# Are we on the same page? Leader-follower value congruence as a boundary condition in the emergence of charismatic effects

Rafael Wilms, Nicolas Bastardoz, Clara Seif El Dahan, Philippe Jacquart

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Rafael Wilms, Nicolas Bastardoz, Clara Seif El Dahan, Philippe Jacquart. Are we on the same page? Leader-follower value congruence as a boundary condition in the emergence of charismatic effects. Leadership Quarterly, 2025, 36 (2), 22 p. hal-04742810

HAL Id: hal-04742810

https://hal.science/hal-04742810v1

Submitted on 21 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Are we on the same page? Leader-follower value congruence as a boundary condition in the emergence of charismatic effects

Rafael Wilms<sup>a, *</sup>, Nicolas Bastardoz<sup>b</sup>, Clara Seif el Dahan<sup>c</sup>, Philippe Jacquart<sup>d</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Perceived leader charisma

- Leader prototypicality

- Leader effectiveness

- Leader-follower value congruence

- Charisma signaling

## ABSTRACT

In the emergence of the charismatic effect, the leader-follower value congruence assumption posits that the charisma signal creates a charismatic effect for followers who have congruent values with the leader but may repel followers with incongruent values. Whereas this assumption is a central pillar of charisma signaling, it has not been causally tested. We theorize the charisma signal, leader-follower value congruence, and their interaction as predictors of the charismatic effect (i.e., perceived leader charisma, prototypicality, and effectiveness). In three preregistered experiments, we manipulate the charisma signal and communicated leader values by relying on video-recorded speeches and measure follower values beforehand. We operationalize leader-follower value congruence as the degree to which communicated leader values and measured follower values match. Study 1 showed mixed results for the leader-follower value congruence assumption, whereas Studies 2 and 3 – using polarized rhetoric – fully support it. We found some evidence that value congruence moderates the charisma signal-charismatic effect relationship, such that the relationship becomes stronger (weaker) with more value congruence (incongruence) in Studies 1 and 3 (but not in Study 2). Theoretical and practical implications as well as limitations are discussed.

> Adults keep saying, 'We owe it to the young people to give them hope.' But I don't want your hope. I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.—Greta Thunberg, 2019

Charismatic leaders have strong moral convictions, captivate their audience, and inspire followers to give their all to achieve the mission (House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993). Empirical results often demonstrate an average effect of charisma signaling on follower performance and attitudes (Antonakis et al., 2022; Ernst et al., 2021; Meslec et al., 2020), yet charisma signaling may be risky for leaders because communicating values and group emotions can spurn followers (Bastardoz, 2020). Charismatic leaders sometimes polarize with their rhetoric (e.g., Greta Thunberg in the quote above) and people often love or loathe them (Tucker, 1968). So, what determines whether leaders signaling charisma emerge as charismatic?

The leader-follower value congruence assumption may offer an explanation and posits that charismatic leaders can create a charismatic effect

for followers who have, at least in part, congruent values with them (Antonakis et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1993). Some anecdotal evidence suggest that they may repel followers with incongruent values (Tucker, 1968). For example, a leader who communicates symbolically and emotionally about the importance of fighting for women's rights can emerge as charismatic for individuals who believe in equality, but not for those who believe in traditional family roles. Indeed, experiencing value incongruence with their leader can have detrimental consequences on followers, such as greater ego depletion (Deng et al., 2016), emotional exhaustion, and less affective commitment (Doblhofer et al., 2019). Thus, it is critical to empirically investigate leader-follower value (in)congruence as a boundary condition for the effectiveness of the charisma signal, potentially nuancing the average effect of charisma.

Despite considerable attention to value congruence in the charismatic leadership process, previous research suffers from endogeneity bias (e.g., Brown & Trevino, 2006; Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Hayibor et al., 2011; Lajoie et al., 2017; Sosik, 2005; Williams et al., 2012;

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Department of Management and Organisation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of Work and Organization Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Meschede, Germany</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> EMLYON Business School, Ecully, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: r.wilms@vu.nl (R. Wilms).</footnote>
Williams et al., 2018), such as omitted variable bias or simultaneity (e. g., Antonakis et al., 2010), and inadequate construct operationaliza- tions, such as conflating leader behavior and their evaluation (for re- views, see Banks et al., 2021; Fischer & Sitkin, 2023). For example, many leader–follower value congruence measures were problematic because they relied on subjective value congruence or on difference scores (for a recent review, see Tsai et al., 2022). Followers may over- estimate the similarity (dissimilarity) in values with their prototypical (atypical) leader because of enhancement motives (Shamir et al., 1993) or the gap-filling process (Lord et al., 1984; Lord et al., 2020), intro- ducing endogeneity when used as a predictor. Therefore, followers may evaluate the same leader behavior very differently as a function of leader–follower value congruence, demonstrating the problem of conflating leader behavior and their evaluations (i.e., misalignment of theory and methodology; Banks et al., 2021; Fischer et al., 2024). Overall, previous studies provide limited associative support for the leader–follower value congruence assumption in the charismatic lead- ership process.

Overcoming these limitations, our empirical investigations focus on the charismatic effect, operationalized as perceived leader charisma, prototypicality and effectiveness, and contribute to the charismatic leadership literature in at least three ways. First, we provide a *causal* test for leader–follower value congruence as a central pillar of charisma theories (Antonakis et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1993). We conduct a clean causal test by showing the leader–follower value congruence- charismatic effect relationship, and how leader–follower value congru- ence moderates the charisma signal–charismatic effect relationship (Studies 1–3). Our work showcases the critical role followers’ values play in endorsing charismatic leaders.

Second, we contribute to the charismatic leadership literature by examining not only value congruence (Study 1) but also incongruence (Studies 2 and 3). Previous studies have focused on pro-social visions widely shared in the population such as helping sick children (Antonakis et al., 2022), helping children learn (Ernst et al., 2021), and preserving history (Nieken, 2022). These settings may have inflated the average treatment effect of the charisma signal by relying on visions that appeal to a vast majority of individuals. By extending previous findings to the controversial topics of open gun carry (Study 2) and LGBTQ+ support (Study 3), we provide nuance by showing that leader–follower value incongruence may prevent the emergence of the charismatic effect or even lead to backlash. Our findings shed novel light on why leaders who signal charisma may not always be perceived as charismatic, prototyp- ical, or effective with all their followers.

Finally, our findings provide suggestive evidence that the charisma signal is not only a credible signal of cognitive ability (Akstinaite et al., in press) but also of leader values or intentions (Bastardoz, 2020). If charisma was only a signal of cognitive ability, followers would have little reason to hype (punish) leaders who cherish (oppose) their values. Although the signaling theory of charisma is built on the idea of costly signals (Antonakis et al., 2016), empirical evidence supporting this assumption is currently scarce (for an exception, see Akstinaite et al., in press). Our findings provide opportunities to further explore how charisma as a costly signal interacts with followers’ characteristics to generate leadership outcomes.

## Signaling theory of charisma

Contemporary approaches to the study of charismatic leadership rely on signaling theory. Signaling theory pertains to information asymme- tries between players in a market, and how and when signals can reduce them (Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 2002). Signals represent “things one does that are visible and that are in part designed to communicate” (Spence, 2002, p. 434). Only signals that reveal the true underlying attributes of the signaler are valuable (Van Schaik, 2016). To do so, a signal needs to be costly such that only signalers with the underlying attribute can produce the signal at all, or more quickly or efficiently than

signalers without the underlying attribute. Signals that can be easily faked do not credibly reveal an underlying attribute of the signaler. For example, to signal great engineering skills (i.e., the underlying charac- teristic that the signaler aims to communicate), a car manufacturer might run an ad saying its company has great engineers or produces great cars–a cheap signal that all car manufacturers could transmit–or it can increase the warranty on its car–a costly signal that only car man- ufacturers with great engineers would run.

Applied to leadership, signaling theory can provide critical insights to explain why certain leaders emerge or why certain followers may be exploited or deceived. In an environment where multiple leaders compete for followers’ attention, votes, or efforts, signals can help leaders communicate valuable information to followers on their abilities and/or intentions (i.e., the underlying characteristics; Bastardoz, 2020). Individuals who rely on costly leader signals of relevant underlying characteristics when deciding who to follow increase their likelihood of following a competent leader with good intentions (Bastardoz, 2020; Bastardoz & Van Vugt, 2019).

## Charisma and charismatic leadership tactics

Antonakis et al. (2016) define charisma as “values-based, symbolic, and emotion-laden leader signaling” (p. 304). The charisma signal has predominantly been operationalized through charismatic leadership tactics (CLTs), which are based on three core pillars: substance, framing, and delivery (Antonakis et al., 2011; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015).

Substance CLTs highlight what a leader stands for. *Moral convictions* are personal statements or assessments of situations that convey the leader’s values by distinguishing right from wrong (Antonakis et al., 2011; Shamir et al., 1993). *Ambitious goals* translate a leader’s moral convictions into tangible, yet ambitious goals (Antonakis et al., 2011) and increase the motivation of followers (if attainable; Locke & Latham, 2002). Together, *moral convictions* and *ambitious goals* demonstrate what leaders want to achieve, their ambitions, and the values that guide them. *Conveying confidence that goals can be achieved* creates perceptions of confidence around the leader, which increases follower self-efficacy (Eden, 1988; Shamir et al., 1993). *Sentiment of the collective* refers to a leader statement that expresses what leaders believe their group thinks, feels, or aspires to (Antonakis et al., 2012; Ernst et al., 2021) and thereby conveys that leaders understand their followers (Hogg, 2001).

Framing CLTs contain rhetorical means that increase clarity and underscore the symbolic nature of the message. *Metaphors* and *similes* express themes in a verbal picture (thereby simplifying the message), often evoke a strong emotional response, and help inspire people (Emrich et al., 2001; Mio et al., 2005; Naidoo & Lord, 2008). *Contrasts* focus and frame what a leader stands for by pitting their position against another one (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997). *Lists* (especially three-part lists) suggest the completeness of an argument, which increases the speaker’s credibility (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997). *Rhetorical questions* encompass questions aimed at creating a puzzle, eliciting an obvious answer, or provoking followers to think (Antonakis et al., 2012). *Stories* and *anecdotes* generally refer to people, events, or places involved in a plot and provide a vivid example of a subject or point of view (Ernst et al., 2021; Towler, 2003). Stories allow listeners to identify with characters similar to them, which in turn increases their attention to the leader’s words (Jose & Brewer, 1984).

Finally, delivery CLTs includes nonverbal communication tactics (e. g., *bodily movements*, *facial behaviors*, and *animated voice*) that emotion- ally charge the leader’s message, emphasize their conviction, and demonstrate passion (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bono & Ilies, 2006; Frese et al., 2003). Nonverbal CLTs (i.e., delivery) tend to be highly correlated with verbal CLTs (i.e., framing and substance; Antonakis et al., 2011), leading scholars to frequently omit delivery tactics when they measure the charisma signal from actual leaders (e.g., Bastardoz et al., 2022; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015; Jensen et al., 2023; Tur et al., 2022; Study 2).
A central premise of signaling theory is that costly signals reduce information asymmetry between leaders and followers (Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 2002). How is charisma a costly signal? CLTs may represent a costly signal for two not directly observable characteristics: a leader's values or intentions (Bastardoz, 2020) and intelligence (Antonakis et al., 2016). First, substance CLTs (e.g., moral conviction, ambitious goals, or sentiment of the collective) communicate the core of leaders' visions, conveying their values and intentions for the group in the future (Antonakis et al., 2012, 2016). These substance CLTs clarify what people should collectively strive for and shape a collective identity for the group. Importantly, one could argue that leaders' actual behaviors or communication may not necessarily align with the leader's actual intentions or values (i.e., signal inconsistency; Connelly et al., 2011), which in turn would make the charisma signal a cheap signal for true intentions or values (Bastardoz, 2020). Yet, leader signals may create expectations in followers who could punish expectation violation (e.g., Burgoon, 1993). For example, investors punish firms' ethical violations more heavily when they use more virtue rhetoric in letters to shareholders (Zachary et al., 2023). Therefore, in an environment with repeated interactions between leaders and followers, followers can uncover, hold accountable, and even punish leaders who behave inconsistent with their communicated values and vision (Simons, 2002). If individuals act rationally, they should stop following these leaders (Bastardoz, 2020). This does not mean that leaders cannot dishonestly impart values, yet this should become very effortful over time (Bastardoz, 2020). In contrast, leaders who communicate a vision consistent with their own values and intentions require little effort and impersonation compared to leaders who communicate a vision inconsistent with their true intention and values. Moreover, leaders championing certain values put themselves at risk that only certain followers resonate with these values while others disagree with or even oppose these values (Antonakis et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1993; Tucker, 1968).

Second, framing CLTs refer to rhetorical devices that intelligent individuals produce more easily and naturally, suggesting that the charisma signal may be a costly signal of intelligence (Antonakis et al., 2016). These framing CLTs show a mastery of rhetoric and symbolic reasoning, revealing leaders' abilities to lead followers and coordinate the group (Antonakis et al., 2016; Grabo et al., 2017). Indeed, leader intelligence is a good predictor of leader effectiveness (e.g., Judge et al., 2004) and thus may affect the leader's credibility or eligibility for the leader role. For instance, people high on fluid intelligence produce more creative metaphors compared to less intelligent ones (Silvia & Beaty, 2012). Similarly, other framing CLTs, such as stories, contrasts, and rhetorical questions are probably harder to fake and cannot easily be copied by individuals low in intelligence or abilities (Akstinaite et al., in press). In summary, charisma may be a costly signal of both a leader's values and intentions (through the substance CLTs) as well as intelligence (through the framing CLTs) and followers can make a more informed "following" decision based on the leader's charisma signal, which ultimately affects their welfare.

## The charisma signal and the charismatic effect

When followers perceive that a leader has good intentions and high ability, they can be more confident that their needs will be fulfilled, and in turn perceive the leader as more charismatic. Previous studies showed that followers rely on CLTs to evaluate the charisma of a leader (Bastardoz et al., 2022; Ernst et al., 2021; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015; Meslec et al., 2020). In a field experiment, managers trained to use CLTs were perceived by themselves and others as significantly more charismatic than their untrained peers (Antonakis et al., 2011). Similarly, Antonakis et al. (2022) had the same actor deliver two speeches that were essentially identical except for the number of CLTs employed. Individuals perceived the speech using more (vs. fewer) CLTs as significantly more charismatic. This effect was also replicated using virtual communication: The more TED talk speakers used CLTs, the more

listeners described the videos using key words such as “persuasive” and “inspiring” (Tur et al., 2022). Overall, there is strong empirical support that a leader’s use of CLTs increase perceived leader charisma (H1a).

Integrating leader categorization theory (Lord et al., 1984; Lord et al., 2001; Lord et al., 2020) and signaling theory of charisma (Antonakis et al., 2016), we provide a theoretical account of why leaders signaling charisma will be perceived as prototypical and effective (H1b and H1c). People often rely on heuristics in their judgements and inferences (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), with leadership being no exception. Leader categorization theory suggests that people develop schemas based on a vague set of characteristics of what an ideal or typical leader should be – a leader prototype (Lord et al., 1984; Lord et al., 2001; Lord et al., 2020). Although the ideal or typical characteristics of a prototypical leader will vary across contexts (e.g., prototypical military leaders may be different from political leaders), leadership prototypes tend to overlap substantially (Lord et al., 2001).

When raters evaluate a target person (even subconsciously), they compare this target person with an abstract prototype (e.g., a military or corporate leader; i.e., “category-based representations”; Lord et al., 2020, p. 51) or a specific individual representative of that category (e.g., the leader is similar to Elon Musk; i.e., “target-based representations”, Lord et al., 2020, p. 51). Once a person is categorized (e.g., as a charismatic leader), instead of recalling specific behaviors from the past, people ascribe the attributes associated with the category (e.g., being a great speaker) to the target person even though they may have never observed them (i.e., the gap-filling process; Lord et al., 2020; Phillips & Lord, 1982; Rosch, 1978; Shondrick et al., 2010). Prototypes offer a quick and easy way to evaluate leaders (Lord et al., 2020).

We thus argue that followers develop and adjust their leadership prototypes based on leader signals that reveal critical leader attributes. When certain signals have been repeatedly associated with effective or prototypical leaders in previous encounters, followers will include these signals as part of their effective leadership prototypes. For example, followers may include the charisma signal as a characteristic that triggers an effective leadership categorization due to repeated interactions with leaders who signaled charisma and were successful in their leadership role. In future encounters in a similar context, followers may look for leaders who signal charisma through CLTs as an indicator of future effective leadership.

Previous studies support the idea that CLTs increase perceived leader prototypicality and effectiveness. In the same field experiment discussed above, training managers in CLTs increased their leader prototypicality and effectiveness (i.e., leader affect, trust, competence, and influence; Antonakis et al., 2011). These results were replicated in an experimental setting (Ernst et al., 2021). In another experiment, leaders were perceived as more effective when communicating in a charismatic (i.e., inspiring themes, symbolic language, rhetorical devices) compared to neutral way (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999).

Building on existing studies, we derive the following (replication) hypotheses:

H1: Leaders signaling charisma elicit the charismatic effect such that it increases perceived (a) charisma, (b) prototypicality and (c) effectiveness of the leader.

## Leader-Follower value congruence

We now focus on the role of values in the elicitation of the charismatic effect. Values generally refer to “(a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about desirable end states or behaviors, (c) that transcend specific situations, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (e) are ordered by relative importance” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p. 551). Values represent what ought to be, and refer to abstract principles such as honesty, compassion, and respect (Sagiv et al., 2017).

In their seminal work on charisma, Antonakis et al. (2016) argue that values but also beliefs (i.e., “acceptance of the truth, reality, or validity of something [...], particularly in the absence of substantiation”; APA
Dictionary of Psychology, 2018) and morals (i.e., “beliefs about fundamental issues of right and wrong”; Skitka et al., 2021, p. 347) pertain to “values-based signaling.” Morals and beliefs can be narrower than values (e.g., open carry is wrong). Strictly speaking, morals and beliefs might not always pertain to abstract values, but instead to attitudes. Attitudes can be defined as “a person’s evaluation of an object on a favorable to unfavorable continuum” (Albarracin & Shavitt, 2018, p. 300) and differ from values because they refer to specific actions, situations, or objects instead of being *trans*-situational and broad (Sagiv et al., 2017). Attitudes are often based on values (Homer & Kahle, 1988). In that sense, attitude-based leader signaling (e.g., “Your efforts will make a difference to sick children. [...] I think it is a right thing to do.”; Antonakis et al., 2022) may allow followers to infer the leader’s values (e.g., the leader’s benevolence). As such, attitude-based signaling can still qualify as values-based signaling. Values, attitudes, morals, and beliefs are conceptually related in that they all represent evaluations of actions, situations, or objects, yet at different levels of abstraction.

Therefore, we conceptualize values-based leader signaling as a
leader's broad or narrow evaluations of actions, situations, and objects,
imparting what they find desirable or undesirable. This understanding of
values-based leader signaling is consistent with recent operationaliza-
tions of charisma (e.g., helping hospitalized children to experience a
good Christmas; Antonakis et al., 2022; helping children learn better;
Ernst et al., 2021; helping children with illnesses; Meslec et al., 2020;
helping preserve history; Nieken, 2022). Consequently, we conceptu-
alize value congruence as similarity in broad or narrow evaluations of
the (un)desirability of actions, situations, or objects between two or
more individuals.

Self-concept theory of charisma

The self-concept theory of charisma emphasizes the importance of
leader-follower value congruence in the emergence of the charismatic
effect. Leaders will produce the charismatic effect more frequently if
they appeal to the elements of their followers' self-concepts, such as the
follower's values and identities (Shamir, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993;
Shamir et al., 1994). Self-concepts represent cognitive structures that
organize individuals' identities and determine how they interpret their
experiences and derive meaning (Oyserman et al., 2012; Oyserman
et al., 2017). The more followers agree with the leader's evaluations of
actions, situations, and objects (i.e., values-based signaling), the more
likely followers will experience the charismatic effect and be motivated
to reify the vision regardless of whether these evaluations are broad or
narrow. To the extent that followers can correctly infer the leader's
values from the signal<fnref n="1" /> and those values are important in the followers'
hierarchies of values or identities, value congruence will be important
for the charismatic effect. If followers do not share the vision, or even
oppose it, they may find the leader irrelevant or even repelling (Shamir
et al., 1993; Tucker, 1968). Championing certain values can lead to
backlash for leaders when certain followers disagree with or even
oppose these values (Antonakis et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1993; Tucker,
1968), and potential followers may stop following the leader or actively
work against them because the leader's vision is incompatible with the
followers' self-concepts.

Existing empirical evidence supports that value congruence is an
antecedent of the charismatic effect. For example, voters perceive po-
litical leaders as more charismatic when they shared their ideology
(Shamir, 1994; Williams et al., 2012, 2018). Similarly, the literature on
CEO activism corroborates the importance of value congruence. For
example, CEO activism increased ratings of authentic leadership and
employer attractiveness when the values communicated were in line

with the rater's ideology (Appels, 2022). CEO activism also increased
organizational commitment and support for the CEO's ideology when
the CEO's ideology was congruent with followers' ideology, but
decreased these attitudes when incongruent (Wowak et al., 2022).

Building on self-concept theory of charisma and recent work on CEO
activism, we hypothesize:

H2: Leader-follower value congruence elicits the charismatic effect such that it increases perceived (a) charisma, (b) prototypicality and (c) effec- tiveness of the leader.

Value congruence as a boundary condition of the charisma signal

Extending current frontiers in the leadership field, we now discuss
how leader–follower value (in)congruence moderates the effects of
charisma signaling. Such an investigation is sorely needed because the
literature on charisma signaling has focused on pro-social visions widely
shared in the population, such as helping sick children (Antonakis et al.,
2022), helping children learn (Ernst et al., 2021), and preserving history
(Fest et al., 2021; Nieken, 2022). We believe that these average treat-
ment effects of the charisma signal likely mix heterogeneous treatment
effects and argue that the effects hypothesized in *H1* will be weaker in
presence of low leader–follower value congruence. The charisma signal
may even backfire and lead to even lower perceptions of charisma,
effectiveness, and prototypicality in case of a significant clash of values.

One theoretical explanation may be that signaling charisma renders
values more observable due to its symbolic and emotion-laden nature. In
our discussion of CLTs above, we indicated that framing CLTs make the
leader's message more vivid, easy to understand, and emotionally
arousing (Emrich et al., 2001; Mio et al., 2005; Towler, 2003). For
example, the sentence “CO₂ [...] traps as much heat now as would be
released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every
day” (Gore, 2019) symbolically emphasizes the danger of CO₂ emissions
through a comparison with Hiroshima-class atomic bombs. Framing
CLTs can make values more observable and, in turn, help followers to
correctly infer the leader’s values. Beyond rhetoric, a stronger delivery
can increase the signal observability. For example, individuals with
more active delivery received more attention from other members of a
leaderless group than people with less active delivery (Gerpott et al.,
2018), suggesting that symbolic communication increases observability
because others pay more attention. By making the values that underly
the vision more salient, the charisma signal may allow followers to
better distinguish between leaders with shared values (who should be
followed) and leaders with different values (who should not be followed
and may even be opposed).

Furthermore, followers may see leaders with incongruent values who
signal charisma as a threat. If charisma indeed represents a signal of
intelligence (Akstinaite et al., in press; Antonakis et al., 2016) and in-
tentions (Bastardoz, 2020), followers may suppose that smart leaders
with incongruent values will successfully coordinate group actions and
lead organizations or societies towards a vision that they deem unac-
ceptable and undesirable. Many leaders signaling charisma, such as
Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., faced death threats,
assassination attempts, or were even assassinated (cf. Yammarino et al.,
2013), potentially because their vision seriously threatened the identity
of some individuals and groups. Therefore, the charisma signal may not
elicit perceptions of charisma in followers under value incongruence or
even backfire.

We also rely on ideas and precepts stemming from social identity
theory, in particular the categorization of other individuals into in-group
and out-groups categories (Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, 2001). Leaders
who signal charisma by vividly communicating their values can foster
group identification. When group identification is active, followers who
share their leaders' values (i.e., leader–follower value congruence) will
perceive them as group-prototypical and effective leaders whereas fol-
lowers who do not share their leaders' values (i.e., leader–follower value
incongruence) will categorize them as less group-prototypical and less

<footnote n="1">¹ Followers may also infer a leader’s values (e.g., the importance of tradition) from communicated attitudes and ideologies (e.g., stating that open carry is wrong).</footnote>
effective leaders (van Knippenberg, 2011). Although these leaders may convey their intelligence, an important antecedent of leader prototypicality (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) and effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004), followers who do not share their values may disparage the leader's intelligence due to a negative outgroup bias (cf. Ratner et al., 2014) and motivated cognition (Kunda, 1990). Consistent with our reasoning, a recent meta-analysis found that the less leaders represent the in-group category, the less followers endorsed them and perceived them as effective (Steffens et al., 2021). Thus, in presence of leader-follower value incongruence, we argue that the charisma signal will not elicit the charismatic effect and can even lead to lower perceptions.

Based on our reasoning, we hypothesize that:

**H3:** Leader-follower value congruence moderates the relationship between leaders signaling charisma and the charismatic effect (perceived (a) charisma, (b) prototypicality, and (c) effectiveness of the leader) such that this relationship will be changing from negative for leader-follower value incongruence, to weakly positive for low leader-follower value congruence, to positive for high leader-follower value congruence.

## Study 1

In Study 1, we aim to provide a clean causal test of the leader-follower value congruence hypothesis in the context of charisma signaling. Building on previous research, we used a pro-social topic for our speeches that emphasized altruistic values (Antonakis et al., 2022; Fest et al., 2021; Hausfeld, 2023; Nieken, 2022) and did not include a condition where the leader communicates presumably values that are incongruent with the followers. Therefore, Study 1 represents a weak test for H2 and H3.

Because endogeneity is very common in congruence studies (Antonakis et al., 2010; Sajons, 2020; Tsai et al., 2022), we use an experimental design and manipulate charisma signaling with video-recorded speeches (e.g., Engelbert et al., 2022; Ernst et al., 2021; Meslec et al., 2020; Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019). Specifically, we used speeches honoring the work of the German food bank, an organization that collects leftover food from food companies and distributes it to socially disadvantaged people (https://www.tafel.de/english-in-formation). Because we cannot rule out that a leader's communication make certain values salient (e.g., Jensen, 2018) and to minimize potential demand effects, we used a two-step procedure that separated the measurement of values from the experiment for at least two weeks (Lonati et al., 2018; Zizzo, 2010).

To overcome limitations of previous value congruence research, Appels (2022) operationalized value congruence as similarity in self-reported follower values and manipulated opinions a leader expressed (e.g., liberal [vs. conservative] followers resonate more with a leader speaking against abortion). We argue that this operationalization of leader-follower value congruence is promising because of 1) full experimental control over leader behaviors, and 2) limited endogeneity issues. Thus, we measured follower's altruistic values and used speeches with the core message that socially disadvantaged people deserve help from society. Individuals higher on altruistic values resonate more with the speeches, and therefore possess higher leader-follower value congruence.

This experiment was preregistered at osf.io (i.e., https://osf.io/2rwzu) and approved by the local ethical review board.

## Procedure

The experiment had two parts. At the beginning of each part, participants received information about the study and gave their informed consent. In the first part, we measured participants' altruistic values via the Altruism Scale of the HEXACO-PI-R (Lee & Ashton, 2018) and the

Helping Attitude Scale (Nickell, 1998)<fnref n="2" /> along with some demographic variables. About two weeks later, we invited participants for the second part. Participants were then randomly assigned to a strong or medium charisma signal speech about the German food bank. To incentivize participants to pay close attention, we informed them that they would be asked questions about the video at the end of the survey (i.e., memory checks) and that we would raffle one £10 prize bonus among participants with correct answers.<fnref n="3" /> After watching the videos, participants rated the leader prototypicality, charisma, and effectiveness.

Participants were respectively paid £0.40 and £1.60 for the first and second parts (about £8.00/h, evaluated as “good” by Prolific). On June 22, 2022, we increased the participant payment to £1.80 to improve the participation rate in the second part. The average durations of Parts 1 and 2 were 4.14 and 11.88 min, respectively. The median distance between parts 1 and 2 was 17 days (SD=15.65).

## Sampling

The data collection took place on Prolific between April 29 and July 7, 2022, for the first part and between May 15 and August 14, 2022, for the second part. We opted for a gender-balanced sample, including participants with an approval rate of more than 90 %, German as the first language and nationality, and German residency.

## Participants

A total of 765 and 522 participants started the first and second parts. After screening out participants who did not pass the attention or memory checks, did not provide their (or provided a wrong) Prolific ID, or did not complete the survey, our final sample included 489 participants (50 % female, 48 % male; M<sub>age</sub> = 29.61, SD<sub>age</sub> = 9.07), exceeding our pre-registered target sample size (for sample size estimation, see pre-registration). Table S1 in the supplementary material shows our randomization check.

## Materials

### Charisma signal manipulation

To manipulate the charisma signal, we used two five-minute speeches (i.e., strong or medium charisma signal speech) about food banks in Germany, which were similar in length and delivered in German. The strong and medium charisma signal speech had essentially the same content and explained what the foodbank does (see the pre-registration for the full speeches).

The strong charisma signal speech contained more CLTs than the medium speech. The strong charisma signal speech contained for instance more metaphors (i.e., “But the research team has raised heaven and earth to ensure that...”), three-part lists (i.e., “With your effort you will help people in need, save food from the garbage can, and thus fight poverty here”), and moral convictions (i.e., “It is the right thing to do and worth going full throttle for it”).

**Objective Manipulation Check.** We used a proprietary natural language processing algorithm (Garner et al., 2019)—developed to identify charismatic leadership tactics—to code a translated version of the speeches. The strong charisma signal speech showed a significantly higher proportion of CLTs per sentence (i.e., 38.48 CLTs on 54 sentences; .71 CLTs per sentence) than the medium charisma signal speech (i.e., 9.14 CLTs on 39 sentences; .23 CLTs per sentence; Z=4.56, SE=.10, p < .0001).

<footnote n="2">² Each of the two proxies for altruistic values contained an attention check.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Although it may be a small incentive for people's attention, only 9 participants incorrectly answered our memory checks suggesting that the incentives may have partially worked. Our budget constrained the amount of the prize bonus.</footnote>
## Measures

All scales ranged from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree") and items were displayed in random order, unless stated otherwise. We computed a composite measure for each scale based on the arithmetic mean. Where necessary, we translated the questionnaire via translation/back-translation (Brislin, 1986).

### Perceived vision articulation

We operationalized perceived charisma with the 5-item vision articulation sub-dimension of the transformational leadership inventory (Podsakoff et al., 1990), translated by Heinitz and Rowold (2007) and adjusted some items to the context of rating a presenter previously unknown to the participants (Cronbach α = .89). A sample item is "The person inspires with his plans for the future." We excluded the item "is always seeking new opportunities for the group" because participants did not share a group with the leader, and therefore only used 4 of the 5 items.

### Perceived leader prototypicality

To measure perceived leader prototypicality (Cronbach α = .85), we used the three items of Cronshaw and Lord (1987) adjusted by Antonakis et al. (2011). A sample item is "The person fits my image of a leader."

### Perceived leader effectiveness

We measured perceived leader effectiveness (Cronbach α = .95) using eight items inspired by Hains et al. (1997), which has been widely used in the literature (e.g., Cicero et al., 2009; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Salvati et al., 2021). For example, we asked participants to indicate the extent to which the person in the video "has the qualities of a good leader". We omitted items about leader prototypicality to avoid overlap.<fnref n="4" />

### Altruistic follower values

To operationalize altruistic follower values in a narrower and broader sense (Kristof, 1996), we chose two different measures: Nickell's (1998) Helping Attitude Scale and the Altruism Scale of the HEXACO-PI-R (Lee & Ashton, 2018). The first scale is narrower because it specifically focuses on helping people, and the second one is broader because it "assesses a tendency to be sympathetic and soft-hearted toward others" (https://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions).

Self-reported altruistic values may be subject to social desirability bias. Previous research demonstrated that they correlate with actual behavior (e.g., Hilbig et al., 2015; Hilbig & Zettler, 2009; Ruch et al., 2017). Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis found that self-reports on altruism measures are, at least to some extent, negatively associated with exploiting others, and at least to some extent, positively with cooperation in incentivized economic games (Thielmann et al., 2020). This suggests that self-reports on helping attitudes and altruism correspond to some extent to actual helping and altruistic behaviors.

**Helping Attitudes.** We used Nickell's (1998) Helping Attitude Scale (Cronbach α = .85). The 20-item scale captures feelings, beliefs, and behaviors regarding interactions with others. A sample item is "Giving aid to the poor is the right thing to do."

**Altruism.** We measured altruistic values using 4 items from the Altruism personality sub-scale of the HEXACO-PI-R (Lee & Ashton, 2018). A sample item is "I try to give generously to those in need." The scale did not show sufficient reliability (Cronbach α = .58). Because excluding items would have further decreased reliability, we proceeded without adjusting the altruism scale but interpret our results with caution.

## Analytic approach

All analyses were carried out with R (R Core Team, 2023). To test H1, we ran the following model:

$$ \text{outcome} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{charisma signal} + e_1 \quad (1) $$

where charisma signal = 1 (0) denotes a strong (medium) charisma signal speech; outcome represents the perceived vision articulation, prototypicality, or effectiveness; and e₁ is a disturbance term. Hypotheses 1a-1c are supported if the respective β₁ coefficients are positive and significantly different from zero.

To test H2, we ran the following model:

$$ \text{outcome} = \pi_0 + \pi_1 \text{charisma signal} + \pi_2 \text{follower altruistic values} + e_2 \quad (2) $$

where follower altruistic values denotes our proxy for follower values, and e₂ is the disturbance term. Hypotheses 2a-2c are supported if the respective π₂ coefficients are positive and significantly different from zero.

To test H3, we then ran the following regression model:

$$ \text{outcome} = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 \text{charisma signal} + \alpha_2 \text{follower altruistic values} + \alpha_3 \text{charisma signal} * \text{follower altruistic values} + e_3 \quad (3) $$

Given that the strong charisma signal speech is based on altruistic values, the more follower values change from low altruistic values to high altruistic values, the more their values match the values the leader communicated. This, in turn, creates higher levels of leader-follower value congruence. Hypotheses 3a-3c are supported if the respective coefficients α₃ are positive and significantly different from zero.

Finally, we used a studentized Breusch-Pagan test (Breusch & Pagan, 1979; Koenker, 1981) to test for heteroskedasticity and used the function btest of the package AER (Kleiber & Zeileis, 2008). Because all models suffered from heteroskedasticity (see supplementary material "Testing for Heteroskedasticity in Study 1" for details), we rely on robust standard errors (i.e., HC3) via the package sandwich (Zeileis, 2004, 2006; Zeileis et al., 2020) and lmtest (Zeileis & Hothorn, 2002).

## Results

### Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and correlations. As can be expected, all dependent variables were highly correlated, and the treatment did not correlate with covariates measured before participants watched the speeches (e.g., follower altruistic values).

### Hypothesis Testing

Table 2 displays the results for Eq. 1-3. Results indicate that the charisma signal increased the rating of perceived vision articulation (b = 1.14, p < .0001; η² = .33), leader prototypicality (b = 1.13, p < .0001; η² = .34), and leader effectiveness (b = .96, p < .0001; η² = .26), supporting H1a to H1c.

To test H2 and H3, we first report the results using helping attitudes as a proxy for follower's altruistic values. We found a positive but insignificant relationship between helping attitudes and perceived vision articulation (b = .13, p = .12; η² = .01) and leader prototypicality (b = .08, p = .24; η² = .00), rejecting H2a and H2b. We found a positive and significant relationship between helping attitudes and perceived leader effectiveness (b = .15, p = .04; η² = .01), supporting H2c.

The interaction term of the charisma signal and helping attitudes increased the rating of perceived vision articulation (b = .37, p = .02; η² = .01) and leader effectiveness (b = .30, p = .04; η² = .01), supporting H3a and H3c, but not for perceived leader prototypicality (b = .11, p = .46; η² = .00), rejecting H3b. Fig. 1 informs about the nature of the interaction terms between the charisma signal and helping attitudes at

<footnote n="4">⁴ Due to a technical error, participants were presented another item with no text. We changed it to an attention check item (VC01_10) on the May 18, 2022.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Study 1).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th><em>M</em></th><th><em>SD</em></th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Charisma signal</td><td>.50</td><td>.50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Perceived vision articulation</td><td>3.42</td><td>1.00</td><td>.57**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Perceived leader prototypicality</td><td>3.02</td><td>.98</td><td>.58**</td><td>.72**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Perceived leader effectiveness</td><td>3.33</td><td>.94</td><td>.51**</td><td>.78**</td><td>.80**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Helping</td><td>3.84</td><td>.49</td><td>-.04</td><td>.04</td><td>.02</td><td>.06</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Altruism</td><td>3.70</td><td>.63</td><td>-.00</td><td>.04</td><td>.03</td><td>.13**</td><td>.66**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. Charisma signal * helping</td><td>1.91</td><td>1.94</td><td>.98**</td><td>.58**</td><td>.58**</td><td>.52**</td><td>.08</td><td>.07</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Charisma signal * altruism</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.90</td><td>.97**</td><td>.57**</td><td>.56**</td><td>.52**</td><td>.06</td><td>.17**</td><td>.98**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. Age</td><td>29.61</td><td>9.07</td><td>.08</td><td>-.10*</td><td>-.13**</td><td>-.10*</td><td>.06</td><td>.10*</td><td>.08</td><td>.10*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. Woman</td><td>.50</td><td>.50</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.07</td><td>.33**</td><td>.35**</td><td>.03</td><td>.05</td><td>-.08</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11. Divers</td><td>.01</td><td>.10</td><td>.02</td><td>.01</td><td>.04</td><td>.03</td><td>-.03</td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.02</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.10*</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. *M* and *SD* are used to represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively. Woman is a dummy variable for 1 = female and 0 = either male or divers. Divers are dummy variables for 1 = divers and 0 = either female or male.

* indicates *p* < .05. ** indicates *p* < .01.

<table><caption>**Table 2**
OLS Regression Results for Helping Attitudes (Study 1).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="3">Dependent variable:</th><th colspan="3">Perceived leader prototypicality</th><th colspan="3">Perceived leader effectiveness</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Perceived vision articulation</th><th rowspan="2">(4)</th><th rowspan="2">(5)</th><th rowspan="2">(6)</th><th rowspan="2">(7)</th><th rowspan="2">(8)</th><th rowspan="2">(9)</th></tr><tr><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Charisma signal (C)</td><td>1.14<sup>**</sup><br>(.08)</td><td>1.15<sup>**</sup><br>(.08)</td><td>-.29<br>(.60)</td><td>1.13<sup>**</sup><br>(.07)</td><td>1.13<sup>**</sup><br>(.07)</td><td>.73<br>(.56)</td><td>.96<sup>**</sup><br>(.07)</td><td>.96<sup>**</sup><br>(.07)</td><td>-.21<br>(.57)</td></tr><tr><td>Helping attitudes (H)</td><td></td><td>.13<br>(.08)</td><td>-.05<br>(.13)</td><td></td><td>.08<br>(.07)</td><td>.03<br>(.11)</td><td></td><td>.15<sup>*</sup><br>(.07)</td><td>.01<br>(.12)</td></tr><tr><td>C*H</td><td></td><td></td><td>.37<sup>*</sup><br>(.15)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.11<br>(.14)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.30<sup>*</sup><br>(.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>2.84<sup>**</sup><br>(.06)</td><td>2.36<sup>**</sup><br>(.32)</td><td>3.03<sup>**</sup><br>(.51)</td><td>2.46<sup>**</sup><br>(.06)</td><td>2.14<sup>**</sup><br>(.29)</td><td>2.33<sup>**</sup><br>(.45)</td><td>2.86<sup>**</sup><br>(.06)</td><td>2.27<sup>**</sup><br>(.30)</td><td>2.83<sup>**</sup><br>(.45)</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.33</td><td>.33</td><td>.34</td><td>.34</td><td>.34</td><td>.34</td><td>.26</td><td>.27</td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td>ΔR</td><td></td><td></td><td>.01*</td><td></td><td></td><td>.00</td><td></td><td></td><td>.01*</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Coefficients represent unstandardized regression weights. Standard errors estimated using the command “HC3” and shown in parenthesis. * indicates *p* < .05. ** indicates *p* < .01.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals (Study 1). Note: Confidence intervals build based on robust standard errors (see Table 2).</figcaption></figure>

± 1SD from the mean for perceived vision articulation (Panel A), leader prototypicality (B), and leader effectiveness (C), based on the *ggpredict* function of the package *geffect* (Lüdecke, 2018). Higher levels of follower helping attitudes match the altruistic values-based charisma signal and together represent higher leader–follower value congruence, resulting in higher ratings in perceived vision articulation and leader effectiveness, but not leader prototypicality.

We only briefly report the results for altruism personality as a proxy for follower’s altruistic values here due to its low reliability (see Table S2 in the *supplementary material*). We only found a positive and significant relationship for perceived leader effectiveness (*b* = .20, *p* < .0001), supporting H2c but rejecting H2a-H2b as well as H3a-H3c.

### Robustness check

Because dropping participants based on attention and memory checks after the treatment can lead to differential attribution (e.g., Montgomery et al., 2018), we re-ran the analysis without excluding participants based on these criteria (N=504). The results remain essentially unchanged (see *supplementary material Tables S3 and S4*).

### Discussion Study 1

We found strong support that the charisma signal increases perceived vision articulation, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness (H1). We found limited partial support for the effect of helping attitudes (Nickell, 1998), which only predicted leader effectiveness (H2). Helping attitudes moderated the relationships between the charisma signal and perceived vision articulation as well as leader effectiveness, but not for leader prototypicality. Since the strong charisma signal speech is based
on altruistic values, people with higher levels of altruistic attitudes match the communicated leader values, creating higher levels of leader-follower value congruence. Therefore, the significant interaction terms for perceived charisma and leader effectiveness (partially) support the leader-follower value congruence hypothesis (H3). Altruism (Lee & Ashton, 2018) neither predicted our outcomes (except perceived leader effectiveness), nor moderated the hypothesized relationships. However, the measure did not show sufficient reliability, which “pulls” the regression coefficient to zero and reduces the power to detect a true effect (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2010; Wooldridge, 2008). Overall, Study 1 provides limited initial evidence that leader-follower value congruence moderates the relationship between the charisma signal and the charismatic effect.

## Study 2

Building on some of the limitations in Study 1, Study 2 aims to generalize our findings to a different topic and set of values, rule out social desirability by using a consequential measure of values (cf. Weng et al., 2023), and extend our results to leader-follower value incongruence allowing us to fully test H2 and H3. Our study was inspired by the case of Howard Schultz,<fnref n="5" /> former Starbucks chairman, president, and CEO, who asked customers to leave their guns at home. We created a fictitious scenario of a coffee chain CEO who speaks in favor of or against open gun carry with either a strong or medium charisma signaling (i.e., a 2x2 design).

To increase the credibility of our findings, we measured follower values using two different measures. Based on a pre-test (see supplementary material “Pre-test Study 2”), we focused on the value tradition (“maintaining and preserving cultural, family, or religious traditions”; Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2022, p. 1007) because it most strongly relates to people’s gun attitudes (Branscombe et al., 1991). To obtain a consequential measure of gun attitudes—from now on called behavioral gun attitudes—participants made an allocation decision between three different charities taking different stances towards gun control. We expect that people high on the value tradition and behavioral gun attitudes should resonate more (less) with the pro-open carry (against-open carry) speeches.

The advantage of a 2 (charisma signal) x 2 (against- vs. pro-open carry) design is that we can evaluate the effect of value incongruence. Due to the polarizing nature of the topic, we expect a weak main effect of the charisma signal. This experiment was preregistered at osf.io (https://osf.io/j4ayq). The study was approved by the local ethical review board.

### Procedure

As in Study 1, we performed the experiment in two steps. In the first step, we recruited a representative sample of 1,000 U.S. citizens. Participants received information about the study and provide their informed consent. Participants answered a values questionnaire (Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2022), responded to a measure of their attitudes towards guns (Branscombe et al., 1991), and made three consequential allocation decisions, whereby one allocation decision was aimed at measuring their behavioral gun attitudes. Finally, we measured participants age, gender, and profession.

After one week, we invited all participants (except those who did not pass the attention checks in the first step) to the second step targeting a sample size of 700. Similar to Study 1, we instructed participants to carefully watch a short video and incentivize it, and randomly assign participants to one of the four experimental conditions: (1) strong charisma signal in favor of open gun carry [N=175], 2) medium charisma signal in favor of open gun carry [N=174], 3) strong charisma

signal against open gun carry [N=175], and 4) medium charisma signal against open gun carry [N=171]). Participants then rated the fictitious CEO’s charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness. Furthermore, they rated their perceived value congruence with the CEO (i.e., a manipulation check).

Participants were be paid £1.35 for the first part and £0.90 for the second part (about £9.00/h, evaluated as “good” by Prolific). We incentivized participation in both parts with an extra bonus of £0.15.

### Sampling

We recruited a representative sample of 1,000 U.S. citizens in terms of sex, age, and political affiliation for part 1 through the online survey platform Prolific.co. Inclusion criteria were an approval rate of over 99 %, at least 20 prior submissions, English as first language, and U.S. nationality and residency.

### Sample size estimation

We performed a sample size estimation based on power analyses (see online Appendix). These analyses indicated a required a minimum sample size of 352. To account for sample attrition and err on the side of caution, we aim for a target sample size of 700 participants for the second part.

### Participants

A total of 1002 and 791 participants started the first and second parts. After screening out participants who did not pass the attention or memory checks, did not provide their (or provided a wrong) Prolific ID, or did not complete the survey, our final sample included 709 participants (49.37 % female, 47.39 % male, 1.12 % other; $M_{age}$ = 41.84, $SD_{age}$ = 13.24).

### Materials

#### Charisma signal manipulation for and against open gun carry

We aimed to create a realistic scenario in which a CEO positions his company either in favor of or against open carry, which is legal in many states in the United States. Many CEOs positioned their company on the topic of open carry. To increase ecological and external validity, we build on the case of Howard Schultz who read an open letter respectfully requesting his customers not to bring guns into their stores. Whereas Schultz’s speech conveyed that Starbucks remains impartial, some CEOs take clearer positions (e.g., Tim Cook asked climate change skeptics to sell shares, if they disagree with his environmental actions<fnref n="5" />).

We created the speeches with the help of ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023) and adjusted them afterwards. Appendix 1 displays the different versions of the speeches and contains an anonymized link to the 1-minute videos created for and used in this experiment. Note that we shortened the videos compared to Study 1 because related research in message matching showed that short or medium-length message (i.e., 300 words or less) can be as or even more effective than longer messages (Joyal-Desmarais et al., 2022).

#### Objective Manipulation Check

We used the same algorithm than in Study 1 to code for the CLTs in the speeches (Garner et al., 2019). The strong charisma signal against- and pro-open carry speeches had respectively 9.51 and 9.26 CLTs whereas the medium charisma signal against- and pro-open carry speeches had 3.57 and 2.81 CLTs. All speeches had 9 sentences and 155 words. The strong vs. medium charisma signal speech were significantly

<footnote n="5">⁵ https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2013/open-letter-from-howard/.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares.</footnote>
different for the against-open carry (Z=3.14, SE=.21, p = .0008) and pro-open carry (Z=3.23, SE=.22, p = .0006) topics. We also conducted a subjective manipulation check, which corroborated that our manipulation has the intended effect (see the section pre-test in the supplementary material).

## Measures

### Leader Evaluations

In contrast to Study 1, we used English versions of the measures for perceived vision articulation (Cronbach α = .85), leader prototypicality (Cronbach α = .88), and leader effectiveness (Cronbach α = .97). Additionally, we measured perceived charisma (i.e., “I find the CEO to be ... 1) charismatic, 2) enthusiastic, and 3) inspiring.”; Cronbach α = .85) as a separate construct (Grabo & van Vugt, 2016).<fnref n="7" />

### Follower Values

#### Self-reported Personal Values.

We used 57 items of the PVQ-RR (Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2022) that measures 19 values of Schwartz's refined values theory (Schwartz, 2016). Specifically, it measures four higher-order values along with their narrowly defined values: conservation (conformity-interpersonal, conformity-rules, tradition, security-societal, security-personal, and face), self-transcendence (benevolence-dependability, benevolence-caring, universalism-tolerance, universalism-concern, universalism-nature, and humility), openness to change (stimulation, self-direction-action and self-direction-thought), and self-enhancement (power-resources, power-dominance, achievement, hedonism).

We relied on the value “tradition” for our analysis (3 items; Cronbach α = .90). While much of the public debate about guns revolves around safety and gun violence, gun ownership is also often rooted in familiarity, custom, cultural heritage and tradition (Metzl, 2019; Yamane, 2022). We believe this is the reason why tradition correlates most strongly with positive gun attitudes. A sample item is “It is important to her/him to maintain traditional values and ways of thinking.” Each item is measured on a 6-point labeled scale: 1 (“Not like me at all”), 2 (“Not like me”), 3 (“A little like me”), 4 (“Moderately like me”), 5 (“Like me”), and 6 (“Very much like me”). In our statistical analyses, we controlled for the four higher-order values, excluding the value tradition from the higher-order value conservation.

#### Self-reported Guns Attitudes.

To measure attitudes towards guns more directly, we used the 7-item the right to own a gun sub-dimension of the Attitudes towards Guns Scale (Cronbach α = .96; e.g., “People should be allowed to have handguns in their homes”; Branscombe et al., 1991). The scale was measured on a scale of 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”). To obfuscate the purpose of our study and avoid potential demand effects, we measured attitudes towards another controversial topic. Specifically, we used 7 items each from the Attitude Toward Sexual and Gender Minorities Scale (Chi et al., 2015).

#### Behavioral Gun Attitudes.

To obtain a consequential measure of gun attitudes, we asked participants to make three allocation decisions. For each allocation decision, participants were asked to select on organization (among a list of three) to which they would allocate $1. We included three choice tasks to obfuscate the purpose of our study. In choice task #1, the three organizations are Second Amendment Foundation, Good 360, and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. In choice task #2, the three organizations are Toys for Tots, American Cancer Society, and Planned Parenthood. In choice task #3, the three organizations are Human Rights Campaign, Step up for Students, and National Organization for Marriage. For each

participant, we randomly selected one of the three allocation decisions and implemented the payment to the organization. Participants allocation decision in choice task #1 reflected their consequential measure of gun attitudes (-1 if Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund [against open carry]; 0 if Good 360 [neutral to open carry]; 1 if Second Amendment Foundation [pro-open carry]).

### Perceived Value Congruence with the CEO (manipulation check)

We measured value congruence based on an adjusted 3-items scale of perceived fit (Cronbach α = .99; Cable & DeRue, 2002). A sample item is “The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that the CEO of Café Mocha values.” The scale was measured on a scale of 1 (“Not at all true”) to 5 (“Exactly true”).

### Scenario Realism

We used three items slightly adapted from Chen et al. (2011) to assess the realism of our scenario (Cronbach α = .90). A sample item is “It is realistic that I might experience a CEO like this.” The scale was be measured on a scale of 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

### Social Desirability

We used 8 items of the 16-item version of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Cronbach α = .80; Hart et al., 2015). Because we are only interested in social responding, we only measured the self-deceptive positivity subscale. A sample item is “I never regret my decisions.” The scale will be measured on a scale from 1 (“Not true”) to 7 (“Very true”).

### Analytic approach

To test H1 and H2, we estimated the following regression model:

$$ \text{outcome} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{charisma signal} + \beta_2 \text{progun}_{\text{leader}} + \beta_3 \text{progun}_{\text{participant}} + \beta_4 \text{progun}_{\text{leader}} * \text{progun}_{\text{participant}} + e_1 \quad (4) $$

where charisma signal = 1 (0) denotes the strong (medium) charisma signal speech; progun<sub>leader</sub> = 1 (0) denotes a speech in favor (against) of open gun carry; progun<sub>participant</sub> denotes the participant's values in favor of open carry; outcome represents the perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, or leader effectiveness; and e<sub>1</sub> is the disturbance term. Because we expect roughly half of the participants to experience value incongruence with each speech topic, controlling for follower values, speech topic and their interaction is crucial for a correct charisma signal estimate. H1a-1c are supported when the coefficient β<sub>1</sub> is positive and significant. H2a-2c are supported when the coefficient β<sub>4</sub> is positive and significant.

To test H3, we estimated the following regression model:

$$ \text{outcome} = \pi_0 + \pi_1 \text{charisma signal} + \pi_2 \text{progun}_{\text{leader}} + \pi_3 \text{progun}_{\text{participant}} + \pi_4 \text{charisma signal} * \text{progun}_{\text{leader}} + \pi_5 \text{progun}_{\text{leader}} * \text{progun}_{\text{participant}} + \pi_6 \text{charisma signal} * \text{progun}_{\text{participant}} + \pi_7 \text{charisma signal} * \text{progun}_{\text{leader}} * \text{progun}_{\text{participant}} + e_2 \quad (5) $$

where all terms have been defined above. To probe the three-way interaction, we test whether the slopes of the charisma signal in the pro- (against-) open carry speeches are different at low and high levels of participants' values based on a slope difference test (Dawson & Richter, 2006). We expect a positive (zero or negative) slope for the charisma signal in the pro-open carry context at high (low) levels of behavioral gun attitudes, and a positive (zero or negative) charisma signal slope in the against-open carry context at low (high) levels of behavioral gun attitudes. The slope difference test examines whether the difference between slopes is significantly different from zero (Dawson & Richter, 2006). Our hypotheses are supported if the value congruent slopes differ

<footnote n="7">⁷ We exclude the items warm, likable, trustworthy, and competent from the original measure because they rather represent warmth and competence perceptions (Fiske et al., 2007), and not charisma perceptions.</footnote>
from the value incongruent slopes in the expected directions.

## Results

### Descriptive statistics

Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics and correlations. As can be expected, all dependent variables were highly correlated, and the treatment did not correlate with variables that were measured before participants watched the speeches.

### Hypothesis Testing

We only report in text the results for behavioral gun attitudes because it is the more credible measure and the results for tradition are essentially identical (see supplementary material, Table S5 and Figure S1). To avoid assuming a linear effect of behavioral pro-gun attitudes on the outcomes, we included two dummy variables: Behavioral gun attitudes-neutral and behavioral gun attitudes-pro-gun (with behavioral attitudes-against gun as the reference category). Because we are interested in value congruence and value incongruence, we only interpret the coefficients for the dummy variable behavioral gun attitudes-pro-gun (vs. against gun).

Table 4 displays the results for Eq. 4–5. Results indicate that the charisma signal increased the rating of perceived charisma ($b = .59, p < .0001; \eta^2 = .06$), but not vision articulation ($b = -.01, p = .89; \eta^2 = .00$), leader prototypicality ($b = -.14, p = .10; \eta^2 = .00$), and leader effectiveness ($b = -.10, p = .28; \eta^2 = .00$). The results partially support H1a, and reject H1b-c.

Results indicate that the interaction between behavioral gun attitudes-pro-gun and pro- (vs. against) open carry speeches increased the rating of perceived vision articulation ($b = 2.24, p < .0001; \eta^2 = .05$), charisma ($b = 2.20, p < .0001; \eta^2 = .04$), leader prototypicality ($b = 2.26, p < .0001; \eta^2 = .05$), and leader effectiveness ($b = 3.13, p < .0001; \eta^2 = .08$) as expected. These results support H2a-c.

Fig. 2 informs about the nature of the interaction terms between the pro (against) open carry speeches and behavioral gun attitudes for perceived vision articulation (Panel A), charisma (B), leader prototypicality (C), and leader effectiveness (D), based on the *ggpredict* function of the package *gegeffect* (Lüdecke, 2018). Higher levels of leader-follower value congruence occur either when the leader's speech was against open carry and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were low (i. e., -1), or when the leader's speech was pro-open carry and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were high (i.e., +1). Higher levels of leader-follower value incongruence occur either when the leader's speech was against open carry and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were high (i. e., +1), or when the leader's speech was pro-open carry and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were low (i.e., -1). The figure shows that the charismatic effect (i.e., perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness) increase (decrease) with higher levels of values congruence (incongruence).

Table 5 reports the slope difference tests. There is no indication that value (in)congruence moderates the relationship between charisma signaling and perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness. Overall, these results reject H3.

Fig. 3 showcases the triple interaction terms between the pro (against) open carry speeches, behavioral gun attitudes, and the charisma signal for perceived charisma (Panel A), perceptions of charisma (B), leader prototypicality (C), and leader effectiveness (D). Higher levels of leader-follower *value congruence* (solid lines) occur either when the leader's speech was pro-open carry (green lines) and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were high (i.e., +1; the triangle dots), or when the leader's speech was against open carry (red lines) and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were low (i.e., -1; the circle dots). Higher levels of leader-follower *value incongruence* (dashed lines) occur either when the leader's speech was pro-open carry (green lines) and

followers' behavioral gun attitudes were low (i.e., -1; the circle dots), or when the leader's speech was against open carry (red lines) and followers' behavioral gun attitudes were high (i.e., +1; the triangle dots). In line with the slope difference tests, the figure shows that value (in) congruence does not moderate the relationship between charisma signaling and perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness.

### Robustness check

We re-ran the analysis with self-reported gun attitudes and the results remained essentially unchanged. Note however that the average effect size of the interaction terms between pro-open carry speeches and self-reported gun attitudes were substantially larger with $\bar{\eta}^2 = .25$ compared to $\eta^2 = .07$ for the value tradition and $\bar{\eta}^2 = .05$ for behavioral gun attitudes-pro-gun. As in Study 1, we re-ran the analysis without excluding participants based on variables measured after the treatment (N=766) and also controlling for social desirability, and the results remained essentially unchanged (see supplementary materials, Tables S8 to S13). Overall, this suggests that our results are robust to different specifications.

### Brief discussion

We found partial support that the charisma signal elicits the charismatic effect (H1), such that it increased perceived charisma, but not vision articulation, leader prototypicality and leader effectiveness. We found that the interaction between the leader's position on gun rights (pro vs. against open carry) and follower's (a) tradition value and (b) behavioral gun attitudes (pro vs. against) predicted perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality and leader effectiveness, providing support that leader-follower value congruence elicits the charismatic effect (H2). Finally, we did not find that leader-follower value congruence moderates the charisma signal-charismatic effect relationship (H3).

## Study 3

Study 3 aims to generalize our findings of Study 2 to a different polarized context: support of LGBTQ+ rights. The cases of Dan Cathy (former Chick-fil-A chairman and CEO<fnref n="8" />) who spoke up against gay marriage, or Bob Iger (former CEO of Disney<fnref n="9" />) and Brian Cornell (CEO of Target<fnref n="10" />) who spoke up for LGBTQ+ rights inspired our study. Except for the change in topic, Study 3 is identical to Study 2.

This experiment was preregistered at osf.io (https://osf.io/dnbya). The study was approved by the local ethical review board.

### Procedure, sampling and sample size estimation

The procedure and sampling are identical to Study 2.

### Participants

A total of 1019 and 770 participants started the first and second parts. After screening out participants who did not pass the attention or memory checks, did not provide their (or provided a wrong) Prolific ID, or did not complete the survey, our final sample included 710 participants (51.41 % female, 46.62 % male, 1.69 % other; $M_{age} = 40.11, SD_{age} = 12.98$).

<footnote n="8">⁸ https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/03/19/chick-fil-a-ceo-cathy-gay-marriage-still-wrong-but-ill-shut-up-about-it-and-sell-chicken/?sh=5ffbc042fcbf.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/ex-disney-ceo-bob-iger-speaks-out-on-dont-say-gay-law/.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ https://www.them.us/story/target-ceo-pride-merch-controversy-response.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Study 2).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th><th>12</th><th>13</th><th>14</th><th>15</th><th>16</th><th>17</th><th>18</th><th>19</th><th>20</th><th>21</th><th>22</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Perc. vision articulation</td><td>3.15</td><td>1.09</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Perc. charisma</td><td>3.15</td><td>1.23</td><td>.72*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Perc. leader prototypicality</td><td>3.37</td><td>1.18</td><td>.70*</td><td>.71*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Perc. leader effectiveness</td><td>3.21</td><td>1.25</td><td>.78*</td><td>.80*</td><td>.85*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Charisma signal (CS)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>-.00</td><td>.24*</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.04</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Pro open carry (POC)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>-.12*</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.23*</td><td>-.22*</td><td>-.00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. Tradition (TR)</td><td>3.45</td><td>1.44</td><td>.21*</td><td>.21*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.18*</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.09*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Beh. pro gun att. – neutral (BPGAN)</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.39</td><td>.00</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.08*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. Beh. pro gun att. – pro gun (BPGAPG)</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.29</td><td>-.00</td><td>-.01</td><td>.02</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.05</td><td>-.01</td><td>.20*</td><td>-.66*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. CS x POC</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.43</td><td>-.12*</td><td>.01</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.18*</td><td>.58*</td><td>.58*</td><td>-.11*</td><td>-.00</td><td>-.04</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11. CS x TR</td><td>1.72</td><td>2.00</td><td>.06</td><td>.26*</td><td>.00</td><td>.03</td><td>.85*</td><td>-.07</td><td>.35*</td><td>-.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.42*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12. TR x POC</td><td>1.66</td><td>1.93</td><td>.04</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.04</td><td>.86*</td><td>.27*</td><td>-.03</td><td>.06</td><td>.45*</td><td>.04</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13. CS x POC x TR</td><td>0.80</td><td>1.54</td><td>-.04</td><td>.08*</td><td>-.09*</td><td>-.07</td><td>.51*</td><td>.51*</td><td>.12*</td><td>-.00</td><td>-.00</td><td>.89*</td><td>.54*</td><td>.57*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14. CS x BPGAN</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.49</td><td>.00</td><td>.18*</td><td>-.05</td><td>-.02</td><td>.83*</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.05</td><td>.40*</td><td>-.26*</td><td>.47*</td><td>.70*</td><td>-.05</td><td>.42*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15. POC x BPGAN</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.49</td><td>-.13*</td><td>-.19*</td><td>-.24*</td><td>-.24*</td><td>-.00</td><td>.82*</td><td>-.10*</td><td>.39*</td><td>-.26*</td><td>.48*</td><td>-.05</td><td>.69*</td><td>.43*</td><td>.15*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16. CS x POC x BPGAN</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.40</td><td>-.12*</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.18*</td><td>.50*</td><td>.50*</td><td>-.10*</td><td>.24*</td><td>-.16*</td><td>.88*</td><td>.36*</td><td>.39*</td><td>.78*</td><td>.60*</td><td>.61*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17. CS x BPGAPG</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.19</td><td>-.02</td><td>.05</td><td>.00</td><td>-.05</td><td>.20*</td><td>-.02</td><td>.12*</td><td>-.41*</td><td>.63*</td><td>.10*</td><td>.26*</td><td>.02</td><td>.14*</td><td>-.17*</td><td>-.16*</td><td>-.10*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18. POC x BPGAPG</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.20</td><td>.12*</td><td>.09*</td><td>.12*</td><td>.14*</td><td>-.04</td><td>.21*</td><td>.12*</td><td>-.45*</td><td>.68*</td><td>.07</td><td>-.01</td><td>.29*</td><td>.11*</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.11*</td><td>.41*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19. CS x POC x BPGAPG</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.13</td><td>.08*</td><td>.08*</td><td>.06</td><td>.06</td><td>.13*</td><td>.13*</td><td>.05</td><td>-.28*</td><td>.42*</td><td>.23*</td><td>.15*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.28*</td><td>-.11*</td><td>-.11*</td><td>-.07</td><td>.67*</td><td>.62*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20. Conservation without TR</td><td>4.22</td><td>0.84</td><td>.25*</td><td>.24*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.17*</td><td>.01</td><td>-.03</td><td>.56*</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.00</td><td>-.05</td><td>.21*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.06</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.06</td><td>.05</td><td>-.01</td><td>.01</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21. Openness to change</td><td>4.62</td><td>0.67</td><td>.12*</td><td>.08*</td><td>.02</td><td>.06</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.03</td><td>.16*</td><td>-.00</td><td>.01</td><td>-.05</td><td>.06</td><td>.02</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.01</td><td>.00</td><td>.03</td><td>.27*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22. Self-transcendence</td><td>4.71</td><td>0.70</td><td>.13*</td><td>.08*</td><td>.03</td><td>.06</td><td>-.02</td><td>.01</td><td>.22*</td><td>.02</td><td>-.11*</td><td>-.00</td><td>.04</td><td>.06</td><td>.00</td><td>-.01</td><td>.02</td><td>-.00</td><td>-.08*</td><td>-.10*</td><td>-.08*</td><td>.51*</td><td>.40*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23. Self-enhancement</td><td>3.43</td><td>0.94</td><td>.28*</td><td>.24*</td><td>.17*</td><td>.21*</td><td>.00</td><td>-.05</td><td>.36*</td><td>-.02</td><td>.02</td><td>-.10*</td><td>.14*</td><td>.10*</td><td>-.02</td><td>.01</td><td>-.07</td><td>-.11*</td><td>.00</td><td>.05</td><td>.04</td><td>.44*</td><td>.49*</td><td>.13*</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Perc. = Perceived, Beh. = Behavioral, att. = attitudes.

* indicates *p* < .05. ** indicates *p* < .01.
<table><caption>**Table 4**
OLS Regression Results for Behavioral Gun Attitudes (Study 2).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="11">Dependent variables:</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Perceived vision articulation</th><th colspan="2">Perceived charisma</th><th colspan="2">Perceived leader prototypicality</th><th colspan="2">Perceived leader effectiveness</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pro open carry (POC)</td><td>-.98<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>-.80<sup>**</sup> (.27)</td><td>-.49 (.39)</td><td>-1.05<sup>***</sup> (.26)</td><td>-.96<sup>***</sup> (.29)</td><td>-.72 (.49)</td><td>-1.12<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>-1.10<sup>***</sup> (.30)</td><td>-1.00<sup>**</sup> (.44)</td><td>-1.38<sup>***</sup> (.27)</td><td>-1.27<sup>***</sup> (.29)</td><td>-1.14<sup>**</sup> (.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Beh. gun attitudes – neutral (BGAN)</td><td>-.36<sup>**</sup> (.21)</td><td>-.33 (.26)</td><td>-.16 (.32)</td><td>-.39<sup>**</sup> (.19)</td><td>-.27 (.29)</td><td>-.12 (.36)</td><td>-.24 (.17)</td><td>-.26 (.24)</td><td>-.20 (.25)</td><td>-.44<sup>**</sup> (.20)</td><td>-.42<sup>**</sup> (.26)</td><td>-.34 (.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Beh. gun attitudes – pro gun (BGAPG)</td><td>-1.16<sup>***</sup> (.27)</td><td>-1.08<sup>***</sup> (.33)</td><td>-.81<sup>**</sup> (.39)</td><td>-1.21<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>-1.13<sup>***</sup> (.34)</td><td>-1.09<sup>**</sup> (.41)</td><td>-1.05<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>-1.08<sup>***</sup> (.31)</td><td>-1.05<sup>**</sup> (.34)</td><td>-1.78<sup>***</sup> (.26)</td><td>-1.65<sup>**</sup> (.32)</td><td>-1.57<sup>***</sup> (.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Charisma signal (C)</td><td>-.01 (.08)</td><td>.20(.27)</td><td>.51 (.39)</td><td>.59<sup>***</sup> (.09)</td><td>.87<sup>**</sup> (.29)</td><td>1.12<sup>**</sup> (.37)</td><td>-.14 (.09)</td><td>-.16 (.30)</td><td>-.06 (.33)</td><td>-.10 (.09)</td><td>.05 (.29)</td><td>.19 (.38)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAN</td><td>.64<sup>**</sup> (.27)</td><td>.62<sup>**</sup> (.27)</td><td>.30 (.41)</td><td>.49<sup>**</sup> (.28)</td><td>.49<sup>**</sup> (.28)</td><td>.19 (.51)</td><td>.43 (.29)</td><td>.43 (.30)</td><td>.31 (.46)</td><td>.65<sup>**</sup> (.29)</td><td>.64<sup>**</sup> (.29)</td><td>.49 (.45)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAPG</td><td>2.24<sup>***</sup> (.34)</td><td>2.20<sup>***</sup> (.35)</td><td>1.67<sup>***</sup> (.50)</td><td>2.20<sup>***</sup> (.35)</td><td>2.18<sup>***</sup> (.36)</td><td>2.12<sup>***</sup> (.60)</td><td>2.26<sup>***</sup> (.37)</td><td>2.26<sup>***</sup> (.38)</td><td>2.20<sup>***</sup> (.55)</td><td>3.13<sup>***</sup> (.35)</td><td>3.10<sup>***</sup> (.36)</td><td>2.95<sup>***</sup> (.53)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*C</td><td></td><td>-.33<sup>**</sup> (.16)</td><td>-.91<sup>**</sup> (.51)</td><td></td><td>-.17 (.18)</td><td>-.62 (.55)</td><td>-.03 (.17)</td><td></td><td>-.22 (.58)</td><td></td><td>-.19 (.18)</td><td>-.45 (.56)</td><td>-.19 (.41)</td></tr><tr><td>BGAN*C</td><td></td><td>-.04 (.27)</td><td>-.36 (.42)</td><td></td><td>-.23 (.29)</td><td>-.52 (.40)</td><td>.04 (.31)</td><td></td><td>-.08 (.36)</td><td></td><td>-.04 (.30)</td><td>-.19 (.41)</td><td>-.42 (.54)</td></tr><tr><td>BGAPG*C</td><td></td><td>-.12 (.35)</td><td>-.68 (.56)</td><td></td><td>-.14 (.36)</td><td>-.17 (.51)</td><td>.06 (.39)</td><td></td><td>.01 (.53)</td><td></td><td>-.26 (.36)</td><td>-.28 (.60)</td><td>.28 (.73)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAN*C</td><td></td><td></td><td>.60 (.54)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.55 (.59)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.22 (.61)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.29 (.60)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAPG*C</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.08 (.70)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.01 (.73)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.08 (.78)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.29 (.73)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>3.68<sup>***</sup> (.20)</td><td>3.57<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>3.40<sup>***</sup> (.31)</td><td></td><td>3.52<sup>***</sup> (.19)</td><td>3.37<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>3.24<sup>***</sup> (.35)</td><td>4.02<sup>***</sup> (.17)</td><td>4.03<sup>***</sup> (.22)</td><td>3.98<sup>***</sup> (.24)</td><td>4.06<sup>***</sup> (.19)</td><td>3.98<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>3.91<sup>***</sup> (.29)</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.07</td><td>.08</td><td>.08</td><td></td><td>.14</td><td>.14</td><td>.14</td><td>.11</td><td>.12</td><td>.12</td><td>.15</td><td>.15</td><td>.15</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Coefficients represent unstandardized regression weights. Standard errors estimated using the command “HC3” and shown in parenthesis. The reference category for Beh. gun attitudes is –1 (i.e., against gun attitudes). * indicates $p < .05$. ** indicates $p < .01$.

## Materials

### Charisma manipulation for and against LGBTQ+

The creation procedure of the speeches followed the approach of Study 2. Appendix 2 displays the different versions of the speeches.

**Objective Manipulation Check.** We relied on the same algorithm to code for the CLTs in the speeches (Garner et al., 2019). The strong charisma signal against- and pro-LGBTQ+ rights speeches had respectively 9.65 and 9.34 CLTs, whereas the medium charisma signal against- and pro-LGBTQ+ rights speeches had 4.29 and 4.19 CLTs. All speeches have 10 sentences and 156 words. The strong vs. medium charisma signal speech were significantly different for the against-LGBTQ+ rights ($Z=2.61, SE=.21, p = .005$) and pro-LGBTQ+ right ($Z=2.46, SE=.21, p = .007$) topics.

## Measures

Study 3 used the same measures as Study 2 (i.e., tradition as central follower value), except that we substituted gun attitudes with attitudes towards LGBTQ+.

### Self-reported LGBTQ+ Attitudes

To obtain attitudes towards LGBTQ+ community, we used 7 items of the Attitude Toward Sexual and Gender Minorities (Cronbach $\alpha = .96$; Chi et al., 2015). A sample item is “Homosexuality violates social norms.”.

### Behavioral LGBTQ+ Attitudes

To obtain attitudes towards LGBTQ+ community in a consequential manner, we adjusted our behavioral gun attitudes measure and substituted the *Everytown for Gun Safety* with the *Human Rights Campaign*<fnref n="11" />—the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer civil rights organization, and the *Second Amendment Foundation with the National Organization for Marriage*—a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.<fnref n="12" />

### Analytic approach

The analytic approach of Study 3 is identical to Study 2, except that we used behavioral attitudes toward LGBTQ+ community instead of behavioral gun attitudes as moderator.

## Results

### Descriptive statistics

Table 6 reports the descriptive statistics and correlations. As can be expected, all dependent variables were highly correlated, and the treatment did not correlate with variables that were measured before participants watched the speeches.

### Hypothesis Testing

We only report in text the results for behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes because it is the more credible measure and the results for the value tradition are essentially identical (See supplementary material, Tables S14 and S16 and Figure S3). We discuss differences below, wherever results differ between the measures. As for Study 2, we do not assume a linear effect of behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes on our outcomes and include the respective dummies with against LGBTQ+ choice as reference category. Table 7 displays the results for Eq. 4–5 based on the

<footnote n="11">¹¹ https://www.hrc.org/our-work.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² https://nationformarriage.org/about-us/.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals (Study 2). *Note:* Confidence intervals build based on robust standard errors (see Table 4).</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Slope Difference Test Results for Behavioral Gun Attitudes (Study 2).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Dependent variable</th><th>Speech</th><th>slope 1 (1)</th><th>slope 2 (-1)</th><th>slope difference</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td rowspan="2">Perceived vision articulation</td><td>Pro-gun</td><td>.00</td><td>-.40</td><td>-.40</td><td>.92</td><td>.36</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Anti-gun</td><td>-.16</td><td>.51</td><td>.68</td><td>-1.22</td><td>.22</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td rowspan="2">Perceived charisma</td><td>Pro-gun</td><td>.33</td><td>.50</td><td>.16</td><td>-.31</td><td>.76</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Anti-gun</td><td>.95</td><td>1.12</td><td>.17</td><td>-.33</td><td>.74</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td rowspan="2">Perceived leader prototypicality</td><td>Pro-gun</td><td>-.19</td><td>-.28</td><td>-.09</td><td>.16</td><td>.87</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Anti-gun</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.01</td><td>.03</td><td>.98</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td rowspan="2">Perceived leader effectiveness</td><td>Pro-gun</td><td>-.38</td><td>-.25</td><td>.13</td><td>-.26</td><td>.80</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Anti-gun</td><td>-.22</td><td>.19</td><td>.42</td><td>-.77</td><td>.44</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* Slope 1 represents the effect of the charisma signal on the respective dependent variable for the value of 1 of behavioral gun attitudes for the different speeches, whereas slope 2 represents the effect of the charisma signal on the respective dependent variables for the value of -1 of behavioral gun attitudes for the different speeches. *t* and *p* denote the *t*-value and *p*-value of slope difference test.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals for H3 (Study 2). *Note:* Confidence intervals build based on robust standard errors (see Table 4). Beh. gun attitude denotes the variable behavioral gun attitudes.</figcaption></figure>

behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes. Results indicate that the charisma signal increased the rating of perceived charisma (*b* = .49, *p* < .0001; *η*² = .04), but not perceived vision articulation (*b* = -.04, *p* = .65; *η*² = .00), leader prototypicality (*b* = -.06, *p* = .52; *η*² = .00), and leader effectiveness (*b* = -.03, *p* = .72; *η*² = .00). The results partially support H1a, and reject H1b-c.

Results indicate that the interaction between behavioral LGBTQ+

attitudes-pro-LGBTQ+ and pro LGBTQ+ rights speeches increased the rating of perceived vision articulation (*b* = 3.15, *p* < .0001; *η*² = .10), charisma (*b* = 3.00, *p* < .0001; *η*² = .09), leader prototypicality (*b* = 2.97, *p* < .0001; *η*² = .09), and leader effectiveness (*b* = 4.35, *p* < .0001; *η*² = .17) as expected.<fnref n="13" /> These results provide empirical support for H2a-c.

Fig. 4 informs about the nature of the interaction terms between the

<footnote n="13">¹³ Note that the interaction between the value tradition and pro LGBTQ+ rights speeches is negative in Table S14 because the value tradition and behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes point in opposing directions.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 6
Correlation Table (Study 3).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th><th>12</th><th>13</th><th>14</th><th>15</th><th>16</th><th>17</th><th>18</th><th>19</th><th>20</th><th>21</th><th>22</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Perc. vision articulation</td><td>3.08</td><td>1.25</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Perc. charisma</td><td>3.05</td><td>1.32</td><td>.79*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Perc. leader prototypicality</td><td>3.17</td><td>1.29</td><td>.76*</td><td>.75*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Perc. leader effectiveness</td><td>2.94</td><td>1.38</td><td>.86*</td><td>.83*</td><td>.84*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Charisma signal (CS)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>-.01</td><td>.19*</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Pro LGBTQ+ right (PLG)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>.32*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.32*</td><td>.35*</td><td>.00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. Tradition (TR)</td><td>3.44</td><td>1.51</td><td>.26*</td><td>.30*</td><td>.21*</td><td>.23*</td><td>.06</td><td>.05</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Beh. pro LGBTQ+ att. – neutral (BLBAN)</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.46</td><td>.02</td><td>.00</td><td>-.00</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.02</td><td>.16*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. Beh. pro LGBTQ+ att. – pro gun (BLBAP)</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.42</td><td>-.07</td><td>-.07*</td><td>-.05</td><td>-.03</td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>-.32*</td><td>-.82*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. CS x PLG</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.43</td><td>.17*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.18*</td><td>.58*</td><td>.58*</td><td>.07</td><td>-.06</td><td>.05</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11. CS x TR</td><td>1.76</td><td>2.05</td><td>.08*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.07</td><td>.09*</td><td>.86*</td><td>.02</td><td>.40*</td><td>.05</td><td>-.11*</td><td>.52*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12. TR x PLG</td><td>1.75</td><td>2.04</td><td>.25*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.03</td><td>.86*</td><td>.39*</td><td>.05</td><td>-.12*</td><td>.53*</td><td>.17*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13. CS x PLG x TR</td><td>0.90</td><td>1.72</td><td>.13*</td><td>.24*</td><td>.13*</td><td>.12*</td><td>.53*</td><td>.52*</td><td>.26*</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.04</td><td>.91*</td><td>.62*</td><td>.63*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14. CS x BLBAN</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.47</td><td>-.02</td><td>.11*</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.03</td><td>.72*</td><td>-.04</td><td>.13*</td><td>.48*</td><td>-.40*</td><td>.37*</td><td>.68*</td><td>.02</td><td>.38*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15. PLG x BLBAN</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.47</td><td>.19*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.17*</td><td>.19*</td><td>-.04</td><td>.72*</td><td>.12*</td><td>.48*</td><td>-.40*</td><td>.36*</td><td>.02</td><td>.68*</td><td>.38*</td><td>.20*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16. CS x PLG x BLBAN</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.37</td><td>.07</td><td>.15*</td><td>.06</td><td>.07</td><td>.44*</td><td>.44*</td><td>.13*</td><td>.29*</td><td>-.24*</td><td>.75*</td><td>.45*</td><td>.45*</td><td>.75*</td><td>.61*</td><td>.61*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17. CS x BLBAP</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.32</td><td>.00</td><td>.09*</td><td>.02</td><td>.03</td><td>.37*</td><td>.05</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.55*</td><td>.66*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.17*</td><td>-.04</td><td>.14*</td><td>-.26*</td><td>-.26*</td><td>-.16*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18. PLG x BLBAP</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.33</td><td>.23*</td><td>.20*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.31*</td><td>.04</td><td>.37*</td><td>-.21*</td><td>-.55*</td><td>.67*</td><td>.27*</td><td>-.04</td><td>.15*</td><td>.14*</td><td>-.27*</td><td>-.27*</td><td>-.16*</td><td>.50*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19. CS x PLG x BLBAP</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.25</td><td>.23*</td><td>.26*</td><td>.21*</td><td>.26*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.27*</td><td>-.12*</td><td>-.40*</td><td>.49*</td><td>.47*</td><td>.13*</td><td>.13*</td><td>.29*</td><td>-.19*</td><td>-.19*</td><td>-.12*</td><td>.73*</td><td>.73*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20. Conservation without TR</td><td>4.27</td><td>0.84</td><td>.21*</td><td>.22*</td><td>.16*</td><td>.15*</td><td>.08*</td><td>.03</td><td>.59*</td><td>.10*</td><td>-.13*</td><td>.05</td><td>.27*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.17*</td><td>.13*</td><td>.07</td><td>.08*</td><td>-.05</td><td>-.10*</td><td>-.04</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21. Openness to change</td><td>4.63</td><td>0.71</td><td>.09*</td><td>.07*</td><td>.05</td><td>.07</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.04</td><td>.13*</td><td>.02</td><td>.05</td><td>-.06</td><td>.00</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.03</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>-.00</td><td>.28*</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22. Self-transcendence</td><td>4.74</td><td>0.72</td><td>.13*</td><td>.11*</td><td>.10*</td><td>.09*</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.02</td><td>.28*</td><td>-.06</td><td>.12*</td><td>-.03</td><td>.07*</td><td>.09*</td><td>.02</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.04</td><td>.06</td><td>.06</td><td>.02</td><td>.58*</td><td>.51*</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23. Self-enhancement</td><td>3.50</td><td>0.97</td><td>.21*</td><td>.19*</td><td>.14*</td><td>.16*</td><td>-.02</td><td>.01</td><td>.27*</td><td>.13*</td><td>-.08*</td><td>.00</td><td>.07</td><td>.09*</td><td>.05</td><td>.05</td><td>.07</td><td>.04</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.05</td><td>.01</td><td>.37*</td><td>.51*</td><td>.19*</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Perc. = Perceived, Beh. = Behavioral, att. = attitudes.

* indicates *p* < .05. ** indicates *p* < .01.
<table><caption>**Table 7**
OLS Regression Results for the Behavioral LGBTQ+ Attitudes (Study 3).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="12">Dependent variable:</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Perceived vision articulation</th><th colspan="3">Perceived charisma</th><th colspan="3">Perceived leader prototypicality</th><th colspan="3">Perceived leader effectiveness</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pro LGBTQ+ carry (POC)</td><td>-1.19<sup>***</sup> (.29)</td><td>-1.12<sup>***</sup> (.32)</td><td>-1.12<sup>*</sup> (.51)</td><td>-1.27<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>-1.27<sup>***</sup> (.30)</td><td>-1.19<sup>*</sup> (.50)</td><td>-.94<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>-.84<sup>**</sup> (.29)</td><td>-.57 (.41)</td><td>-1.84<sup>***</sup> (.26)</td><td>-1.68<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>-1.33<sup>**</sup> (.46)</td></tr><tr><td>Beh. LGBTQ+ attitudes neutral (BGAN)</td><td>-1.29<sup>***</sup> (.17)</td><td>-1.47<sup>***</sup> (.24)</td><td>-1.55<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>-1.47<sup>***</sup> (.17)</td><td>-1.72<sup>***</sup> (.24)</td><td>-1.76<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>-1.18<sup>***</sup> (.15)</td><td>-1.37<sup>***</sup> (.23)</td><td>-1.27<sup>***</sup> (.24)</td><td>-1.74<sup>***</sup> (.14)</td><td>-1.98<sup>***</sup> (.22)</td><td>-1.86<sup>***</sup> (.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Beh. LGBTQ+ attitudes pro LGBTQ (BGAPG)</td><td>-2.15<sup>***</sup> (.20)</td><td>-2.43<sup>***</sup> (.26)</td><td>-2.20<sup>***</sup> (.27)</td><td>-2.26<sup>***</sup> (.19)</td><td>-2.68<sup>***</sup> (.26)</td><td>-2.43<sup>***</sup> (.27)</td><td>-2.05<sup>***</sup> (.19)</td><td>-2.36<sup>***</sup> (.25)</td><td>-2.11<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>-2.71<sup>***</sup> (.15)</td><td>-3.05<sup>***</sup> (.22)</td><td>-2.71<sup>***</sup> (.23)</td></tr><tr><td>Charisma signal (C)</td><td>-.04 (.08)</td><td>-.39 (.31)</td><td>-.38 (.31)</td><td>.49<sup>***</sup> (.09)</td><td>-.07 (.30)</td><td>.01 (.29)</td><td>-.06 (.09)</td><td>-.41 (.28)</td><td>-.15 (.27)</td><td>-.03 (.09)</td><td>-.41 (.27)</td><td>-.08 (.23)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAN</td><td>1.83<sup>***</sup> (.31)</td><td>1.80<sup>***</sup> (.32)</td><td>1.96<sup>***</sup> (.53)</td><td>1.85<sup>***</sup> (.30)</td><td>1.83<sup>***</sup> (.30)</td><td>1.90<sup>***</sup> (.52)</td><td>1.54<sup>***</sup> (.30)</td><td>1.50<sup>***</sup> (.30)</td><td>1.29<sup>**</sup> (.44)</td><td>2.59<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>2.55<sup>***</sup> (.28)</td><td>2.28<sup>***</sup> (.49)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAPG</td><td>3.15<sup>***</sup> (.33)</td><td>3.10<sup>***</sup> (.34)</td><td>2.60<sup>***</sup> (.56)</td><td>3.00<sup>***</sup> (.33)</td><td>2.95<sup>***</sup> (.34)</td><td>2.41<sup>***</sup> (.57)</td><td>2.97<sup>***</sup> (.32)</td><td>2.91<sup>***</sup> (.32)</td><td>2.39<sup>***</sup> (.47)</td><td>4.35<sup>***</sup> (.29)</td><td>4.29<sup>***</sup> (.29)</td><td>3.58<sup>***</sup> (.51)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*C</td><td></td><td>-.08 (.17)</td><td>-.09 (.62)</td><td></td><td>.06 (.18)</td><td>-.08 (.59)</td><td></td><td>-.13 (.18)</td><td>-.63 (.56)</td><td></td><td>-.24 (.18)</td><td>-.89<sup>†</sup> (.53)</td></tr><tr><td>BGAN*C</td><td></td><td>.37 (.32)</td><td>.53 (.35)</td><td></td><td>.47 (.32)</td><td>.55 (.34)</td><td></td><td>.39 (.30)</td><td>.19 (.31)</td><td></td><td>.49<sup>†</sup> (.29)</td><td>.24 (.29)</td></tr><tr><td>BGAPG*C</td><td></td><td>.58<sup>†</sup> (.35)</td><td>.08 (.40)</td><td></td><td>.84<sup>*</sup> (.35)</td><td>.30 (.39)</td><td></td><td>.64<sup>*</sup> (.32)</td><td>.13 (.38)</td><td></td><td>.69<sup>*</sup> (.31)</td><td>-.01 (.31)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAN*C</td><td></td><td></td><td>-.33 (.65)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-.15 (.63)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.38 (.60)</td><td></td><td></td><td>.48 (.58)</td></tr><tr><td>POC*BGAPG*C</td><td></td><td></td><td>.98 (.70)</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.05 (.69)</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.00 (.65)</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.37<sup>*</sup> (.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>4.08<sup>***</sup> (.16)</td><td>4.26<sup>***</sup> (.22)</td><td>4.26<sup>**</sup> (.22)</td><td>4.00<sup>***</sup> (.16)</td><td>4.29<sup>***</sup> (.22)</td><td>4.25<sup>**</sup> (.22)</td><td>4.08<sup>***</sup> (.14)</td><td>4.26<sup>***</sup> (.20)</td><td>4.13<sup>**</sup> (.21)</td><td>4.30<sup>***</sup> (.12)</td><td>4.49<sup>***</sup> (.19)</td><td>4.33<sup>**</sup> (.18)</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.22</td><td>.22</td><td>.23</td><td>.21</td><td>.22</td><td>.22</td><td>.20</td><td>.21</td><td>.21</td><td>.29</td><td>.29</td><td>.30</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Coefficients represent unstandardized regression weights. Standard errors estimated using the command “HC3” and shown in parenthesis. The reference category for Beh. LGBTQ+ attitudes is -1 (i.e., against LGBTQ+ attitudes). * indicates *p* < .05. ** indicates *p* < .01.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals for H2 (Study 3). *Note:* Confidence intervals build based on robust standard errors (see Table 7).</figcaption></figure>

pro (against) LGBTQ+ rights speeches and behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes for perceived vision articulation (Panel A), charisma (B), leader prototypicality (C), and leader effectiveness (D). Higher levels of leader-follower value *congruence* occur either when the leader's speech was pro LGBTQ+ rights and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes were higher (than average), or when the leader's speech was against LGBTQ+ rights and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes were lower (than average). Higher levels of leader-follower value *incongruence* occur either when the leader's speech was pro LGBTQ+ rights and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes were lower (than average), or when the leader's speech was against LGBTQ+ rights and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes were higher (than average). The figure shows that perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness increase (decrease) with higher levels of values congruence (incongruence).

Finally, the slope difference tests suggest that value (in)congruence moderates the relationship between charisma signaling and charismatic effect in the expected direction, but many of these differences are not significant (See Table 8 and Fig. 5). For behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes-pro-LGBTQ+ and the pro LGBTQ+ speeches, we found some support for the moderation hypothesis for charisma ($\beta_{pro.+1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = -.08$, $\beta_{pro.-1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = 1.27$, $p = .02$), leader prototypicality ($\beta_{pro.+1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = -.78$, $\beta_{pro.-1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = .35$, $p = .03$) and leader effectiveness ($\beta_{pro.+1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = -.97$, $\beta_{pro.-1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = .39$, $p = .01$), but not for perceived vision articulation ($\beta_{pro.+1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = -.47$, $\beta_{pro.-1SDbeh.LGBTQ+att.} = .59$, $p = .07$). We did not find support for the against LGBTQ+ speeches. Overall, there is partial support for H3 for behavioral LGBTQ+ rights attitudes.

The results for the value tradition deviate from the results of behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes. We found only support for the moderation hypothesis for perceived leader effectiveness and the against LGBTQ+ speeches ($\beta_{against.+1SDtradition} = .32$, $\beta_{against.-1SDtradition} = -.17$, $p = .03$).

Overall, there is no empirical support for H3 when using the value tradition.

Fig. 5 informs about the nature of the triple interaction terms between the pro (against) LGBTQ+ rights speeches, behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes-pro-LGBTQ+ and the charisma signal for perceived vision articulation (Panel A), charisma (B), leader prototypicality (C), and leader effectiveness (D). Higher levels of leader-follower value congruence (solid lines) occur either when the leader's speech was pro LGBTQ+ speeches (green lines) and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ rights attitudes were high (i.e., +1; the triangle dots), or when the leader's speech was against LGBTQ+ speeches (red lines) and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ rights attitudes were low (i.e., -1; the circle dots). Higher levels of leader-follower value incongruence (dashed lines) occur either when the leader's speech was pro LGBTQ+ speeches (green lines) and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ rights attitudes were low (i.e., -1; the circle dots), or when the leader's speech was against LGBTQ+ speeches (red lines) and followers' behavioral LGBTQ+ rights attitudes were high (i.e., +1; the triangle dots). The figure shows that perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness increases with higher levels of value congruence for the pro LGBTQ+ speeches (solid green line), whereas they decrease with higher levels of value incongruence for the pro LGBTQ+ speeches (dashed green line). This suggest that the charisma signal elicits the charismatic effect for followers with congruent values but leads to a backlash for followers with incongruent values (at least for the pro LGBTQ+ speeches).

### Robustness checks

We re-ran the analysis with self-reported LGBTQ+ attitudes and the results remained essentially unchanged (see supplementary material, Tables S15 and S16), expect that we could not replicate the results of the slope difference tests for perceived leader prototypicality ($p = .14$) and

<table><caption>**Table 8**
Slope Difference Test Results for Behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes (Study 3).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Dependent variable</th><th>Speech</th><th>slope 1 (1SD)</th><th>slope 2 (-1SD)</th><th>slope difference</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Perceived vision articulation</td><td>Pro LGBTQ+</td><td>.59</td><td>-.47</td><td>-1.06</td><td>1.84</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Perceived vision articulation</td><td>Anti LGBTQ+</td><td>-.31</td><td>-.38</td><td>-.08</td><td>.20</td><td>.84</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Perceived charisma</td><td>Pro LGBTQ+</td><td>1.27</td><td>-.08</td><td>-1.35</td><td>2.35</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Perceived leader prototypicality</td><td>Anti LGBTQ+</td><td>.31</td><td>.01</td><td>-.30</td><td>.78</td><td>.44</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Perceived leader effectiveness</td><td>Pro LGBTQ+</td><td>.35</td><td>-.78</td><td>-1.13</td><td>2.17</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Perceived leader effectiveness</td><td>Anti LGBTQ+</td><td>-.02</td><td>-.15</td><td>-.13</td><td>.34</td><td>.73</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Perceived leader effectiveness</td><td>Pro LGBTQ+</td><td>.39</td><td>-.97</td><td>-1.36</td><td>2.61</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Perceived leader effectiveness</td><td>Anti LGBTQ+</td><td>-.09</td><td>-.08</td><td>.01</td><td>-.04</td><td>.97</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* Slope 1 represent the effect of the charisma signal on the respective dependent variable for + 1 standard deviation of behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes for the different speeches, whereas slope 2 represents the effect of the charisma signal on the respective dependent variables for -1 standard deviation of behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes for the different speeches. *t* and *p* denote the *t*-value and *p*-value of slope difference test.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals for H3 (Study 3). *Note:* Confidence intervals build based on robust standard errors (see Table 7). Beh. LGBTQ+ att. denotes the variable behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes.</figcaption></figure>

leader effectiveness ($p = .09$). Note however that the average effect size of the interaction terms between pro LGBTQ+ speeches and follower values were substantially larger for self-reported LGBTQ+ attitudes with $\bar{n}^2 = .25$ compared to $\bar{n}^2 = .10$ for tradition and $\bar{n}^2 = .11$ for behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes.

As in Study 1, we re-ran the analysis without excluding participants based on variables measured after the treatment (N=770, see supplementary material Tables S17 to S19). The results remain essentially unchanged, except that we do find support for the value congruence charisma signal interaction hypothesis for perceived charisma and the pro LGBTQ+ speeches. We also re-ran the analysis including our social desirability measure, and the results remained essentially unchanged (see supplementary material, Tables S20 to S22).

## Brief discussion Study 3

We found partial support that the charisma signal elicits the perceptions of charisma, such that it increased perceived charisma (Grabo et al., 2017) but not vision articulation (H1a; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Also, we did not find support that the charisma signal increases perceptions of leader prototypicality and leader effectiveness (H1b-c). We found that the interaction between the leader's position on LGBTQ+ rights (pro vs. against) and behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes (as well as follower's tradition values) predicted perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness, providing support that leader-follower value congruence elicits the charismatic effect (H2). Finally, we found partial support for H3 for the pro LGBTQ+ speeches when we used behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes-pro-LGBTQ+, but not for the against LGBTQ+ speeches. We did not find that leader-follower value congruence moderates the charisma signal-charismatic effect relationship for the value tradition (H3), expect for perceived leader effectiveness and the against LGBTQ+ speeches. These results provide limited empirical evidence for H3.

## Discussion

This study aimed at testing the relationships between charisma signaling, leader-follower value congruence, and the charismatic effect and whether leader-follower value congruence moderates the relationship between charisma signaling and the charismatic effect. We found strong support that charisma signaling elicits the charismatic effect in a pro-social setting (Study 1) but mixed results in controversial settings (Studies 2 and 3). We found strong support that value congruence elicits the charismatic effect in controversial settings (i.e., Studies 2 and 3), but no evidence in pro-social settings (Study 1; potentially due to range restrictions). Finally, we found some evidence that value

congruence moderates the charisma signal-charismatic effect relationship, such that the relationship becomes stronger (weaker) with more value congruence (incongruence) in Studies 1 (for helping others attitudes) and 3 (for pro LGBTQ+ speeches and behavioral LGBTQ+ attitudes), but not in Study 2.

## Theoretical implications

We contribute to theory in at least three ways. First, we contribute to the charisma literature by moving past the simplistic assumption that charisma signaling is always beneficial for leaders, showing that the charisma signal may be less relevant when leaders and followers have incongruent values in controversial settings. Our work showcases that leader-follower value congruence represents an important boundary condition for the emergence of the charismatic effect. Our findings provide empirical support for predictions made in the self-concept theory of charisma (Shamir et al., 1993) and charisma signaling theory (Antonakis et al., 2016), such that leader-follower value congruence elicits the charismatic effect whereas value incongruence leads to backlash (in polarized settings).

Our findings from Studies 2 and 3 also resonate with recent papers from the literature on CEO activism support and follower political ideology (Appels, 2022; Weng et al., 2023; Wowak et al., 2022). Contrasting the results of Study 1, Studies 2 and 3 suggest that leader-follower value congruence is more critical for more polarized settings (e.g., gun rights) than for visions that are unanimously accepted as good (e.g., helping people in need). In other words, signaling unanimously accepted values (e.g. altruism is good) is a cheaper signal because leaders should expect minimal backlash. Instead, signaling values in a polarized setting will be costly because of the risk of turning down potential followers with incongruent values. This is an important theoretical distinction because signaling values can be dismissed as cheap talk with pro-social visions, but it is costly in polarized settings. Overall, this suggests that the charisma signal, as inherently values-based signal, does not only credibly convey the leader's intelligence (Aksinaite et al., in press) but also their values and intentions when the potential backlash is high (Antonakis et al., 2016; Bastardoz, 2020).

Second, we speculate that leader-follower value congruence has different levels (i.e., commensurability; Kristof, 1996), such that leaders and followers can agree on certain values (i.e., a high level of abstraction) and still disagree on specific topics (i.e., low level of abstraction). We found that the effect size of leader-follower value congruence interactions was stronger for the self-reported attitudes (e.g., gun attitudes) than for the value tradition. Therefore, congruence on lower-level attitudes could be more important for the emergence of the charismatic effect than higher-level values at least in the context of our study. Note
that we did not find this pattern consistently for the variables *behavioral gun* or *LGBTQ+ attitudes*, but these measures had low variance, such that many participants chose neither the pro or against open carry or LGBTQ+ option.

Third, we contribute to the charisma literature by theorizing the moderating influence of leader-follower value congruence on the charisma signal-charismatic effect relationship. Specifically, we theorized a positive effect of leader-follower values congruence on the charisma signaling-charismatic effect relationship. Studies 1 and 3 (only for pro-LGBTQ+ speeches) provided support for the beneficial effect of value congruence and they resonate with previous literature. For instance, Meslec et al. (2020) showed that the charisma signal increased task effort in participants from a Dutch university when they could help the Magic Home association in the Netherlands (Study 2) but not in Romania (Study 1), suggesting that charisma signal-task effort relationship only holds when participants' nationality and the associations target country are identical (i.e., a proxy of leader-follower value congruence). Similarly, Jensen et al. (2019) showed that training leaders in transformational leadership increased public service motivation only for employees with strongly congruent values. Furthermore, we extend previous charisma theories (Antonakis et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1993) by theorizing a negative effect of value *incongruence* on the charisma signaling-charismatic effect relationship. Our Study 3 partially supported the idea of a backlash effect. Understanding whether the charisma signal becomes ineffective or receives backlash from followers with incongruent values is critical because it changes the personal costs leaders must bear for signaling charisma and therefore might change the recommendations of when or if signaling is beneficial for leaders. Contrasting the effect sizes between leader-follower values congruence (i.e., $η^2$) and its interaction with charisma signaling (i.e., the change in $R^2$) of Studies 2 and 3 suggests that leader-follower value congruence is more important than the charisma signal in polarized settings. In other words, followers may put a higher weight on the substance than on the framing tactics in polarized settings.

## Practical implications

Our study offers three important practical implications. First, when formal leaders craft a speech, give instructions, or chat with their followers, they should think about what values they want to stand for and how these will resonate with their followers. If leaders choose to signal values (at least partially) congruent with their followers, they increase their likelihood to be perceived as charismatic, prototypical, and effective. If they communicate many different values, they may be perceived as less effective because they may be perceived as promoting incongruent values (Carton et al., 2014). Of course, followers can have a variety of different values, and leaders rarely have full information on that, but leaders might still benefit from reflecting on the followers' and their own values.

Second, our study (especially Study 1) emphasizes again the power of the charisma signal in non-polarized setting (Bastardoz et al., 2022; Ernst et al., 2021; Fest et al., 2021; Meslec et al., 2020). Leaders can train the use of CLTs so that they appear more charismatic, prototypical, and effective, which may be useful for both aspiring leaders and established leaders. Being perceived as a good leader may be even more important for aspiring leaders than for established leaders, since no "objective" leader performance is available for them, and selection committees have to rely on their perceptions (Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015). However, leaders should pay more attention to communicating their values clearly than using symbolic and emotion-laden rhetoric at least for polarized topics.

Third, our study has implications for personnel selection and group formation. Managers and executives aiming to inspire and lead with charisma must select and work with followers who have similar values. Because one's values tend to be stable and hard to change, formal leaders should carefully select whom they work with. Similarly,

organizations should be careful when selecting new managers and executives. If a new hire in a formal leadership role does not fit with the organization's workforce (e.g., think of Elon Musk at Twitter), employees will be unlikely to consider this new hire as a charismatic, prototypical, and effective leader. Organizations have limited interest in selecting individuals who – by their value stance – simply cannot motivate and influence through charisma.

## Limitations and directions for future research

Our manuscript includes some important limitations that we see as opportunities for future research. First, our experiments were conducted online, with leaders who are unknown to the participants, and for very short interactions. In most real-life settings, leader-follower relationships last longer. Furthermore, the experimental manipulation of Studies 2 and 3 were shorter (~1 min) than published examples of manipulations of charisma (~2 to 5 min; Antonakis et al., 2022; Ernst et al., 2021; Hausfeld, 2023; Nieken, 2022; Wilms et al., 2023). Observers might need more exposure with their leader and their behaviors to appropriately update their beliefs. Likewise, we used the full set of CLTs as an operationalization of the charisma signal in Study 1, but only a subset in Studies 2 and 3. Future studies might vary the operationalization of the charisma signal in terms of CLTs more systematically to explore their contribution to the charisma signal.

Second, our experiment pertained to the charismatic effect, operationalized as perceived vision articulation, charisma, leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness. While perceptual measures have their importance, it would be interesting to test whether our results generalize also to costly follower behaviors (e.g., higher contributions to a public goods game or higher effort; Antonakis et al., 2022; Meslec et al., 2020) because related literature has shown that changes in attitudes do not always translate to changes in behavior (e.g., Lange et al., 2023). We encourage future studies to replicate and extend our findings using consequential dependent variables.

Third, we studied political topics that are either universally accepted as good (i.e., Study 1) or heavily polarized (i.e., Studies 2 and 3). The literature on charisma would benefit from studies that go beyond prosocial visions and deviate from the original speeches of Antonakis et al. (2022 Study 1) in their prosocial structure and language, such as the speeches used in Studies 2 and 3. However, we also want to highlight that the first and second authors who crafted the speeches for Studies 2 and 3 consider themselves more liberal and both originate from European countries, such that it was not easy to write the pro-open carry and against LGBTQ+ speeches. Therefore, more conservative participants (e.g., higher in tradition, more in favor of pro-open carry or less in favor of LBGTQ+ rights) might not have resonated with our pro-open carry and against LGBTQ+ speeches. Future studies might consider studying charisma signaling and value congruence in different settings such as for-profit organizations. Such context will provide some nuance to the contrast in effect sizes found for charisma signaling.

Finally, while values are mostly time-invariant (Vecchione et al., 2019) and their main effects should not be endogenous in the context of our study (Antonakis, 2011), we want to emphasize that we cannot be certain whether they are endogenous or not. The interaction terms between charisma signaling and follower values (Study 1), between leader values and follower values, and its interaction with charisma signaling (Studies 2 and 3) can be interpreted causally (Nizalova & Murtazashvili, 2016), but the respective marginal effects may be incorrect if follower values were endogenous. Consequently, the estimates may be biased and inconsistent because of the omitted variable bias (Antonakis et al., 2010; Wilms et al., 2021). Further, measuring follower values via self-reports can introduce endogeneity via measurement error (Antonakis et al., 2010; Wooldridge, 2008). However, measurement error has a known bias that "works" against the hypothesis, our coefficients are underestimated.
## Conclusion

Across three studies, we investigated the critical role leader–follower value congruence and charisma signaling play in the emergence of the charismatic effect. We generally find that leaders elicit the charismatic effect in followers when they share congruent values. Leaders also tend to receive some backlash from followers with incongruent values. We hope that the values of leaders and followers will take on a more central role in the study of charisma.

## Funding

This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [Grant 15S9419] and by a starting grant of KU Leuven to Nicolas Bastardoz [Grant VPH-E1241-STG/21/009].

## Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT and Writefull in order to help create the speeches and improve language and readability, respectively. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Rafael Wilms:** Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Nicolas Bastardoz:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. **Clara Seif el Dahan:** Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. **Philippe Jacquart:** Conceptualization.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Jakob Stollberger, Maria Tims, Jos Akkermans, and John Antonakis for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

## Appendix 1. Strong and medium charisma signal speech against and in favor of open carry (Study 2)

<table><thead><tr><th>Strong charisma signal</th><th>Medium charisma signal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dear Fellow Americans, Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns, and I know many of you are thinking: "I don't want guns around at Café Mocha." Today I want to make clear where we as Café Mocha stand in this debate. So, what is the right thing to do? I believe we must abolish the rights to openly carry a gun. Open carry is not a protective shield as some contend. Instead, it is like a ticking time bomb strapped to your waist that will harm people and their families. Just as a ticking time bomb creates fear and uncertainty, open carry in public spaces sparks tension and grave anxiety in law-abiding citizens. A gun is an evil tool designed to spread violence and pain. Please, leave your gun home when you come try our amazing Café Mocha coffee. You are always welcome here, but your gun is not. Find the link to the video here:<a href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/852801369h">https://player.vimeo.com/video/852801369h</a> = e7868ea958</td><td>Dear Fellow Americans, Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns, and some people feel threatened and uneasy when encountering people who openly carry a firearm. Today I want to make clear where we as Café Mocha stand in this debate. We are in favor of abolishing the right to openly carry firearms because it is something crucial for us. Openly carrying guns in public areas can harm people and their loved ones. It endangers our law-abiding citizens on the streets, but also in our Café Mocha stores. Just because some people want to openly carry their firearms in public spaces, doesn't mean we can justify many people feeling threatened or unsafe in their daily lives. A gun can cause harm and violence, and it is a dangerous tool. Please, leave your gun at home when you come to try our amazing Café Mocha coffee. It is not welcome here. Find the link to the video here:<a href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/852801642h">https://player.vimeo.com/video/852801642h</a> = 0c98687e41</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><em>In favor of open carry</em></td></tr><tr><td>Dear Fellow Americans, Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns, and I know many of you think: "I don't want to leave my gun at home." Today I want to make clear where we as Café Mocha stand in this debate. So, what is the right thing to do? I believe we must preserve our right to openly carry a gun. Open carry is not a ticking time bomb strapped to your waist as some contend. Instead, it is like a shield that protects people and their families from harm. Just as a shield defends a warrior in battle, open carry laws hand law-abiding citizens a shield of protection in their daily lives. For me, a gun is like a very good friend. Please, feel free to bring your gun with you when you come try our amazing Café Mocha coffee. You and your gun are always welcome here. Find the link to the video here:<a href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/852801906h">https://player.vimeo.com/video/852801906h</a> = 4f7699db2d</td><td>Dear Fellow Americans, Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns, and some people are very concerned that their right to openly carry a firearm will be further constrained. Today I want to make clear where we as Café Mocha stand in this debate. We are in favor of preserving the right to openly carry firearms because it is something crucial for us. Open carry protects people and their loved ones in all public areas. It defends our law-abiding citizens on the streets, but also in our Café Mocha stores. The ability to openly carry firearms in public spaces is a very important part of ensuring that normal ordinary people can feel safe and secure in their daily lives. I feel safe when I have my gun with me. Please, feel free to bring your gun when you come try our amazing Café Mocha coffee. It is always welcome here. Find the link to the video here:<a href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/852802159h">https://player.vimeo.com/video/852802159h</a> = d1a6bd93c6</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix 2. Strong and medium charisma signal speech against and in favor of LGBTQ+ (Study 3)

<table><thead><tr><th>Strong charisma signal</th><th>Medium charisma signal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dear customers, Few topics in America stir up more debate than LGBTQ+ rights. I know many of you are thinking: "Traditional values are important to me, and I want to protect our tradition". Today, I want to make clear where we stand in this debate. So, what is the right thing to do? I am convinced we must preserve traditional values and resist the push for expanding LGBTQ+ rights. Inclusion pushed too far will not save our society as some say, it instead destroys the foundation that our society is built upon like a wrecking ball. We must defend the moral fabric of our nation: Tradition, religion, and marriage. By preventing the rainbow flag from entering our store, we also decided not to offer</td><td>Dear customers, Few topics in America stir up more debate than LGBTQ+ rights. Most people feel that traditional values are important, and they want to maintain them. Today I want to make clear where we stand in this debate. This is an important question. We are in favor of preserving traditional values and we don't think pushing LGBTQ+ rights further is a reasonable thing to do right now. When diversity and inclusion is pushed too far, it can endanger the very principles of our society and have negative consequences for all. We are in favor of upholding and cherishing our traditions and values rooted in our society and keeping them in place. We therefore also decided not to offer merchandise</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2">(continued on next page)</td></tr></tfoot></table>
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>Strong charisma signal</th><th>Medium charisma signal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>merchandise and products supporting the pride. And please, leave your rainbow at home when you shop at our amazing FreshMart grocery stores. You are always welcome here but your rainbow is not.<br/><br/>Dear customers, Few topics in America stir up more debate than LGBTQ+ rights. I know many of you are thinking: “Inclusion and diversity are important, and I want to embrace them to the full”. Today, I want to make clear where we stand in this debate. So, what is the right thing to do? I am convinced we must embrace diversity, inclusion, and equality, especially for our members of the LGBTQ+ community. Welcoming them doesn’t destroy our society like a wrecking ball as some say, it can instead make our society better. We must be champions of love and empathy, and weave these progressive values into the moral fabric of our nation. By proudly hoisting the rainbow flag in our store, we also offer merchandise and products supporting the pride. Bring your rainbow when you shop at our amazing FreshMart grocery stores. While traditionalists may stay outside, you and your wonderful rainbow are always welcome here.</td><td>and products supporting the pride in our grocery stores. And please, leave your rainbow at home when you shop at our amazing FreshMart grocery stores. You are always welcome here when your rainbow stays at home.<br/><br/>Advocacy for LGBTQ+ Rights<br/><br/>Dear customers, Few topics in America stir up more debate than LGBTQ+ rights. Most people feel that inclusion and diversity are important, and they want to embrace them. Today I want to make clear what we think on this question because this is an important question. We are in favor of progressive ideas and actions that can create a different status-quo. We think that equal rights for the members of the LGBTQ+ community would be normal. When diversity and inclusion are maintained, our society is probably better off, which has positive consequences for everyone. Favoring diversity and inclusion in our society can help ensure that we all live in harmony despite different viewpoints. We therefore also decided to offer merchandise and products supporting the pride in our grocery stores. And please, feel free to bring your rainbow when you shop at our amazing FreshMart grocery stores. You are always welcome here with your wonderful rainbow.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101839.

## References

Aksintaite, V., Jensen, U. T., Vlachos, M., Erne, A., Antonakis, J. (in press). Charisma is a costly signal. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 101810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101810.

Albarracin, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 69(1), 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911

Antonakis, J. (2011). Predictors of leadership: The usual suspects and the suspect traits. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), *Sage Handbook of Leadership*. Sage Publications.

Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior*, 3(1), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010

Antonakis, J., d'Adda, G., Weber, R., & Zehnder, C. (2022). Just words? Just speeches? On the economic value of charismatic leadership. *Management Science*, 68(9), 6355–6381. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4219

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. *Academy of Management Learning & Education*, 10(3), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0012

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning charisma: Transform yourself into someone people want to follow. *Harvard Business Review*, 127–130.

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). APA Dictionary of Psychology. http://dictionary.apa.org/belief.

Appels, M. (2022). CEO sociopolitical activism as a signal of authentic leadership to prospective employees. *Journal of Management*. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221110207

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 10(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00022-3

Banks, G. C., Woznyj, H. M., & Mansfield, C. A. (2021). Where is “behavior” in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership research and beyond. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101581

Bastardoz, N. (2020). Signaling charisma. In J. P. Zúquete (Ed.), *Routledge International Handbook of Charisma* (1st ed., p. 502). Routledge.

Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (2022). Effect of crises on charisma signaling: A regression discontinuity design. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 101590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101590

Bastardoz, N., & Van Vugt, M. (2019). The nature of followership: Evolutionary analysis and review. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 30(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.004

Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 17(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.008

Branscombe, N. R., Weir, J. A., & Crosby, P. (1991). A three-factor scale of attitudes toward guns. *Aggressive Behavior*, 17(5), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1991)17:5<261::ABID-AB2480170503>3.0.CO;2-8

Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. *Econometrica*, 47(5), 1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963

Brislin, R. W. (1986). Research instruments. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, 159–162.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 91(4), 954–962. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.954

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. *Journal of Language and Social Psychology*, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 87(5), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875

Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 57(6), 1544–1570. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0101

Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 17(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.006

Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J.-L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 96(3), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021886

Chi, X., Hawk, S. T., Winter, S., & Meeus, W. (2015). The effect of comprehensive sexual education program on sexual health knowledge and sexual attitude among college students in Southwest China. *Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health*, 27(2), NP2049–NP2066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539513475655

Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. *British Journal of Management*. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00648.x

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. *Journal of Management*, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419

Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 72(1), 97.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 91(4), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917

Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 8(4), 355–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90020-5

Deng, H., Wu, C.-H., Leung, K., & Guan, Y. (2016). Depletion from self-regulation: A resource-based account of the effect of value incongruence. *Personnel Psychology*, 69(2), 431–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/pep.12107

Doblhofer, D. S., Hauser, A., Kuonath, A., Haas, K., Agthe, M., & Frey, D. (2019). Make the best out of the bad: Coping with value incongruence through displaying facades of conformity, positive reframing, and self-disclosure. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology*, 28(5), 572–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1567579

Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: Compatible ways to boost productivity. *The Academy of Management Review*, 13(4), 639. https://doi.org/10.2307/258381

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 46(3), 527–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094874
Engelbert, L. H., van Elk, M., Kandrik, M., Theeuwes, J., & van Vugt, M. (2022). The effect of charismatic leaders on followers' memory, error detection, persuasion and prosocial behavior: A cognitive science approach. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **101656**. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101656

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **89**(2), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293

Ernst, B. A., Banks, G. C., Loignon, A. C., Frear, K. A., Williams, C. E., Arciniega, L. M., Gupta, R. K., Kodydek, G., & Subramanian, D. (2021). Virtual charismatic leadership and signaling theory: A prospective meta-analysis in five countries. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **101541**. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101541

Fest, S., Kvaløy, O., Niesen, P., & Schöttner, A. (2021). How (not) to motivate online workers: Two controlled field experiments on leadership in the gig economy. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **32**(6), Article 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101514

Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2024). A fatal flaw: Positive leadership style research creates causal illusions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **101771**. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101771

Fischer, T., & Sitkin, S. B. (2023). Leadership styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. *Academy of Management Annals*, **17**(1), 331-372. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0340

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. *Personnel Psychology*, **56**(3), 671-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00754.x

Garner, P., Bornet, O., Loupi, D., Antonakis, J., & Rohner, D. (2019). Deep learning of charisma. *Software Demonstration: Swiss Text Analytics Conference*.

Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Silvis, J. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2018). In the eye of the beholder? An eye-tracking experiment on emergent leadership in team interactions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **29**(4), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.003

Gore, A. (2019, October). *How to Make Radical Climate Action the New Normal*. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_how_to_make_radical_climate_action_the_ne_w_normal/transcript

Grabo, A., Spisak, B. R., & van Vugt, M. (2017). Charisma as signal: An evolutionary perspective on charismatic leadership. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **28**(4), 473-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.001

Grabo, A., & van Vugt, M. (2016). Charismatic leadership and the evolution of cooperation. *Evolution and Human Behavior*, **37**(5), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.03.005

Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicity and leader stereotypicity. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, **23**(10), 1087-1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167927310009

Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The balanced inventory of desirable responding short form (BIDR-16). *SAGE Open*, **5**(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J. (2011). *The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power* (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351082322.

Hausfeld, M. M. (2023). *The effectiveness of charismatic signaling by gender: A prospective meta-analytic review*. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Hayibor, S., Agle, B. R., Sears, G. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Ward, A. (2011). Value congruence and charismatic leadership in CEO-top manager relationships: An empirical investigation. *Journal of Business Ethics*, **102**(2), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-01080-y

Heinitz, K., & Rowold, J. (2007). Gütekriterien einer deutschen adaptation des transformational leadership inventory (TLI) von Podsakoff [Quality criteria of a German adaptation of Podsakoff's transformational leadership inventory (TLI)]. *Zeitschrift Für Arbeits-Und Organisationspsychologie A&O*, **51**(1), 1-15.

Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I., Hepp, J., Klein, S. A., & Zettler, I. (2015). From personality to altruistic behavior (and back): Evidence from a double-blind dictator game. *Journal of Research in Personality*, **55**, 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.12.004

Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2009). Pillars of cooperation: Honesty-Humility, social value orientations, and economic behavior. *Journal of Research in Personality*, **43**(3), 516-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.003

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, **5**(3), 184-200.

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, **54**(4), 638-646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), *Leadership: The cutting edge*. Southern Illinois Press.

Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). When does charisma matter for top-level leaders? Effect of attributational ambiguity. *Academy of Management Journal*, **58**(4), 1051-1074. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0831

Jensen, U. T. (2018). Does perceived societal impact moderate the effect of transformational leadership on value congruence? Evidence from a field experiment. *Public Administration Review*, **78**(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12852

Jensen, U. T., Andersen, L. B., & Jacobsen, C. B. (2019). *Only when we agree!* How value congruence moderates the impact of goal-oriented leadership on public service motivation. *Public Administration Review*, **79**(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13008

Jensen, U. T., Rohner, D., Bornet, O., Carron, D., Garner, P., Loupi, D., & Antonakis, J. (2023). Combating COVID-19 with charisma: Evidence on governor speeches and

physical distancing in the United States. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **1-19**. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101702

Jose, P. E., & Brewer, W. F. (1984). Development of story liking: Character identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. *Developmental Psychology*, **20**(5), 911-924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.5.911

Joyal-Desmarais, K., Scharmer, A. K., Madzelan, M. K., See, J. V., Rothman, A. J., & Snyder, M. (2022). Appealing to motivation to change attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 702 experimental tests of the effects of motivational message matching on persuasion. *Psychological Bulletin*, **148**(7-8), 465-517. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul00000377

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **89**(3), 542-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542

Kleiber, C., & Zeileis, A. (2008). *Applied econometrics with R*. Springer.

Koenker, R. (1981). A note on studentizing a test for heteroscedasticity. *Journal of Econometrics*, **17**(1), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(81)90062-2

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. *Personnel Psychology*, **49**(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. *Psychological Bulletin*, **108**(3), 480-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Lajoie, D., Boudrias, J.-S., Rousseau, V., & Brunelle, É. (2017). Value congruence and tenure as moderators of transformational leadership effects. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal*, **38**(2), 254-269. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2015-0091

Lange, F., Berger, S., Byrka, K., Brügger, A., Henn, L., Sparks, A. C., Nielsen, K. S., & Urban, J. (2023). Beyond self-reports: A call for more behavior in environmental psychology. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **86**, Article 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101965

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. *Assessment*, **25**(5), 543-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659134

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. *American Psychologist*, **57**(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Lonati, S., Quiroga, B. F., Zehnder, C., & Antonakis, J. (2018). On doing relevant and rigorous experiments: Review and recommendations. *Journal of Operations Management*, **64**(1), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jomn.2018.10.003

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **12**(3), 311-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00081-9

Lord, R. G., Epitropaki, O., Foti, R. J., & Hansbrough, T. K. (2020). Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior*, **7**(1), 49-74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045434

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. *Organizational Behavior and Human Performance*, **34**(3), 343-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6

Lüdecke, D. (2018). ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. *Journal of Open Source Software*, **3**(26), 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00072

Meslec, N., Curseu, P. L., Fodor, O. C., & Kenda, R. (2020). Effects of charismatic leadership and rewards on individual performance. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **31**(6), Article 101423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101423

Metzl, J. M. (2019). What guns mean: The symbolic lives of firearms. *Palgrave Communications*, **5**(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0240-5

Mio, J. S., Riggio, R. E., Levin, S., & Reese, R. (2005). Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **16**(2), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.005

Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. *American Journal of Political Science*, **62**(3), 760-775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357

Naidoo, L. J., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Speech imagery and perceptions of charisma: The mediating role of positive affect. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **19**(3), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.010

Nickell, G. S. (1998). *August*. The helping attitude scale. 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. San Francisco, CA: 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.

Nieken, P. (2022). Charisma in the gig economy: The impact of digital leadership and communication channels on performance. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **101631**. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101631

Nizalova, O. Y., & Murtazashvili, I. (2016). Exogenous treatment and endogenous factors: Vanishing of omitted variable bias on the interaction term. *Journal of Econometric Methods*, **5**(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jem-2013-0012

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Version Mar 14) [Computer software]. https://chat.openai.com chat.

Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., & Smith, G. (2012). Self, self-concept, and identity. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), *Handbook of self and identity* (2nd ed., pp. 69-104). The Guilford Press.

Oyserman, D., Lewis, N. A., Yan, V. X., Fisher, O., O'Donnell, S. C., & Horowitz, E. (2017). An identity-based motivation framework for self-regulation. *Psychological Inquiry*, **28**(2-3), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1337406

Pellegrini, V., De Cristofaro, V., Giacomantonio, M., & Salvati, M. (2020). Why are gay leaders perceived as ineffective? The role of the type of organization, sexual
prejudice and gender stereotypes. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 157, Article 109817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109817

Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1982). Schematic information processing and perceptions of leadership in problem-solving groups. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 67(4), 486-492.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.4.486

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organisational citizenship behaviors. *Leadership Quarterly*, 1, 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 30(1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.002

R Core Team. (2023). *A language and environment for statistical computing*. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

Ratner, K. G., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Van Knippenberg, A., & Amodio, D. M. (2014). Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 106 (6), 897-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036498

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, B. B. Lloyd, & Social Science Research Council (U.S.) (Eds.), *Cognition and categorization* (pp. 27-48). L. Erlbaum Associates ; distributed by Halsted Press.

Ruch, W., Bruntsch, R., & Wagner, L. (2017). The role of character traits in economic games. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 108, 186-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.007

Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., Ciecuch, J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2017). Personal values in human life. *Nature Human Behaviour*, 1(9), 630-639. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0185-3

Sajons, G. B. (2020). Estimating the causal effect of measured endogenous variables: A tutorial on experimentally randomized instrumental variables. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 31(5), Article 101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101348

Salvati, M., Pellegrini, V., Giacomantonio, M., & De Cristofaro, V. (2021). Embrace the leadership challenge: The role of Gay men's internalized sexual stigma on the evaluation of others' leadership and one's own. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 60(2), 700-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12424

Schwartz, S. H. (2016). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In T. Brosch, & D. Sander (Eds.), *Handbook of Value: Perspectives from Economics, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology* (pp. 63-84). Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 53(3), 550.

Schwartz, S. H., & Ciecuch, J. (2022). Measuring the refined theory of individual values in 49 cultural groups: Psychometrics of the Revised Portrait Value Questionnaire. *Assessment*, 29(5), 1005-1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121998760

Shamir, B. (1994). Ideological position, leaders' charisma, and voting preferences: Personal vs. Partisan elections. *Political Behavior*, 16(2), 265-287. JSTOR.

Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 5(1), 25-42.

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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577

Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 21 (6), 959-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004

Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2012). Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought. *Intelligence*, 40(4), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.02.005

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. *Organization Science*, 13(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543

Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., Morgan, G. S., & Wisneski, D. C. (2021). The psychology of moral conviction. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 72(1), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612

Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary field study. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 16(2), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.002

Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. *American Economic Review*, 92(3), 434-459. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136200

Steffens, N. K., Munt, K. A., Van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2021). Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader

group prototypicality. *Organizational Psychology Review*, 11(1), 35-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962569

Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. *Psychological Bulletin*, 146(1), 30-90.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217

Towler, A. J. (2003). Effects of charismatic influence training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. *Personnel Psychology*, 56(2), 363-381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00154.x

Tsai, C.-Y., Kim, J., Jin, F., Jun, M., Cheong, M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2022). Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology in leadership research. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 33(1), Article 101592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101592

Tucker, R. (1968). The theory of charismatic leadership. *Daedalus*, 731-756.

Tur, B., Harstad, J., & Antonakis, J. (2022). Effect of charismatic signaling in social media settings: Evidence from TED and twitter. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 33(5), 1-17.

Versky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. *Science*, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 22(6), 1078-1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.004

Van Schaijk, C. (2016). *The prime origins of human nature*. Wiley Blackwell.

Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Roccas, S., & Caprara, G. V. (2019). A look into the relationship between personality traits and basic values: A longitudinal investigation. *Journal of Personality*, 87(2), 413-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12399

Weng, D. H., Chuang, Y.-T., Zhang, C., & Church, R. (2023). CEO political liberalism, stakeholders, and firms' support for LGBT employees. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 34 (3), Article 101645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101645

Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B. J., Lowe, K. B., & McCombs, K. (2018). Did charisma “Trump” narcissism in 2016? Leader narcissism, attributed charisma, value congruence and voter choice. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 130, 11-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.010

Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B., & Lowe, K. B. (2012). The effects of crisis, cynicism about change, and value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed charisma in the 2008 presidential election. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 23 (3), 324-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.003

Wilms, R., Mäthner, E., Winnen, L., & Lanwehr, R. (2021). Omitted variable bias: A threat to estimating causal relationships. *Methods in Psychology*, 5, Article 100075.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100075

Wilms, R., Oostrom, J., & Van Gerven, E. (2023). The effects of the charisma signal and voice pitch in female leader selection. *OSF Preprints*. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bz6qg

Wooldridge, J. M. (2008). *Introductory econometrics: A modern approach* (4. ed., internat. student ed.). South-Western, Cengage Learning.

Wowak, A. J., Busenbark, J. R., & Hambrick, D. C. (2022). How do employees react when their CEO speaks out? Intra- and extra-firm implications of CEO sociopolitical activism. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 67(2), 553-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839221078584

Yamane, D. (2022). Gun culture 2.0: The evolution and contours of defensive gun ownership in America. *The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science*, 704(1), 20-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162231156292

Yammarino, F. J., Mumford, M. D., Serban, A., & Shirreffs, K. (2013). Assassination and leadership: Traditional approaches and historiometric methods. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 24(6), 822-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.004

Zachary, M. A., Connelly, B. L., Payne, G. T., & Tribble, L. L. (2023). Virtue rhetoric in investor communications: Setting up for a letdown? *Journal of Management*, 49(2), 741-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211002622

Zeileis, A. (2004). Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. *Journal of Statistical Software*, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v011.i10

Zeileis, A. (2006). Object-oriented computation of sandwich estimators. *Journal of Statistical Software*, 16(9). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v06i09

Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T. (2002). Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. *R News*, 2(3), 7-10.

Zeileis, A., Köll, S., & Graham, N. (2020). Various versatile variances: An object-oriented implementation of clustered covariances in *R. Journal of Statistical Software*, 95(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v09.i01

Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. *Experimental Economics*, 13(1), 75-98.