In the current series of studies, we draw upon implicit leadership theories, social learning theory, and research on decision making to investigate whether affect toward President Trump explains U.S. residents’ evaluations of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, as well as the likelihood that that residents engage in personal protective behaviors. A meta-analysis using 17 nationally representative datasets with a total of 26,876 participants indicated that participants who approve of President Trump tend to approve of his leadership regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and were less likely to engage in personal protective behavior (PPBs; i.e., hand washing, wearing a mask or other face covering in public, and social distancing). On the other hand, those disapproving of President Trump also tended to disapprove of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and were more likely to engage in PPBs. In a second study, using an established measure of leader affect (leader affect questionnaire) and controlling for political party, we replicated and extended these results by demonstrating that expending cognitive effort toward understanding the COVID-19 crisis attenuated the relationship between affect toward President Trump and (1) approval of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and (2) engagement in some, but not all, PPBs.
BakerP.GreenE.WeilandN. (2020, July 8). Trump threatens to cut funding if schools do not fully reopen. New York Times.
3.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
BanksG. C.GootyJ.RossR. L.WilliamsC. E.HarringtonN. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 236-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.005
5.
BaumeisterR. F.BushmanB. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
6.
BlakeA. (2020, June 26). Trump’s dumbfounding refusal to encourage wearing masks. The Washington Post.
CDC Press Release. (2020, July 14). CDC calls on Americans to wear masks to prevent COVID-19 spread. CDC.gov.
10.
CollissonB.HowellJ. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: Perceptions of similarity as a function of liking. Journal of Social Psychology, 154(5), 384-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.914882
11.
Cornell Alliance for Science. (2020, July 1). Anti-science attitudes undermining US efforts as coronavirus cases soar.
12.
CortinaJ. M. (2003). Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 415-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428103257358
13.
DierdorffE. C.EllingtonJ. K. (2008). It’s the nature of the work: Examining behavior-based sources of work–family conflict across occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 883-892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.883
14.
EadyG.VaughnJ. S.RottinghausB. (2018, March 20). Comparing Trump to the greatest—and most polarizing—presidents in US history. Brookings.
15.
EdenD.LeviatanU. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736-741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
18.
HunterS. T.Bedell-AversK. E.MumfordM. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18(5), 435-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.001
19.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
20.
JosephK.Swire-ThompsonB.MasugaH.BaumM. A.LazerD. (2019). Polarized, together: Comparing partisan support for Trump’s tweets using survey and platform-based measures. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
21.
JunkerN. M.van DickR. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154-1173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
22.
KerrS.JermierJ. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
23.
KesslerS. R.LucianettiL.PindekS.SpectorP. E. (2020). ‘Walking the talk’: The role of frontline supervisors in preventing workplace accidents. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(3), 450-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1719998
24.
KöhlerT.CortinaJ. M. (2021). Play it again, Sam! An analysis of constructive replication in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 47(2), 488-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319843985
25.
KrellM. (2017). Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and cognitive effort considering different sources of validity evidence. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1280256
26.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In GentryW. D. (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282-325). New York: Guilford.
27.
LordR. G.BinningJ. F.RushM. C.ThomasJ. C. (1978). The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90036-3
28.
LordR. G.FotiR. J.DeVaderC. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
29.
LordR. G.ShondrickS. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic, connectionist, and embodied perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 207-222. https://doi-org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.016
30.
MartinkoM. J.MackeyJ. D.MossS. E.HarveyP.McAllisterC. P.BreesJ. R. (2018). An exploration of the role of subordinate affect in leader evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 738-752. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000302
31.
McKeeM.StucklerD. (2020). If the world fails to protect the economy, COVID-19 will damage health not just now but also in the future. Nature Medicine, 26, 640-642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0863-y
32.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
33.
NagyM. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86. http://doi.org/10.1348/096317902167658
34.
NaidooL. J.KohariN. E.LordR. G.DuBoisD. A. (2010). “Seeing” is retrieving: Recovering emotional content in leadership ratings through visualization. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 886-900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.014
35.
RushM. C.ThomasJ. C.LordR. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 20(1), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90046-0
36.
ShondrickS. J.DinhJ. E.LordR. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 959-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004
37.
SizemoreS.O’BrienK. E.GrossenbacherM. (2019, April 4–6). Expanding our understanding of anti-science attitudes into the workplace [Poster Presentation]. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, National Harbor, Maryland.
38.
SpectorP. E. (2019). Don’t cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8
39.
SpruntB.TurnerC. (2020, July 8). White House stumbles over how best to reopen schools, as Trump blasts CDC Guidance. NPR.
40.
TepperB. J.CarrJ. C.BreauxD. M.GeiderS.HuC.HuaW. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004
41.
WeinerB. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
42.
WeissH.AdlerS. (1981). Cognitive complexity and the structure of implicit leadership theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.1.69
43.
YammarinoF.CheongM.KimJ.TsaiC. Y. (2020). Is leadership more than “I like my boss”?Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 38, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-730120200000038003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
