The Relationship Between Follower Affect for President Trump and the Adoption of COVID-19 Personal Protective Behaviors.

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.

An exploration of the role of subordinate affect in leader evaluations.

Leadership research has been encumbered by a proliferation of constructs and measures, despite little evidence that each is sufficiently conceptually and operationally distinct from the others. We draw from research on subordinates' implicit theories of leader behavior, behaviorally anchored rating scales, and decision making to argue that leader affect (i.e., the degree to which subordinates have positive and negative feelings about their supervisors) underlies the common variance shared by many leadership measures. To explore this possibility, we developed and validated measures of positive and negative leader affect (i.e., the Leader Affect Questionnaires; LAQs). We conducted 10 studies to develop the five-item positive and negative LAQs and to examine their convergent, discriminant, predictive, and criterion-related validity. We conclude that a) the LAQs provide highly reliable and valid tools for assessing subordinates' evaluations of their leaders; b) there is significant overlap between existing leadership measures, and a large proportion of this overlap is a function of the affect captured by the LAQs; c) when the LAQs are used as control variables, in most cases, they reduce the strength of relationships between leadership measures and other variables; d) the LAQs account for significant variance in outcomes beyond that explained by other leadership measures; and e) there is a considerable amount of unexplained variance between leadership measures that the LAQs do not capture. Research suggestions are provided and the implications of our results are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overt anger in response to victimization: attributional style and organizational norms as moderators.

Prior theory and research suggests a positive relation between perceived victimization and overt anger. The authors proposed and tested a theoretical extension of this link by investigating possible moderating effects of individual and contextual variables. A sample of 158 employees of a municipality was used to test hypotheses that the relationship between perceived victimization and overt anger is moderated by hostile attributional style and perceptions of organizational norms. The results showed that the relation between perceptions of direct victimization and overt anger was stronger when the employee had a more rather than less hostile attributional style and when the employee perceived the organizational norms as more rather than less oppositional.