杏吧原创

Negative, critical people often ascend to positions of leadership because their disregard for social niceties makes them seem powerful, research suggests.

at the University of Virginia explored people鈥檚 attitudes towards 鈥渘aysayers鈥� 鈥� those who express negative, critical views, and 鈥渃heerleaders鈥� 鈥� those who express positive, supportive views.

Across 11 experiments, she found that naysayers were considered more powerful and聽suitable for leadership roles than cheerleaders.

In one experiment, students were asked to read positive and negative restaurant reviews. They rated the author of the negative review as appearing more powerful, independent and able to express their real opinions about the restaurant.

In another experiment, students were placed in groups and asked to review an artwork. Each group contained two actors, one with critical views and the other with appreciative views. The students rated the critical actor as appearing more dominant and in control, and were more likely to elect them as leader of their group.

A third experiment asked聽online volunteers聽to read real quotes from past US presidential candidates. Without knowing who said them, the participants rated negative quotes like 鈥渢hese are very difficult times and challenges for America鈥� as signalling greater power and leadership potential.

Less likeable

Despite these leadership endorsements, the participants rated naysayers as being less likeable than cheerleaders. But this appeared to be offset by their respect for the naysayers鈥� courage to go against the grain.

Since negativity is generally considered impolite, openly critical individuals may seem聽to transcend social constraints and therefore be more powerful, says Chou. This may lead us to instinctively treat them as leaders, even when we don鈥檛 like them, she says.

Non-human primates also tend to treat non-conforming individuals as leaders, says Chou. For example, when individual baboons separate from larger packs to go in different directions, the rest often follow.

The findings may explain why negative, bullying types like television judge Simon Cowell聽are able to rise to positions of power and influence, says Chou.

They may also partially explain the success of Donald Trump, who disregards convention and appears unafraid to be openly critical, says at the University of Queensland in Australia. 鈥淗is ability to speak his mind seems to appeal to voters, who interpret his boldness as a sign of authenticity,鈥� he says.

However, it would be overly simplistic to conclude that Trump was elected US president because voters responded in an instinctive way to his negativity and resulting appearance of power, says Mols.

To suggest that Trump supporters were merely driven by subconscious impulses would be to dismiss the fact that they felt they had legitimate reasons 鈥� like concerns about immigration 鈥� to vote for him, he says.

According to Chou, it鈥檚 also important to note that the findings are only relevant to the initial establishment of power. Once naysayers become leaders, their negativity may soon make them unpopular and lead to their fall from power, she says. 鈥淲e are conducting further research to examine this possibility,鈥� she says.

Moreover, the results shouldn鈥檛 be interpreted as meaning we鈥檙e perpetually doomed to have naysayers as national leaders, says Chou.

In countries where the public discourse has turned negative, individuals who express positive, optimistic ideals may seem more powerful because of their opposing views, she says. This may explain Barack Obama鈥檚 success in being elected US president in 2008 with his message of hope and positivity, she says.