectations both in the pattern of response, with greater irritation felt by those either not hearing laughter or diminished laughter, suggesting a failed humour attempt, and the comparatively weak effect of the treatment, future studies should consider change in self-reported emotional state through within-subjects design.

The lack of significant effect on evaluation of the reporter, Leslie Stahl, is likely due to the average age of the participants, which may have rendered her work as a nationally known figure unknown. While Ronald Reagan is recognized as a Republican Party icon and is mentioned in both glowing and critical terms by participants, Stahl is not so well recognized. As noted by Vraga and colleagues [ 53 ] when comparing participant response to a famous U.S. talk show host and an unfamiliar moderator “… a laugh track has very different effects when a host is a well-known comedian versus an unknown talk show host." (p.143) In other words, the perceptions of newscaster Stahl and the presentation of Reagan’s (un)successful humour may be premised upon the humour being interpreted as a benign violation of expectations [ 89 ], as opposed to ridicule that is received as more aggressive and less socially acceptable.

Type of humour likely play a role in perceptions of Ronald Reagan and how he is portrayed in this news story. As noted by Baumgartner, not only does “prior knowledge of the target of the humour affects susceptibility to attitude change” but also the context of political humour plays a role [ 90 ]. Whether the humour is other-deprecatory and ridicule-oriented or self-deprecatory plays a role in its perceptions especially upon considering the audience [ 60 ] when Reagan ridicules an audience member. Because of Reagan’s standing as a Republican Party icon, the effect of the audience’s response to his rejoinder to the dissenter within the audience might be accentuated if participants perceive his response being received in a less than flattering manner. This finding is consistent with considerable prior research considering the target of the humour, especially political figures [ 60 , 90 – 94 ].

The first experimental study is extended here by including control and full treatment levels, with all three laughter events present or removed; this allows replication of the first hypotheses regarding responses to laughter in the evaluation of leadership competence and warmth. This study will also examine the presence of laughter in response to Ronald Reagan’s humour and the effect that it will have on his perceived charismatic traits. The influence of specific laughter-eliciting comments removing concomitant laughter to consider the influence of different types of (un)successful humour will also be examined here. As a result, the second experimental study will have five different levels.

Additionally, the charisma of presidents is driven in part by perceived leadership traits of competence and warmth [ 68 ]. Even with participants not knowledgeable about Reagan, the positive visuals as well as the extensive applause-cheering throughout the news report, whether included inadvertently or not, does convey his charismatic presence. However, whether charisma plays a moderating or mediating role in conjunction with the observable audience response of laughter is still in question.

The second study utilizes three edits that totalled just under six seconds (5.46/100s = 2.93+.83+1.7) with a five condition between-subjects design. The first condition presented unedited video as a control with participants seeing what the 1984 CBS news viewers saw. The second replication treatment removed all three observable audience responses of laughter completely, with no noise from the video during the edits leading to the treatment effect 5.46 seconds of the total video (344.83s).

The next three conditions involved the removal of laughter from the three specific humorous comments. The third treatment, taking place from 3:19:02 until 3:21:25 of the video, showed Reagan responding to a heckler with the comment “I’ll raise his taxes” eliciting loud laughter followed by mixed cheering and applause. The fourth treatment involved the removal of less than a second of laughter from a small group of individuals and occurred from 3:26:29–3:27:21 of the video when a seated Reagan quipped “I never get good reviews from (the Russian news agency) TASS” after shaking his head. The final treatment condition saw Reagan use self-deprecatory humour to deflect an aggressive journalist’s question, leading to brief laughter at 3:41:26–3:43:03 of the video.

A power analysis using G*Power was carried out to determine sample size. Here, the traditional power estimation parameters for the least explained variable, the trait of competence , (1 –β err probability = 80%; α error probability = .05; effect size of f = .136). Findings based upon the effect likely, given the means and standard deviations uncovered in experimental study one, suggests a sample size of 650 participants would be required.

Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling approach in which upper-division undergraduate students received course credit for taking part in and recruiting participants. To better reflect the general population, older participants were systematically recruited, leading to a more age diverse sample. A total of 1041 individuals entered the study that lasted from November 16, 2020 to November 11, 2021; of those 315 did not spend at least seven minutes (420 seconds) in the study and were removed as per the previous study parameters. An additional 60 participants were removed due to their not responding to the open-ended prompt and a further 15 for not answering any post-treatment questions, leaving a total of 651 participants in the study. All ethical considerations, including consenting of the participants were identical to that reported for study 1.

Of those taking part, 61.4% identified as female, 83.3% identified as Caucasian (with 3.7% African-American, 0.5% Asian, 7.5% Hispanic, 2.6% Native American, and 2.3% other ethnicity); the average year of birth was 1982 old (range 1934–2005, SD = 16.3). The majority of participants identified themselves as identifying with the Democratic Party (38.9%), followed by Republican Party identifiers (33.3%), as independent (16.7%), Libertarian Party (3.9%), Green Party (1.4%) and other (5.6%). Random assignment of participants to the different treatments was balanced. We first replicated study 1 by having the unedited video control condition [ n = 119] and the treatment condition with all laughter removed [ n = 139]. The other three conditions considered the effect of removing individual laughter events, with the first removing laughter from Reagan’s response to a heckler [ n = 126], the second removing small group laughter [ n = 131], and the third removing group laughter in Reagan’s response to journalistic aggression [ n = 136]. When tested for randomness in assignment to across the five treatment conditions, we found no statistical bias (p = ns in all cases) for sex, ethnicity, age, party identification, and political ideology (social, economic, overall conservative-liberal).

As was the case with the first experimental study, participants were asked basic demographic questions (age, sex, ethnicity), as well as questions about whether they were registered to vote, the political party they identify with and self-reported political ideology. Additionally, they were asked to state how familiar they were with President Ronald Reagan, especially as this more externally valid sample had a greater distribution of ages and experience with Reagan, potentially influencing response. The distribution of participants was therefore examined as a separate, exploratory, and hypothesis-generating model with this variable as a moderator.

However, as the first experiment suggested differences in response to the video treatments, participants were asked to state their feelings both prior to and immediately after the presentation of the stimuli in terms of their emotions at that moment (anxious, proud, angry, reassured, fearful, irritated, disgusted, sad, and happy) on a 0–10 (not at all to extremely) scale. The evaluation of perceived charisma was based upon whether “This leader…” “moves people toward a goal,” “has a vision,” “inspire dares to take risks,” and “elicits a feeling of involvement in me.” [ 69 ]. The resulting scale showed strong reliability (Cronbach’s a = .865).

In line with the first experimental study, participants were asked to evaluate the reporter, Leslie Stahl, based upon their overall impressions of her, as well as how credible, appropriate, and likable she appeared in this video (Cronbach’s a = .919). Participants were also asked to evaluate Ronald Reagan’s leadership traits in terms of his competence , based upon measures of how sincere, aggressive, strong, active, competent he appeared to be (Cronbach’s a = .826). We also consider perceptions of his warmth with questions regarding how intelligent, caring, trustworthy, agreeable, and warm he appeared to be during the news story (Cronbach’s a = .908). All these were measured on a seven-point (0–6) scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Extremely”.

Change in emotional response from immediately before watching the video to immediately afterwards using repeated-measures ANOVA suggests that the video had a significant effect on how participants felt across all emotions (see Table 1 ). There was a small effect with a slight increase in fear (pre M = 1.567, se = .092; post M = 1.775, se = .097); sadness likewise showed a slight increase (pre M = 1.600, se = .088; post M = 2.059, se = .101) with a small-to-medium effect size, whereas felt anxiety decreased (pre M = 3.177, se = .115; post M = 2.719, se = .112) to a small-to-medium extent due to the video.

	Change	Change*Treatment
Anxiety	= 68.169 < .001 = .042	= 1.476 = .208 = .009
Fear	= 6.330 = .012 = .010	= 2.152 = .073 = .013
Anger	= 130.061 .001 = .168	= 3.704 = .005 = .022
Irritated	= 125.913 .001 = .163	= 1.003 = .405 = .006
Disgusted	= 210.919 < .001 = .246	= 1.132 = .340 = .007
Sadness	= 26.649 < .001 = .040	= .609 = .656 = .004
Reassured	= 120.481 < .001 = .157	= .619 = .649 = .004
Proud	= 79.406 < .001 = .109	= .990 = .412 = .006
Happy	= 264.330 < .001 = .290	= .484 = .747 = .003

Emotions associated with pleasantness and positive appraisal all decreased as a result of the video, showing either medium-to-large (proud pre-M = 4.002, se = .129) or large (reassured pre-M = 3.412, se = .122; post-M = 2.174, se = .105; happy pre-M = 5.843, se = .108; post-M = 4.272, se = .122). For their part, the negative appraisal emotions of irritated (pre-M = 1.786, se = .093; post-M = 3.101, se = .114), disgusted (pre-M = 1.023, se = 077; post-M = 2.540, se = .116) and anger (pre-M = 1.070, se = .076; post-M = 2.173, se = .116) all increase with the video having a large effect size.

While all emotional state measures changed because of the video, only anger was affected by the treatment condition. As can be expected, the least amount of increased anger came in the treatment with all three laughter elements present; while the four other treatments between the video with laughter and with it removed failed to reach statistical significance.(M = 1.626, se = .172, p =.ns; vs M = 1.567, se = .170, p = ns), significant differences only occurred when anger in the laughter-present video (M = 1.223, se = .181) was compared with all laughter absent (M = 1.745, se = 167, p = .034) and with the first treatment condition in which the first laughter utterance was removed (M = 1.948, se = .167, p = .004).

Participant ratings of Leslie Stahl in a similar manner suggested the treatment had little effect. Specifically, the index considering overall performance, perceived credibility, appropriateness, and likability, exhibited no significant violations of homogeneity ( F [4, 686] = 1.070, p = ns) according to the Levene’s test. Analysis of the index shows participants were largely unaffected by whether there was laughter present, faded, or removed entirely ( F [4, 686] = 0.387, p = ns). Likewise, Stahl’s perceived aggressiveness ( F [2, 280] = .174, p = ns) failed to reach statistical significance.

Similarly, participants did not seem to notice a difference between the different videos. When asked “how believable did you find the video clip to be,” there was no significant difference between the treatments ( F = .242, p = ns). In combination with the preceding findings, there was not apparently a cognitively perceived effect from the video as participants were not aware of the treatment.

Analysis of the effect of laughter and its removal from the video treatment on evaluation of Ronald Reagan’s leadership traits does not replicate the first experiment. Tests for homogeneity of variance regarding the competence index finds no significant violations ( F [4, 686] = 1.682, p = ns). The between-subjects ANOVA between the five groups does not reveal significant differences: F [4, 686] = 1.313, p = ns.

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance revealed a significant violation ( F [4, 686] = 2.480, p = .043) when considering the index of Reagan’s warmth . When the Brown-Forsythe robust test was used, no significant between-subjects effects across the five humour groups was revealed: F [4, 686] = 1.299, p = ns. Likewise, while with perceptions of Reagan’s charisma no significant violations of homogeneity of variance were found using Levene’s test ( F [4, 686] = 1.919, p = ns); no significant between-subjects effects across the five humour groups was revealed; F [4, 686] = .516, p = ns.

Finally, as a control item a single measure of how humorous participants thought Reagan to be was included. Significant violations of homogeneity were found with the Levene test ( F [4, 686] = 5.377, p < .001), yet no significant differences between the groups were seen, F [4, 686] = .589, p = ns, when the Brown-Forsythe robust test was used.

The second study provides insight regarding the importance of the population used and methods employed. First, by using a more representative sample in terms of age, with the first study’s average age being twenty-one years old, and the second study’s average age of thirty-nine years old, we can expect that perceptions of President Ronald Reagan, to be well-established for good or bad. While a historical figure, allowing us to carry out an experiment over a long period of time without worries over external validity, Reagan remains a powerful political symbol in terms of social identity. Indeed, when considering the distributions on the constructs of charisma and warmth, eight percent of participants held a ceiling perception of him on both measures. Thus, even though age, gender, and party identity were randomly distributed through the different treatments, the likelihood of such a weak treatment—between less than a second of laughter to six seconds of laughter—embedded within a roughly five-minute video having an effect was diminished.

Second, the use of trait measures may not be sensitive enough to capture contemporaneous stimuli, especially regarding well known figures (and even those not so well known as in the case of Leslie Stahl). That we found significant and predictable change in all the participant emotional state self-report measures prior to and after watching the video, and that anger was most affected by the absence of laughter, both overall and in Reagan’s response to the heckler, suggests that the presence of laughter does have an effect on participants–even ones with strongly held opinions.

General discussion

Our findings cohere with the expectations of Vraga and colleagues [ 53 ] that when people have limited information to deal with ambiguous situations, they will rely upon subtle signals–especially those socially influential and reliable indicators of positive regard as audience laughter. In this paper, we find two substantially different groups of study participants responding in line with Vraga and colleagues’ results, as the much younger–and likely less politically knowledgeable–study 1 participants used audience laughter, or its absence, as a factor in their evaluating Ronald Reagan’s warmth and, to a lesser extent, competence. The older and more politically experience and involved experimental study 2 participants were not affected by audience laughter’s presence or absence in their evaluation of Reagan’s leadership traits. This was likely due to either experiencing Reagan as an active and polarizing political figure or as seeing him as a historically relevant political figure.

The second, subtle, and perhaps more compelling indicator that audience laughter does have an effect on participants lies with the indicators of appraised emotion. In the first experiment, there were between-subject treatment differences in felt irritation, with participants feeling less irritated when viewing the video with the laughter in than with the video with the laughter removed or faded out. While experimental study 2 participants felt irritation was not significantly affected, their felt anger was. In other words, the older and more politically experienced participants had a response in the same emotion family that replicated that of irritation, with those not hearing audience laughter more angry than those who did hear audience laughter, and both studies having similar effect sizes. Furthermore, the experimental extension in the second study, which teased out the effects of the success–as measured by audience laughter or its absence–of humorous statements found that Reagan’s aggressive quip in response to protesters (“I’ll raise his taxes”) had the strongest treatment effect when post-hoc comparisons were made, stronger even than all laughter removed. This suggests, in line with Stewart’s [ 60 ] finding that other-deprecating and aggressive humour, including ridicule, can be dangerous for a leader if supporters are not there to respond to a quip or joke with laughter.

Taken together, these findings point to a greater awareness of how even very subtle stimuli might affect various measures differently, especially given distinct populations. Having multiple measures thus not only makes sense in assessing discriminant validity of treatment effects it also provides for greater comprehension of how individual differences exhibit themselves. Because the traits of warmth, competence, and charisma can be seen as the crystallization of emotional appraisals in response to individuals over a period of time—albeit one that is more malleable in the absence of pre-existing information–choosing and paying attention to distinct measures based upon population characteristics makes eminent sense when planning a study. It also points towards the more extensive use of highly responsive measures of affect, such as provided by psychophysiology, when crafting an experiment and viewing appraisal and response as a continuum affected by multiple internal and external factors.

Conclusions

Perhaps the most pertinent finding from this paper pertains to the use of an externally valid stimulus that, while nearly forty years old, still resonates today both in experimental effects and lessons imparted. First, historically relevant stimuli remain impactful, as can be seen by the cornerstone work by Fein, Goethals, and Kugler [ 9 ] upon which this paper builds, as the fresh eyes (and brains) of undergraduates in our first experiment had their perceptions significantly affected nearly three decades after Ronald Reagan left the presidency. Perhaps more important is that such a minor treatment in our study–up to 5 ¾ seconds removed from a five-minute+ video–had a small-to-moderate effect size suggests that even perceived minor production choices can have subtle, yet impactful implications for the perceptions and choices of low-information voters reliant on the social influence of others. Despite the fact that the key news story was produced decades ago the use of humour is often seen in contemporary political settings. Future work exploring the social psychological effects of different types of humour that is displayed by politicians should focus on the interactions between humour types and the strength of the observable audience response. As we have shown here it is the interaction between the two that impacts audience perceptions, in turn likely shaping attitudes and, potentially, behaviour.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

IMAGES

Charismatic leadership case study with ronald reagan as exemplar
Leadership Case Study
President Ronald Reagan Case Study Example
REAGAN ON LEADERSHIP
Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader
Ronald Reagan’s Leadership Qualities -- Four Strengths That Made Him

VIDEO

Reagan and the 3 Legged Chicken #shorts
Charismatic Leadership
Mafia Presidents: Power, Betrayal, and Legacy
Ronald Reagan's Charismatic Leadership
5 Fascinating Facts About Ronald Reagan
Reagan's Transformational Leadership

COMMENTS

PDF Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar
Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar R. Mark Bell. Regent University Charismatic leadership theory describes what to expect from both leaders and followers. Leaders engage in extraordinary behaviors and display substantial expertise.
Ronald Reagan Leadership Style
This makes charisma rare but easily observed when in existence. Ronald Reagan was an exemplar of charismatic leadership because he brought effective communication, vision, integrity, humor, and delegation to the leadership task at a time when there were social, economic, and foreign policy crises facing the nation.
Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader
This paper proves that Ronald Reagan was a charismatic leader and evaluates his actions and behaviors. Charismatic leader engages in extraordinary behaviors and exhibits expertise. ... "Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar." Emerging Leadership Journeys 6.1 (2013): 66-74. Print.
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald
Former United States President Ronald Reagan's use of media and his charismatic connection with viewers earned him the moniker "the great communicator". One aspect of his charisma, the influence of elicited laughter, during a highly critical 5-minute news story by CBS reporter Leslie Stahl during the 1984 US presidential election is examined here. Two experiments examining the effects of ...
Charismatic Leadership Case Study With Ronald Reagan As Exemplar
Charismastic PDF - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Ronald Reagan is discussed as an exemplar of Charismatic Leadership. Leaders engage in extraordinary behaviors and display substantial expertise. Crisis situations play a significant role in the attribution of charisma.
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the 'great communicator ... the case utilized not only provides a historically relevant example that is recognized by many political communication scholars as a turning point in how nonverbal cues and signals are considered, it also presents an emotionally ...
PDF The President of the United States as Charismatic Leader: Analysis of
Table 9. Secretaries of Education During the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.....76 Table 10. Budgeted Funding for Head Start From 1980 to 1988.....76 Table 11. Documents with Charismatic Descriptors of Ronald Reagan.....78 Table 12.
Charismatic Leaders
Theories of charismatic leadership contend that a variety of leadership behaviors shift followers from an individual-oriented, ... Bell, M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. In Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), 66-74. Leadership: Regent University School of Business &. Google Scholar
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald
President Ronald Reagan's expert use of media and his charismatic connection with viewers earned him the moniker "the great communicator". This study examines one aspect of his charisma, the ...
PDF Volume 6
Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar 66 R. Mark Bell The Autopoietic Church: Inter-textual Analysis of "The Acts of the Apostles" ... Ronald Reagan is also discussed as an exemplar of charismatic leadership. Examples from Reagan's presidency are cited to help frame charismatic traits and their effects on
Charismatic Leadership: Weighing the Pros and Cons
The Downside of Charismatic Leadership. By 1996, charismatic leadership had become the "predominant paradigm in organizational leadership theory and research," wrote University of Alabama researcher J. Bryan Fuller and his coauthors in a research review of the topic for Psychological Reports. But although everyone seems to know charisma ...
The Nature of Leadership: Charismatic Leadership
Charismatic leaders have a strong need for power and the tendency to rely heavily on referent power as their primary power base. Charismatic leaders also are extremely self-confident and convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs and ideals. This self-confidence and strength of conviction make people trust the charismatic leader's judgment ...
Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level
For example, Ronald Reagan believed that America must remain a shining light on the hill—a light that had been dimmed by big government and its onerous tax bills. ... prior studies of charismatic leadership indicate that the formation of cohesive groups dedicated to the future-oriented goals being articulated by charismatic leaders may ...
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald
leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as ... Former United States President Ronald Reagan's use of media and his charismatic connec-tion with viewers earned him the moniker "the great communicator". One aspect of his cha-risma, the influence of elicited laughter, during a highly critical 5-minute news story by CBS ...
What is Charismatic Leadership? Leading Through Conviction
Differences between charismatic leadership and other styles "Charismatic leadership is a leadership style that is recognizable but may be perceived with less tangibility than other leadership styles," writes Mar Bell in "Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar." Charismatic leadership is similar to other styles.
Smiles, Styles, and Profiles: Claim and Acclaim of Ronald Reagan as
Metadata. This paper critically evaluates Ronald Reagan's popular appeal using two theories that have currently regained considerable interest: charisma and authoritarianism. Viewed through these concepts together, the paper argues that Reagan's presidency depended on a charismatic, or in other words, an emotional appeal that fulfills a longing ...
Ronald Reagan
""Follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly determined by the leader's behavior, expertise, and aspects of the situation" (Bell). ... He took this mess and turned it into a a shining example of greatness. ... Mark R., "Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar," Emerging Leadership ...
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald
Former United States President Ronald Reagan's use of media and his charismatic connection with viewers earned him the moniker "the great communicator". One aspect of his charisma, the influence of elicited laughter, during a highly critical 5-minute news story by CBS reporter Leslie Stahl during the 1984 US presidential election is examined here.
Emerging Leadership Journeys
The study utilized a cross-sectional survey approach and convenient sampling (N=152). Theoretical framework underpinning the study is provided, as well as tested hypotheses. Summary of results and limitations of this research are discussed. | article pdf | Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar R. Mark Bell
(PDF) Exploring Charismatic Leadership Based on the Case Study of
Charismatic leadership case study with Ronald Reagan as exemplar. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 65(1), 83-91. The First Great Communicator (book review, FDR and the News Media by Betty Houchin ...
Bell, R. M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald
Bell, R. M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6, 66-74. has been cited by the following article: TITLE: Revisiting Innovation Leadership. AUTHORS: Hazaz Abdullah Alsolami, Kenny Teoh Guan Cheng, Abdulaziz Awad M. Ibn Twalh
charismatic leadership case study with ronald reagan as exemplar
Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar R. Mark Bell. Regent University Charismatic leadership theory describes what to expect from both leaders and followers. Leaders engage in extraordinary behaviors and display substantial expertise. Crisis situations or other substantial realities create an atmosphere that is conducive for the emergence of charismatic leadership.
Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald
This study will also examine the presence of laughter in response to Ronald Reagan's humour and the effect that it will have on his perceived charismatic traits. The influence of specific laughter-eliciting comments removing concomitant laughter to consider the influence of different types of (un)successful humour will also be examined here.

Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader Essay

Introduction

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the ‘great communicator

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Charismatic Leaders

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Share this entry

Free Videos

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Charismatic leadership was once promoted as a cure-all for struggling organizations. But recent research and theory suggest potential downsides to putting a charismatic leader in charge.

Claim your FREE copy: Real Leaders Negotiate

What Is Charismatic Leadership?

The Downside of Charismatic Leadership

Is Charismatic Leadership Effective?

The Bottom Line on Charismatic Leadership

Related Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

Select Your Free Special Report

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

Stay Connected to PON

Articles & Insights

PON Publications

BUS603: Managing People

The Nature of Leadership

ETHICS IN PRACTICE

CONCEPT CHECK

Ronald Reagan

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the 'great communicator'

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Grants and funding

Journals by Subject

Publish with us

Article citations More>>

About SCIRP

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the ‘great communicator’

Reagan G. Dye

Carl Senior

Associated Data

Introduction

Laughter across differing social contexts

Intra-audience effects of audience laughter

Political laughter

Humour types and political laughter

Ronald Reagan’s leadership style

Content coding of the Reagan-Stahl News Story (1984)

Participants

General discussion

Conclusions

Funding Statement

Data Availability

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS