1989
DOI: 10.1007/bf00992491
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France and the United States

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
68
1
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
4
68
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, leaders can use negative emotions to encourage support from subordinates. External threats may function to strengthen the bond between subordinate and dominant figures (Masters & Sullivan, 1989). In particular, anger displays against a common enemy may motivate followers and solidify the leader-follower relationship (Bucy, 2000).…”
Section: Crises and Leader Emotionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, leaders can use negative emotions to encourage support from subordinates. External threats may function to strengthen the bond between subordinate and dominant figures (Masters & Sullivan, 1989). In particular, anger displays against a common enemy may motivate followers and solidify the leader-follower relationship (Bucy, 2000).…”
Section: Crises and Leader Emotionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the area of leadership, prior research on expressions has mainly focused on political leaders' emotional displays (Bucy, 2000;Bucy & Bradley, 2004;Bucy & Newhagen, 1999;Masters & Sullivan, 1989;Sullivan & Masters, 1988) and leaders' general emotional displays (Damen, Van Knippenberg, & Van Knippenberg, 2008;Lewis, 2000). However, to our knowledge, research on facial expression has not yet used sophisticated methods available in other psychological settings (Ekman, 1992;Ekman & Rosenberg, 1997;Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, 2000;Knutson, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Scholars from a variety of fields, including political science, have demonstrated the extent to which social context influences people's reactions to decisions. People are affected by whether they have interacted (even briefly) with the decision maker prior to the decision, by whether they are likely to interact with the decision maker again, by whether they perceive the decision maker to be a member of their "in-group," and by whether the decision maker is perceived to be a decent human being or to have "earned" in a fair contest the right to be the decision maker (see Blount 1995;Dawes, van de Kragt, and Orbell 1990;Guth and Tietz 1990;Hoffman, McCabe, and Smith 1996;Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1986;Lubell and Scholz 2001;Masters 1982;Masters and Sullivan 1989;Morris and Sim 1998;Orbell and Dawes 1991;Ostrom 1998;Ostrom and Walker 2002;Smith 2000;Sullivan and Masters 1988;Thompson, Kray, and Lind 1998). Typically, for example, people are more than willing to take a loss themselves in order to punish someone who has behaved badly or to cooperate with someone who has behaved nobly (see, for example, Boyd and Richerson 1992;Henrich and Boyd 2001;Thaler 1992).…”
Section: The Reasons People Care About How and Why Decisions Are Madementioning
confidence: 99%