FINDING HER VOICE:
HILLARY CLINTON’S RHETORIC IN THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
By
Michelle Bligh, Jennifer Merolla, Jean Reith Schroedel and Randall Gonzalez
“It’s not that voters and her opponents think Clinton is experienced and competent, and they
don’t like or trust her. It’s that they think she’s experienced and competent and that’s why they
don't like or trust her.”
-- Gerber, 2007
After her surprising third place finish in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus,1 the following
week’s New Hampshire primary became an almost must win situation for Hillary Clinton.
Rather than coasting to a series of easy primary wins, polls were showing Clinton in a dead heat
or losing to Obama, with the momentum seemingly swinging toward the young, relatively
inexperienced first term senator from Illinois. On the day before the voting, Clinton entered a
diner in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where a middle-aged woman asked a seemingly innocuous
question: “How did you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is
to get out of the house and get ready?”
Clinton seemed to choke up before saying, “I just don’t want to see us fall backward as a
nation. I mean this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what’s happening. We have
to reverse it.” Her voice cracked and tears appeared to well up in her eyes, as she went on,
“Some people think elections are a game: who’s up or who’s down. It’s about our country. It’s
about our kid’s future. It’s about all of us out there together.” She then moved on to points from
her stump speech before coming back to the personal side with, “This is one of the most
important elections we’ll ever face. So as tired as I am and as difficult as it is to keep up what I
try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise, trying to eat right---it’s tough when the easiest
1
Clinton garnered 29% of the votes in the Iowa caucus as opposed to 38% for Obama and 30% for Edwards.
1
thing is pizza.” In a barely audible voice, Clinton concluded “I just believe…so strongly in who
we are as a nation. I’m going to do everything that I can to make my case and then the voters get
to decide” (Breslau 2008). A couple days later, after her 39-36 point victory over Obama in New
Hampshire, Clinton announced she had “found my own voice” that day in Portsmouth.
The meaning of Clinton’s tears, as well as the electoral significance of finding her
“voice,” almost immediately became a subject of media scrutiny; much of which was hostile. A
Newsweek web headline asked, “A Muskie moment, or a helpful glimpse of the ‘real Hillary’?”
(Breslau 2008).2 Jon Meacham (2008) in another Newsweek piece asked whether Clinton was
trying to “humanize herself?” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd scathingly recounted
that another reporter claimed, “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours
thinking about it beforehand” (Dowd 2008). Washington Post blogger Mary Ann Akers
attributed Clinton’s success in finding her voice to her employing Michael Sheehan, a voice and
drama coach (Akers 2008). Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News asserted, “I don’t buy the
tears…Apparently Hillary Clinton isn’t just running for president, but she’s also making a run
for the best actress nomination.” Later in the broadcast, Beck went on to state, “Hillary, we see
what’s happening here. You’re losing, and this is some sort of bizarre, last ditch strategy to
ingratiate you with women, maybe? Or make you seem less like the Terminator? I mean, I’ve--I wouldn’t put it past you to have your eye fall out and this little red light coming out of your eye
socket” (reprinted in Boehlert and Foser 2008).
As academics rather than media pundits, our questions about Clinton finding her “voice”
are somewhat different than those cited above. We are not particularly concerned with whether
2
The Muskie reference was to an incident in the 1972 presidential campaign when Edward Muskie’s cheek got wet
during an interview where attacks on his wife were raised. Although people still argue about whether the dampness
on Muskie’s cheek was caused by snowflakes or whether the candidate had shed tears, the result of the event is
indisputable. Muskie’s campaign was destroyed and he was labeled as too emotional for the office of president.
2
Clinton’s show of emotion was genuine or not. We are, however, interested in whether there
really was a change in Clinton’s campaign message. In this study, we examine the following
specific research questions: Did Clinton really find her “voice” in Portsmouth, or was that simply
a campaign or media story?3 And if there was an identifiable shift in her message, what exactly
did that entail? Given the unique challenges facing the first female serious contender for the
White House, was the shift in a more stereotypically “masculine” or “feminine” direction? And
finally, did “finding her voice” involve shifts toward a more charismatic, change-oriented style?
The Clinton Campaign as a Critical Case Study
Single case studies are an appropriate methodological choice when the phenomenon
being analyzed is new or previously inaccessible to researchers. The method is ideally suited to
explain the “how” or “why” something occurred (Yin 1989). The Clinton presidential campaign
is just such a case study situation because it provides one of the first opportunities to study a
politically viable female candidate for president negotiating competing demands to project a
presidential image, while at the same time not violating gender norms. We propose to examine
her response to these competing demands by comparing the linguistic choices of Clinton before
and after she “found her voice.” The conventional story line is that Clinton projected “too
strong” of an image prior to Portsmouth, and thereby turned off both male and female voters,
albeit in different ways: the male voters found her to be emasculating prior to Portsmouth, while
women did not feel like she connected with their lives and represented them.
Gender Stereotypes and the Office of the Presidency
3
There is a substantial literature showing that the media covers female candidates differently than male candidates
(Carroll and Schreiber 1997; Kahn 1992; Kahn 1994; Kahn 1996; Kahn and Goldenberg 1991), although more
recent research indicates that the gender differences have been declining (Bystrom, Robertson and Banwart 2001;
Jalalzai 2006). Countering this, however, is research suggesting that the gender bias in media coverage is greatest
with presidential candidates (Aday and Devitt 2001; Bystrom 2006; Heldman, Carroll and Olson 2005).
3
There is a substantial literature on the influence of gender stereotypes on voters’
perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of male and female candidates. These stereotypes
fall into two general classes: belief- and trait-based.4 With respect to belief stereotypes, women
are generally seen as more liberal than they actually are (e.g., Koch, 2000, 2002; Matland and
King, 2002; McDermott, 1997, 1998, but see Hayes, 2007), and as better able to handle issues
involving women, education, civil rights, and poverty, but as less able to handle traditionally
male duties such as the military, foreign policy, and crime (e.g., Burrell, 1994; Huddy and
Terkildsen, 1993a, 1993b; Lawless, 2004; Matland, 1994).5 When issues that advantage women
have a high degree of salience to voters, the gender stereotype can favor female candidates
(Dolan 1998; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; Kahn 1996; Paolino 1995; Plutzer and Zipp 1996),
but the opposite can also be true. With respect to trait stereotypes, women are generally seen as
more compassionate, trustworthy, willing to compromise, and more empathetic, while men are
viewed as stronger leaders, and more assertive, active, and self-confident (e.g., Burrell, 1994;
Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993a, 1993b; Matland and King, 2002). It is commonly held that these
stereotypes make it more difficult for women to gain political office, especially at higher levels
(Fox and Oxley, 2003; Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993b).
Research on leadership, primarily from social psychology, provides insights into the
interaction between socio-demographic factors and trait based stereotypes. There is a large
literature exploring how linguistic styles and choices of words can be used to convey messages
about an individual’s leadership style (e.g., Inch, Moore and Murphy 1997). Social
4
Belief stereotypes refer to the ideology and policy preferences that individuals ascribe to males
and females, while trait stereotypes refer to the personal qualities and characteristics that people
infer about men and women (Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993a).
5
Male duties are also generally perceived as more important than female duties, and this is more
pronounced at higher levels of office (Rosenwasser and Dean, 1989; Rosenwasser and Seale,
1988).
4
psychologists also have found that judgments about individual leaders are based in part upon
evaluations of their perceived warmth and competence (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy and Glick 1999; Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick and Xu 2002; Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt and Kashima 2005). But these
judgments do not occur in a vacuum; instead they are heavily influenced by socio-demographic
factors, most notably biological sex (see Cutler 2002). For example, competence in male leaders
is viewed as a positive trait, but competent women are often seen as cold, resulting in negative
evaluations (Fiske et al. 2002). Moreover, other studies (Hogg 2005a; Hogg 2005b) have found
that the desire for a prototypical male leader is strongest during times of uncertainty and stress.6
Overall, the research suggests several important points about Hillary finding her “voice”
in New Hampshire. First, all of the research indicates that the office of the president is
intertwined with notions of masculinity, and this is likely to pose significant problems for any
female presidential candidate. Second, findings in social psychology suggest that it is difficult
for females in leadership positions to garner positive evaluations on the two dimensions (warmth
and competence) identified as being essential to effective leaders. A linguistic style and choice
of words that conveys strength and competence in a male leader may result in a female leader
being labeled as “cold,” but a more caring/maternal style may signal the female leader lacks the
strength necessary to handle crises.
Charismatic Leadership in the Context of the 2008 Election
While there were clearly a multitude of salient leadership themes in the 2008 election,
and candidates evoke many different styles of leadership to appeal to voters, charismatic
leadership has been shown to be a particularly appealing, powerful style that resonates strongly
6
Political scientist, Jennifer Lawless, also found that one year after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that
respondents to a national public opinion survey had a strong preference for male leaders in times of crisis. Sixty-one
percent favored male leaders during a military crisis and on questions dealing with terrorism and the Middle East,
the proportion that viewed men as more competent leaders ranged from 30-40%.
5
with followers (Bass 1990; Bligh, Kohles and Pillai 2005; Bryman 1992; Fiol, Harris and House
1999; House, Woycke and Fodor 1988; Merolla, Ramos and Zechmeister 2007). Evaluations of a
candidate as more or less charismatic influences perceptions of leader effectiveness (see Bligh et
al. 2005), and are likely to have significant influence in the voting booth. In addition, given the
unique context and circumstances leading up to the recent election, a more charismatic
leadership style may have been particularly appealing to voters in 2008. According to Shamir
and Howell (1999), aspects of charismatic, change-oriented leadership are particularly attractive
in the following situations: 1) levels of low performance lead to the desire for new leadership; 2)
the potential for a new leader to replace a somewhat non-charismatic leader; and 3) a relatively
“weak” situation (Mischel, 1977) characterized by ambiguity or crisis (see also Bligh, Kohles
and Meindl, 2004a; Madsen and Snow 1991; Merolla, Ramos and Zechmeister 2007).
By the time of the 2008 election, George W. Bush’s approval ratings had “dipped to 20%,
the lowest ever recorded for a president” (CBS News Poll, 2008). As Shamir and House (1999,
273) point out, when opportunities exist for a new leader to be elected or appointed, expectations
for change among followers are likely to increase, as the new leader represents “opportunities to
re-frame and change existing interpretations, suggest new solutions to existing problems, and
infuse a new spirit.” Therefore, we argue that the 2008 election had characteristics likely to
enhance the appeal of more charismatic, change-oriented styles of leadership.
Perhaps even more relevant for our purposes, charismatic leadership uniquely straddles or
transcends the double-bind of gender stereotypes. In essence, prototypical charismatic leaders
appeal to followers on both stereotypically masculine (e.g., agentic, dominant, determined) and
stereotypically feminine (e.g., emotional, caring, empathetic, other-oriented) levels. In our
analyses, we explore the extent to which Clinton’s speech before and after Portsmouth represents
6
a shift toward more stereotypically feminine aspects of charismatic leadership (i.e., empathetic
similarity to followers, less tangible and more ambiguous speech) versus more stereotypically
masculine aspects (i.e., active, aggressive speech).
The Rhetoric of ‘Charisma’
Charismatic leadership was originally described by Max Weber as a somewhat ‘magical’
process involving a leader with “exceptional powers or qualities” (Weber 1946, 358). Previous
research has attempted to ‘demystify’ charismatic leadership style, focusing on the role of a
leader’s visionary rhetoric in understanding charismatic leadership (e.g., Emrich, Brower,
Feldman and Garland 2001; Seyranian and Bligh 2008). Shamir et al. (1993) highlight the role of
communication in their self-concept based theory, which argues that the effects of charismatic
leadership are largely due to a leader’s ability to increase the appeal of collective goals by clearly
linking core aspects of the leader’s vision to core aspects of followers’ self-concepts.
While previous research has examined the content of visionary and change-oriented
rhetoric in political contexts (e.g., Bligh and Robinson, 2009), this research has not considered
the role of gender stereotypes in the usage of visionary rhetoric. In the present study, we examine
whether or not the content of Hillary Clinton’s speech changed along these dimensions as she
found her “voice” in the presidential campaign. We examined eight constructs regarding the
content of leadership rhetoric that have been theoretically (see Shamir et al. 2004) and
empirically (see Bligh et al. 2004a) linked to engaging the collective identity of followers and
enhancing charismatic attributions. Three of the constructs are more stereotypically communal or
‘feminine’: collective orientation, followers’ worth, and similarity to followers, two are more
stereotypically agentic or ‘masculine’: action and adversity, and three are relatively gender
neutral: values or moral justifications, temporal orientation, and tangibility. A description of the
7
eight constructs follows. In addition, the dictionaries used to create each construct, along with a
brief description and sample words from each is located in a web appendix.
Stereotypically Feminine Aspects of Charisma
According to Thomas (1997, 12), “because women have traditionally been associated
with nurturant, less individualistic values, some people assume that they will transform the
political arena along ‘kinder, gentler’ lines.” In order to examine the extent to which Clinton’s
rhetoric mirrored these gender stereotypes before and after Portsmouth, we examined levels of
collective focus, support for followers, and similarity to followers in her speeches.
Collective focus. To build consensus and trust, prior research suggests that inclusive
language affirms and highlights followers’ social identity (Tajfel 1974; see also Hogg, Hains and
Mason 1998; Shamir et al. 1993). People are more likely to be persuaded (Cialdini and Trost
1998) and to trust (Fiske 1998) similar others. Construing him or herself as a member of the
audience’s in-group enhances a leader’s ability to influence others (Reicher and Hopkins, 1996),
which can partially be accomplished by using high levels of collective language (e.g. “we”, “us”,
“our” (Fiol et al. 1999). Prior research also suggests that a collective, inclusive style of
leadership is associated with increasing numbers of women in the legislature, who invoke a more
integrative, collaborative, and consensual style than their male counterparts (Dodson and Carroll
2001; Kathlene 1994; Rosenthal 1998; Thomas 1997). To examine this construct in Clinton’s
speeches, we computed a variable that consisted of the speaker’s additive score on collectives
and public references, minus the speech’s score on self-reference.
Follower’s worth. Charismatic and transformational leaders have been argued to
demonstrate confidence in their followers and enhance their collective efficacy (House et al.,
1991; Shamir et al., 1994) in order to bolster confidence in followers’ abilities to achieve a better
8
future under the new leader. Praising followers is one means for leaders to both flatter and
ingratiate themselves to voters. We therefore examined a construct including the praise
dictionary, consisting of positive affirmations of a person, group, or abstract entity, and the
satisfaction dictionary, which incorporates terms associated with positive affective states and
moments of joy and triumph.
Similarity to followers. By stressing similarity with the American public, a political
leader may gain followers’ trust and emphasize his or her status as members of the in-group
(Bligh et al. 2004a; Fiol et al. 1999; Shamir et al. 1994). Stressing one’s similarity to her
followers may also help women leaders in particular to mitigate the potential backlash effect or
social rejection of challenging traditional gender roles (Rudman 1998). To explore this aspect of
speech, we constructed a variable that included the following three components: leveling,
familiarity, and human interest. These dictionaries include language used to ignore individual
differences and build a sense of completeness, words that specifically focus on human beings
and their activities, and everyday words that reflect a speaker’s desire to speak on a more
common and accessible level.
Stereotypically Masculine Aspects of Charisma
We also examined two aspects of political rhetoric more traditionally associated with
agentic leadership: action and adversity.
Action. A bold, purposeful vision and a sense of confidence in attaining that vision are
considered important elements of charismatic leadership (Conger 1991). A number of studies
have highlighted the role of proactivity (Deluga 1998) and strong action (Maranell and Dodder
1970) in predicting presidential success. Prior research suggests that successful political
candidates must mobilize followers into action (Fiol et al. 1999; Shamir et al. 1993) and create a
9
sense of excitement and adventure (Bass 1990) around their campaigns.
Additional research has highlighted the importance of masculine characteristics (e.g.,
analytic skills, agency) in communicating suitability for political office, suggesting “it may
behoove women to develop attributes traditionally considered ‘masculine’” (Rosenwasser and
Dean 1989, 83). Women in political leadership roles tend to exhibit more stereotypically
masculine characteristics, such as high self-confidence, dominance, and high levels of
achievement (Constantini and Craik 1972). To assess this construct, we added the aggression and
accomplishment dictionaries, and then subtracted the passivity and ambivalent dictionaries.
These dictionaries reflect a candidate’s additive use of words reflecting competition, action, and
triumph, minus his or her use of words reflecting hesitation and uncertainty.
Adversity. Agentic and decisive leadership is also associated with a leader’s ability to
articulate why action is necessary and in some cases inevitable. To assess this variable, we
created an index reflecting a speaker’s references to discontent, hardship, and language designed
to “describe or exaggerate the current situation as intolerable” (Conger 1991, p. 36). Prior
research highlights the ability of a change-oriented leader to articulate how dangerous the enemy
is or how unnecessary the suffering is in order to challenge the status quo and motivate
followers. In this manner, the leader attempts to generate support for his or her candidacy and
vision to overcome adversity (Fiol et al. 1999). Thus, this construct includes language reflecting
social inappropriateness, evil, unfortunate circumstances, and censurable behavior.
Gender Neutral Aspects of Charisma
Values and moral justifications. Shamir et al. (1994) also theorized that change-oriented
leaders make more references to values and moral justifications. According to Awamleh and
Gardner (1999, 359), leaders can enhance followers’ perceptions “by using symbolic language
10
that challenges and appeals to followers’ higher level values.” Including dictionaries for religious
terms and inspiration, we were able to identify speech that focuses on the morality of the leader’s
cause and draws on themes of values and morality in an attempt to incite followers to identify
with moral integrity of the leader’s vision of the future.
Temporal orientation. Shamir et al. (1994) also suggest that charismatic leaders will
make repeated references to the continuity between past and present, in an attempt to highlight
their role in spearheading the short and long-term changes that they hope to implement.
However, in the context of a presidential election in which Clinton was attempting to signal a
break with both the Bush administration and the former controversial presidency of her husband,
we might expect to find lower levels of past and present-oriented speech as Clinton developed
her own voice and vision for her presidency. To examine this aspect of rhetoric, we constructed
an additive index based on Clinton’s references to both present and past in the same speech.
Tangibility. Finally, a number of scholars have suggested that charismatic and
transformational leaders will make more references to intangible future goals and fewer
references to concrete, tangible outcomes (Shamir et al. 1994; Willner 1984; Conger 1991). To
test this notion, we examined the concreteness score, including language focused on tangibility
and materiality, minus the amount of variety in a given speech. Lower variety represents a
speaker’s preference for precise speech as opposed to flowery or grandiose speech.
Methodology
Sample
Our primary data set is comprised of the 87 speeches and interviews that Hillary Clinton
gave during the course of her primary presidential campaign (dating from February 7, 2007 to
the Democratic National Convention in August, 2008). The data set is almost evenly divided,
11
with 41 of the speeches and interviews given prior to the January 7th visit to the Portsmouth diner
and 46 from January 7th onwards, so we have a relatively balanced representation of her before
and after she found her “voice.”
Strengths and Limitations of Content Analysis
As a methodology, content analysis provides insights into the word choices employed by
candidates themselves in context, making it a valuable tool for research into how candidates use
language to appeal to broad groups of voters. One of the primary rationales for using
computerized content analysis is to probe a text on a deeper and subtler level than the ordinary
person can. This approach assumes that the specific choice of words that a candidate uses can be
particularly illustrative of the leadership themes that he or she hopes to convey and the issues
that he or she wishes to highlight. Linguistic styles provide insights into a candidate’s approach
to issues and leadership style. And given the highly visible and politicized nature of presidential
campaigns, computerized content analysis has the additional advantage of providing an impartial
analysis, devoid of partisan and ideological bias (Bligh et al. 2004b; Schuh and Miller 2006).
There are, however, some additional benefits and limitations inherent when using this
approach. Content analysis is perfectly objective and reliable, avoiding the inherent bias “which
so often results when something as volatile and emotional as politics is examined by something
as volatile and emotional as a human being” (Hart, 1984, 101). In addition, due to its
microscopic level of detail, the program is ideal for uncovering aspects of language that even the
trained human ear may not readily perceive (see Bligh et al. 2004b). Important limitations should
be noted as well. First, there is the assumption that higher frequency usages of a word mean that
a concept is more meaningful or important to the speaker than less frequently utilized words.
12
Second, it is important to note that words are divorced from their original contexts (for a more
thorough discussion of the content analysis limitations, see Bligh et al. 2004b, Hart 2000).
Procedure
We chose Diction 5.0 (Hart 2000) for our analyses, a content analysis program
specifically designed for political discourse. Diction has been used to study semantics in a
variety of social discourse arenas such as politics and communication (Bligh et al. 2004a; Hart
2000; 2001). Because we wanted the measure of Clinton’s speeches to be as impartial as
possible, Diction was an appropriate choice due to its explicit development for political discourse
and grounding in linguistic theory (see Hart 1984, 2000, 2001 for discussion of the development
of Diction). To our knowledge, Diction is the only program that has been specifically designed
for political dialogue, containing words “most frequently encountered in contemporary American
public discourse” (Hart 1984, 110). By default, Diction uses 33 dictionaries, containing over
10,000 search words, to analyze a passage. All of the dictionaries contain individual words only,
and statistical weighting procedures are utilized to deal with homographs. In addition, Diction
scores each 500-word passage of text, allowing easy comparison across passages and candidates.
Results
The overall means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for each of the constructs
are listed in Table 1. Before analysis, the variables were scanned for accuracy and examined for
outliers. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was then conducted to
examine whether there were significant differences in Clinton’s speech before and after January
7th. The dependent variables included the eight pre-defined constructs, and the occurrence of the
speech segment (pre- or post) was the independent factor. Overall, there were significant
differences pre- and post-January 7th, 2008, Wilks’ Λ = .91, F (8, 622) = 7.40, p < .001, η2 = .09.
13
Thus, we can reject the assertion that the content of Clinton’s speech was the same before and
after the New Hampshire primary.
Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted on each of the dependent
variables as follow-up tests to the significant MANOVA. An overview of the mean differences
on each of the constructs, along with the means and standard errors, univariate F tests, partial eta
squared, and observed power is provided in Table 2. Turning first to the stereotypically feminine
constructs, the univariate ANOVA was significant for all three. With respect to two of the
constructs, follower’s worth and similarity to followers, Clinton had significantly higher values
on these dimensions after the New Hampshire primary, while she scored significantly lower on
collective focus after the primary.
To put these results into perspective, we provide some illustrative examples from her
speeches on the stump pre and post the New Hampshire primary. On the dimension of
follower’s worth, Clinton used more language praising followers after the New Hampshire
primary. For example, pre-New Hampshire, Clinton remarked:
“You know as I look around this room which is packed with people whom I admire so
much, I see a lot of old friends, and it’s been an honor to stand with you. We’ve stood
together in good times and bad times. We’ve stood together when it seemed as though the
darkness would never end and when we finally saw the light. So it is just a personal
honor of the highest degree to be here today (March 14, 2007, Washington, D.C.).”
We see even more praise of followers post New Hampshire:
“I started my morning at the William J. Donovan Company where I got to visit with sheet
metal workers at a company that's been in business for 95 years, understands the
importance of having trained workers, starting people off as apprentices moving towards
becoming journeymen. Once again, I was reminded that American workers are the
hardest working, most productive workers in the world (April 1, 2008, Harrisburg, PA).”
Similarity to followers had the highest mean number of references of all of the
stereotypically feminine components of charisma. Clinton used language that was more
14
common and accessible and that focused on human interest after the New Hampshire primary.
For example, before the primary, she remarked at an event:
“Now, I’ll be all over the state today and tomorrow, and then I think we’re all going to
give you a break for Thanksgiving. Don’t you think that’s a good idea? So everybody can
gather with friends and family. That’s what I’ll be doing; going back home and working
with my daughter to create Thanksgiving dinner, something that we like to do every year
(November 17, 2007, Knoxville, IA).”
The language shifted post New Hampshire in line with the passage below delivered after the
West Virginia Primary:
“For me, this election isn't about who's in or who's out or who's up or who's down. It's
about the common threads that tie us together – rich and poor, young and old, black and
white, Latino and Asian, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. We are united by
common values. We all want a better world for our children, and we want the best for our
country. And we are committed to putting a Democrat back in the White House (May 13,
2008, remarks following WV Primary).”
In the latter stages of the campaign, Clinton became less focused on the collective, using
significantly more self-references (i.e., I, my, myself) than collective oriented language (e.g., we,
us, our). For example, on the stump in December in Iowa, Clinton remarked:
“Who knows what we will invent if we get serious about energy and global warming.
Let’s unleash the innovative genius of America again. There isn’t anything we can’t do if
we put our minds to it (December 17, 2007, Johnston, Iowa).”
In contrast, we see a shift to more self references after the New Hampshire primary:
“I have been to Africa and have seen how disease —HIV, AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria
— undermine progress across an entire continent. I pushed our government to start
battling the global AIDS epidemic because this affects our security too. I’m very hopeful
that we will make progress in Africa dealing with the multiplicity of challenges that the
continent faces (February 25, 2008, Washington, D.C.).”
Overall then, it appears that the picture is a bit more nuanced than the story promoted by the
media. Clinton did adopt more language reflective of two of the “feminine” aspects of charisma,
but was lower on the collective focus dimension.
If we turn to the stereotypically male constructs related to charisma, we find that
15
Clinton’s language became significantly less action oriented post New Hampshire, but did not
significantly change on the dimension of adversity. Thus, she became less inclined to use
language reflecting energy and goal oriented action and more inclined to use language reflecting
hesitancy and uncertainty. A fighting spirit was apparent pre New Hampshire. On the stump in
Iowa, Clinton remarked:
“Fortunately, I have a little experience standing up and fighting for what I believe is right
and what I think America needs and how we can get there together. I have spent 35 years
making a difference and fighting for what I believe matters to people (November 10,
2007, Des Moines, Iowa).”
We see a shift post-Iowa:
“Many times the national press and the pundits have said: "Butte's a goner." But you said:
"No, we aren't." And your progress today proves you were right. I'm awfully happy to be
among people who have the spunk, the courage, and the determination to stay in the fight,
to keep fighting for a better tomorrow, to know that we're going to bring that same spirit
to this campaign (April 4, 2008, Butte, Montana).”
The findings for the male constructs seem more in line with the pundit claims that Clinton
“softened” her image post-New Hampshire, if by soften we mean used less masculine language.
Finally, on the gender neutral constructs, there was only a significant difference in her speeches
pre and post New Hampshire on the tangibility construct: she was less inclined to use language
reflecting concrete concepts and more inclined to use abstract language.
A Rhetorical Comparison: Clinton and the Opposing Candidates
We collected a comparative sample of the primary male contenders in the 2008
presidential election, from January 2007 until the respective party conventions in August and
September, 2008. Our final sample included Republicans John McCain (162 speeches) and Mitt
Romney (25 speeches), as well as Democrat Barack Obama (207 speeches). Republican Mike
Huckabee was excluded from analysis due to the small number of speeches collected (n = 10).
To examine how Clinton’s speeches compared to her male opponents, we performed a
16
univariate ANOVA, with candidate as the independent variable and the eight constructs as the
dependent variables. We found significant differences for all of the variables, with the exception
of tangibility, suggesting that the political candidates’ speeches differed significantly on seven of
the eight variables (see Table 3). We subsequently conduct post-hoc follow-ups to the significant
ANOVAs, utilizing the Bonferroni correction procedure. Mean differences from Clinton for each
of the other candidates are listed by variable in Table 3.
With respect to the stereotypically feminine aspects of charisma, Clinton’s speeches
included significantly less language focused on the collective relative to Obama, with a similar
frequency of references as compared to the Republican primary candidates. However, her
speeches included significantly more positive affirmation of followers relative to Obama and
more language indicating similarity to followers relative to McCain. Further, her language
praising followers was significantly lower than Romney’s. It seems then that there is a mixed
bag with respect to the feminine aspects of charisma across the candidates: Clinton is lower than
some of the candidates on two of the dimensions and higher than McCain on one of the
dimensions. Overall, she is not significantly more likely to use the stereotypically feminine
language than the opposing male candidates.
With respect to the stereotypically masculine constructs of charisma, we find that Clinton
is significantly lower on action oriented language relative to McCain and on adversity language
relative to Obama and McCain. The picture that emerges for this construct is thus more
consistent, with Clinton being less inclined to use the more agentic language than some of her
male counterparts. Finally, on the gender neutral constructs, Clinton had a higher use of
temporal language relative to the two Republican candidates, and a lower use of language
reflecting morality and values than all three male candidates.
17
Discussion and Conclusion
That Clinton was considered not only a serious contender, but the front runner in the
2008 Democratic primary is a sign that bias against female candidates may be waning.
However, it certainly does not mean that gender stereotypes have disappeared from the American
political landscape. The whole media frenzy over Clinton getting choked up in New Hampshire
prior to its primary election is a testament to this statement. It is likely that trait and belief based
gender stereotypes about candidates will persist for some time.
In this paper we sought to explore whether or not the pundits’ claims that Clinton found
her “voice” held any weight or whether it was just plain media hype. The perception among the
media was that she became less “masculine” and showed her “feminine” side after New
Hampshire. To systematically examine these claims, we analyzed Clinton’s campaign rhetoric
before and after that event. We conceived of voice as the particular leadership style expressed in
Clinton’s speeches. More specifically, we assessed the degree to which her language reflected
the eight component parts of charismatic language. Although studies of trait based stereotypes
stop at the finding that men are advantaged on the dimension of strong leadership, charismatic
leadership is multidimensional and the constructs associated with it have some components that
reflect stereotypically masculine traits, but others that reflect feminine ones.
We did find some element of truth to the media claims. Although we cannot assess if
Clinton found her “voice”, we did observe a statistically significant difference in her speeches
across five of the eight constructs that make up charismatic language before and after the event.
Clinton became less inclined to use the masculine language surrounding action and more likely
to use two of the feminine constructs after New Hampshire. She was more likely to use language
related to similarity with followers, but less likely to use the construct associated with a
18
collective sense of mission.
As a point of comparison, we also compared her speeches relative to Obama and two of
the Republican primary contenders. Here we found Clinton was significantly less inclined to use
masculine constructs of action and adversity relative to her male counterparts, but she was not
necessarily more likely to use feminine constructs. She was higher than Obama on followers’
worth, but lower than Romney, and higher on similarity to followers than McCain. However,
she was lower than all three on a collective sense of mission.
Overall, we note that for all of the importance that the media places on leadership style,
we have very little systematic analysis of the concept, its use and its effects in political science
research. In addition, we have little data on the role of competing gender and leadership
stereotypes in the candidacies of women at the highest levels of political office. Our goal was to
systematically analyze Hillary’s “voice” in the 2008 campaign, and highlight different aspects of
leadership style that candidates may utilize to signal their potential viability and likelihood of
success in political campaigns. We hope that future research will continue to explore the
interaction of leadership rhetoric, media coverage, and gender stereotypes in both helping and
hindering the ascension of women into the oval office.
References
Aday, Sean and James Devitt. 2001. “Style over Substance: Newspaper Coverage of Elizabeth
Dole’s Presidential Bid.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6 (2); 61-73.
Akers, Mary Ann. 2008. “The Sleuth: A Clue to How Hillary Clinton Found Her Voice.” The
Washington Post. 4 February.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/02/a_clue_to_how_hillary_clinto.html.
Accessed 3/12/2009.
19
Awamleh, Raed, and William L. Gardner. 1999. “Perceptions of Leader Charisma and
Effectiveness: The Effects of Vision Content, Delivery, and Organizational
Performance.” The Leadership Quarterly 10(3): 345-373.
Bass, Bernard. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bligh, Michelle C., Jeffrey C. Kohles, and James R. Meindl. 2004a. “Charisma Under Crisis:
Presidential Leadership, Rhetoric, and Media Responses Before and After September 11th
Terrorist Attacks.” Leadership Quarterly 15 (2): 211-239.
Bligh, Michelle C., Jeffrey C. Kohles, and James R. Meindl. 2004b. “Charting the Language of
Leadership: A Methodological Investigation of President Bush and the Crisis of 9/11.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 89(3): 562-574.
Bligh, Michelle C., Jeffrey C. Kohles, and Rajnandini Pillai. 2005. “Crisis and Charisma in the
California Recall Election.” Leadership 1(3): 323-352.
Bligh, Michelle C. and Jill L. Robinson. 2009. “Was Gandhi “Charismatic”? Exploring the
Rhetorical Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.” The Leadership Quarterly.
Boehlert, Eric and Jamison Foser. 2008. “Media Figures Claimed Clinton’s Emotional Moment
in NH was ‘Pretend,’ not ‘Genuine.’” Media Matters for America. 9 January.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801090005. Accessed 3/12/2009.
Breslau, Karen. 2008. “Hillary Tears Up: A Muskie Moment or a Helpful Glimpse of ‘the Real
Hillary.’” Newsweek. 7 January. Http://www.newsweek.com/id/85609/output/print.
Accessed 3/12/2009.
Bryman, Alan. 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: Sage.
20
Bystrom, Diane G. 2006. “Advertising, Web Sites, and Media Coverage: Gender and
Communication Along the Campaign Trail.” In Gender and Elections, ed., Susan J.
Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bystrom, Diane G., Terry Robertson and Mary Christine Banwart. 2001. “Framing the Fight:
An Analysis of Media Coverage of Female and Male Candidates in Primary Races for
Governor and Senate in 2000.” American Behavioral Scientist 44 (12): 1999-2013.
Carroll, Susan J. and Ronnee Schreiber. 1997. “Media Coverage of Women in the 103rd
Congress.” In Women, Media and Congress, ed., Pippa Norris. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
CBS News Poll. 2008. “Poll: McCain Gains, But Obama Well Ahead.” CBS, November 3.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/03/opinion/polls/main4566821.shtml.
Accessed 4/3/09.
Cialdini, Robert B. and Trost, Melanie R. 1998. “Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity
and Compliance.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, eds. Daniel
Gilbert, Susan Fiske, and Gardner Lindsey. New York: Oxford Press.
Conger, Jay A. 1991. Inspiring Others: The Language of Leadership. Academy of Management
Executive 5: 31-45.
Constantini, Edmond, and Kenneth H. Craik. (1972) “Women as Politicians: The Social
Background, Personality, and Political Careers of Female Party Leaders.” Journal of
Social Issues 28: 217-236.
Cutler, Frederick. 2002. “The Simplest Short-cut of All: Voter-Candidate Socio-demographic
Similarity and Electoral Choice.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 466-490.
21
Deluga, Ronald J. 1998. “American Presidential Proactivity, Charismatic Leadership, and Rated
Performance.” The Leadership Quarterly 9(3): 265-291.
Dodson, Deborah L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State
Legislatures. Rutgers, NJ: The State University of New Jersey.
Dolan, Kathleen. 1998. “Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman.’” American Journal of
Political Science 42 (2): 272-293.
Dowd, Maureen. 2008. “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” The New York
Times. 9 January.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=l&pagewanted=print.
Accessed 3/12/09.
Emrich, Cynthia, Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., and Garland, H. 2001. “Images in Words:
Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 46:
527-557.
Fiol, C. Marlena, Deanne Harris, and Robert House. 1999. “Charismatic Leadership: Strategies
for Effecting Social Change.” The Leadership Quarterly 10(3): 449- 482.
Fiske, Susan T. 1998. “Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination.” In The Handbook of Social
Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, eds. Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiske, and Gardner Lindsey. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, Susan T., Jun Xu, Amy J.C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 1999. “(Dis)respecting Versus
(Dis)liking: Status and Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes of Competence
and Warmth.” Journal of Social Issues 55 (3): 473-491.
22
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J.C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed)
Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived
Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 878-902.
Fridkin, Kim L. and Gina Serignese Woodall. 2005. “Different Portraits, Different Leaders?
Gender Differences in U.S. Senators’ Presentation of Self.” In Women and Elective
Office: Past, Present and Future, 2nd edition. Eds., Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, Roderick P. 1984. Verbal Style and the Presidency: A Computer-Based Analysis. Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Hart, Roderick P. 2000. DICTION 5.0: The Text-Analysis Program. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Scolari/Sage Publications.
Hart, Roderick P. 2001. “Redeveloping DICTION: Theoretical Considerations.” In M. West
(ed.), Theory, Method, and Practice of Computer Content Analysis (pp. 26-55). New
York: Ablex.
Heldman, Caroline. 2007. “Cultural Barriers to a Female President in the United States.” In
Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House, eds. Lori
Cox Han and Caroline Heldman. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
Heldman, Caroline, Sue Carroll and Stephanie Olson. 2005. “She Brought Only a Skirt: Print
Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Bid for the Presidential Nomination.” Political
Communication, July-September.
Hogg, Michael A. 2005a. “Organizational Orthodoxy and Corporate Autocrats: Some Nasty
Consequences of Organizational Identification in Uncertain Times.” In Identity and the
23
Modern Organization, eds., Caroline A. Bartel, Steven Blader, and Amy Wrzesniewski.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Hogg, Michael A. 2005b. “Uncertainty, Social Identity and Ideology.” In Advances in Group
Processes, Vol. 22. San Diego: Elsevier.
Hogg, Michael A., Hains, Sarah C., and Mason, I. 1998. “Identification and Leadership in Small
Groups: Salience, Frame of Reference, and Leader Stereotypicality Effects on Leader
Evaluations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 1248-1263.
House, Robert J., James Woycke, and Eugene M. Fodor. 1988. “Charismatic and
Noncharismatic Leaders: Differences in Behavior and Effectiveness.” In Charismatic
Leadership, eds, Jay Conger and Robert Kanungo. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Huddy, Leonie and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perceptions of Male
and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119-147.
Inch, Gary S., Jo Ellen Moore and Lisa D. Murphy. 1997. “Content Analysis in Leadership
Research: Examples, Procedures and Suggestions for Future Use.” The Leadership
Quarterly 8 (1): 1-25.
Jalazai, Farida. 2006. “Women Candidates and the Media: 1992-2000 Elections.” Politics &
Policy 34 (3): 606-633.
Judd, Charles M., Laurie James-Hawkins, Vincent Yzerbyt, and Yoshihisa Kashima. 2005.
“Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding Relations between
Judgments of Competence and Warmth.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
89 (6): 899-913.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1992. “Does Being Male Help: An Investigation of Gender and Media
Effects in U.S. Senate Races.” Journal of Politics 54 (2): 497-517.
24
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1994. “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of
Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of
Political Science 38 (1): 162-195.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin and Edie Goldenberg. 1991. “Women Candidates in the News: An
Examination of Gender Differences in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 55 (2): 180-199.
Kathlene, Lyn 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of
Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review
88: 560-76.
Lawless, Jennifer. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the
Post September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 479-490.
Madsen, Deborah, & Snow, Peter G. 1991. The Charismatic Bond: Political Behavior in Time of
Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Maranell, Gary M. and Richard Dodder. 1970. “The Evaluation of Presidents: An Extension of
the Schlesinger Polls.” Journal of American History 57: 104-113.
McDonald, Forrest. 1994. The American Presidency: An Intellectual History. Lawrence, KS:
University of Kansas Press.
Meacham, Jon. 2008. “Letting Hillary Be Hillary.” Newsweek. 21 January.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/9175/output/print. Accessed 3/12/2009.
25
Mischel, Walter. 1977. “The Interaction of Person and Situation.” In David Magnusson &
Norman S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional
Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paolinio, Philip. 1995. “Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women
Candidates in the 1992 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 294-313.
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.”
American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825-850.
Plutzer, Eric and John Zipp. 1996. “Identity Politics, Partisanship, and Voting for Women
Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (Spring): 30-57.
Reicher, Stephen D., and Nicholas Hopkins. 1996. “Self-Category Constructions in Political
Rhetoric: An Analysis of Thatcher’s and Kinnock’s Speeches Concerning the British
Miners’ Strike (1984-85).” European Journal of Social Psychology 26: 353-372.
Rosenthal, Cindy S. 1998. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenwasser, Sshirley M. and Norma G. Dean. 1989. “Gender Role and Political Office.”
Psychology of Women Quarterly 13: 77-85.
Rudman, Laurie A. 1998. “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women: The Costs and Benefits
of Counterstereotypical Impression Management.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74(3): 629-645.
Schuh, Anna Marie and Geralyn M. Miller. 2006. “Maybe Wilson was Right: Espoused Values
and their Relationship to Enacted Values.” International Journal of Public
Administration 29: 719-741.
26
Seyranian, Viviane and Michelle C. Bligh. 2008. Presidential Charismatic Leadership: Exploring
the Rhetoric of Social Change. The Leadership Quarterly 19(1): 54-76.
Shamir, Boas, Michael B. Arthur, and Robert House. 1994. “The Rhetoric of Charismatic
Leadership: A Theoretical Extension, a Case Study, and Implications for Research.” The
Leadership Quarterly 5(1): 25-42.
Shamir, Boas, Robert House, and Michael B.Arthur. 1993. “The Motivational Effects of
Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory.” Organization Science 4: 577594.
Shamir, Boas and Jane M. Howell. 1999. “Organizational and Contextual Influences on the
Emergence and Effectiveness of Charismatic Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly
10(2): 257-283.
Tajfel, Henry. 1974. “Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior.” Social Science Information 13:
65-93.
Thomas, Susan. 1997. “Why Gender Matters: The Perceptions of Women Officeholders.”
Women and Politics 17(1): 27-53.
Willner, Ann R. 1984. The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Revised edition. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
27
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Hillary Clinton
Variables
1
2
1
2
3
4
.51
10.95
2. Temporal Orientation
36.31
8.03
-.11**
3. Followers’ Worth
11.75
5.42
-.06
.18**
169.44
16.35
.03
.14**
6.38
4.69
.08*
-.03
.21**
.14*
69.08
29.74
.32**
-.09*
-.13**
-.38**
3.49
10.62
.28**
-.01
12.26
5.61
.14**
-.07
1. Collective focus
4. Similarity to Followers
5. Values/Moral Just.
6. Tangibility
7. Action
8. Adversity
5
6
7
.12**
.03
-.17**
-.14**
-.15**
.05
.23**
-.10*
.07
.02
-.02
Note. N = 631. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Table 2
Mean Comparisons for Clinton Constructs Pre- and Post-“Voice”
Charismatic Construct
Collective Focus
Pre-2/7
Mean
SE
Post-2/7
Mean
SE
Univariate
Eta
Observed
F (1, 630) Squared Power
2.35
.67
-2.24
.87
27.95***
.04
1.00
Temporal Orientation
37.15
.65
35.05
.50
.45
.01
.90
Followers' Worth
11.30
.44
12.40
.34
6.38**
.00
.71
167.73
1.32
172.00
1.02
10.53***
.02
.90
6.30
.38
6.49
.30
.24
.00
.08
72.25
2.40
64.36
1.86
10.82***
.03
.91
4.51
.86
1.96
.66
8.84**
.01
.84
12.38
.46
12.08
.35
.45
.00
.10
Similarity to Followers
Values/Moral Just.
Tangibility
Action
Adversity
Note. Pre-2/7/08 n = 378, Post-2/7/08 n = 253. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 .
28
8
Table 3
Mean Comparisons between Clinton and Her Opponents
Construct
Collective Focus
Clinton
Mean
SE
Obama
Mean
SE
McCain
Mean
SE
Romney
Mean
SE
F (3,2240)
3.22
1.21
2.97*
1.09
158.42***
.55
63.23***
1.60
19.99***
.74
22.72***
.51
.66
1.95*
.60
1.86
1.05
Temporal Orientation
36.31
1.60
38.49***
1.09
29.03***
1.09
Followers' Worth
11.75
.30
8.98***
.27
12.17
.30
169.44
.88
168.41
.79
163.19***
.88
6.38
1.08
7.27**
.74
8.76***
.74
69.08
3.16
67.09
1.56
69.17
1.14
68.57
1.14
.80
3.49
5.21
4.08
3.56
6.66***
3.56
2.53
3.56
10.16***
12.26
.63
.43
16.40***
.43
13.74
.43
58.11***
Similarity to Followers
Values/Moral Just.
Tangibility
Action
Adversity
15.81***
29.42***
13.09*
166.09
8.01*
Note. Clinton N = 631 speech segments, Obama N = 917 speech segments, McCain N = 586 speech segments, Romney N = 107 speech segments.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 .
29
Appendix A
Overview of Charismatic Constructs
Construct
COLLECTIVE FOCUS
Collectives
People references
Self-reference ( - )
TEMPORAL
ORIENTATION
Present Concern
Past concern
FOLLOWERS’
WORTH
Praise
Satisfy
SIMILARITY TO
FOLLOWERS
Leveling
Familiarity
Description
Sample Words
Singular nouns connoting plurality that
function to decrease specificity, reflecting a
dependence on categorical modes of
thought. Includes social groupings, task
groups, and geographical entities.
Words referring to the citizenry-writ-large,
including sociological, political, and
generic group designations.
All first person references that reflect the
locus of action residing in the speaker and
not in the world at large.
Crowd, choir, team, humanity, army,
congress, legislature, staff, county, world,
kingdom, republic
Present-tense verbs denoting an emphasis
on the here and now.
The past-tense forms of the verbs in the
Present concern dictionary.
Cough, tastes, sing, take, canvass, touch,
govern, meet, make, cook, print, paint.
Coughed, tasted, sang, took, canvassed,
touched, governed, met, made, cooked,
printed, painted
Affirmations of a person, group, or abstract
entity.
Dear, delightful, witty, mighty, handsome,
beautiful, shred, bright, vigilant, reasonable,
successful, conscientious, renowned, faithful,
good, noble
Cheerful, passionate, happiness, smile,
welcome, excited, fun, lucky, celebrating,
pride, secure, relieved
Terms associated with positive affective
states, moments of undiminished joy, and
moments of triumph.
Words used to ignore individual
differences and to build a sense of
completeness and assurance.
A dictionary of the most common words in
the English language. Includes common
prepositions, demonstrative pronouns,
interrogative pronouns, and particles,
conjunctions, and connectives.
30
Crowd, classes, residents, constituencies,
majority, citizenry, masses, population
I, I’d, I’ll, I’m, I’ve, me, mine, my, myself
Everybody, anyone, each, fully, always,
completely, inevitably, consistently,
unconditional, consummate, absolute, openand-shut
Over, across, through, this, that, who, what, a,
for, so
Human Interest
VALUES & MORAL
JUSTIFICATIONS
Spirituality
Inspiration
TANGIBILITY
Concreteness
Insistence
Variety ( - )
ACTION
Aggression
Accomplishment
Passivity ( - )
Ambivalence ( - )
ADVERSITY
Blame
Hardship
Denial
Words that concentrate on people and their
activities.
He, his, ourselves, them, cousin, wife,
grandchild, uncle, friend, baby, human,
persons
Broad-based, Judeo-Christian terminology
including value-laden terms and theological
constructs.
Abstract virtues deserving of universal
respect and attractive personal qualities.
Churches, doctrine, sermons, conscience,
blessing, god-fearing, spiritual, faith, hope,
heavenly
Honesty, self-sacrifice, virtue, courage,
dedication, wisdom, mercy, patriotism,
success, education, justice
A dictionary of words denoting tangibility
and materiality, including physical
structures, modes of transportation, articles
of clothing, household animals, etc.
A calculated measure reflecting the
assumption that repetition of key terms
indicates a preference for a limited, ordered
world.
High scores indicate a speaker’s avoidance
of overstatement and preference for
precise, molecular statements
Airplane, ship, bicycle, stomach, eyes, lips,
slacks, pants, shirt, cat, insects, horse, wine
grain, sugar, oil, silk, sand, courthouse,
temple, store
A calculation of repetition of key terms.
Calculated score: Divides the number of
different words in a passage by the total
words.
Words denoting human competition and
forceful action, including physical energy,
social domination, and goal-directedness.
Blast, crash, explode, collide, conquest,
attacking, violation, commanded, challenging,
overcome, mastered, pound, shove, dismantle,
overturn, prevent, reduce, defend
Words expressing task-completion and
Establish, finish, influence, proceed,
organized human behavior.
motivated, influence, leader, manage,
strengthen, succeed, agenda, enacted,
working, leadership
Words ranging from neutrality to inactivity, Allow, tame, appeasement, submit, contented,
including terms of compliance, docility,
sluggish, arrested, capitulate, refrain, yielding,
and cessation.
immobile, unconcerned, nonchalant
Words expressing hesitation or uncertainty, Allegedly, perhaps, might, almost,
implying an inability or unwillingness to
approximate, vague, baffled, puzzling,
commit to what is being said.
hesitate, could, would, guess, suppose, seems
Terms designating social inappropriateness
and evil, as well as unfortunate
circumstances.
Natural disasters, hostile actions,
censurable human behavior, unsavory
political outcomes, and human fears.
Standard negative contractions, negative
function words, and null sets.
31
Mean, naïve, sloppy, stupid, fascist,
repugnant, malicious, bankrupt, rash, morbid,
weary, nervous, painful, detrimental, cruel
Earthquake, starvation, killers, bankruptcy,
enemies, vices, infidelity, despots, betrayal,
injustices, exploitation, grief, death
Aren’t, shouldn’t, don’t, nor, not, nay,
nothing, nobody, none