Celebrity Politicians and Affiliative Motives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Previous research has revealed a willingness to vote for celebrity political candidates when one has formed a parasocial connection with that candidate. Parasocial connections are perceived social connections between an individual and a media personality. Although previous published research on this effect has been limited to one celebrity politician (i.e., Donald Trump), in an exploratory study we found that the relationship between parasocial connection and political support generalizes to at least eight other celebrities across multiple celebrity occupations (e.g., comedian, singer, actor, athlete). This relationship is not explained by parasocial connections inducing attributions of greater leadership ability in celebrity candidates (e.g., greater prestige, dominance, competence, or warmth). Thus, forming parasocial bonds with a large number of people (through fame) might be an emerging avenue for acquiring status and power in politics, because media personalities can form parasocial connections with millions of people and, consequently, gain supporters. We posit that willingness to vote for celebrities is driven by a desire to satisfy affiliative motivations. Given that parasocial connections are experienced much like genuine social relationships, individuals might endorse celebrity leaders to affirm social bonds with them. Individuals are motivated to support and reward others who provide them with social connection. This is typically adaptive, given that most social relationships are reciprocal and support given is often returned in many forms. Further, in the case of leadership, placing close affiliates in positions of power likely enhances one’s own fitness by creating vicarious influence over the group. In this way, supporting celebrities vying for leadership might represent an evolutionary mismatch, in which a typically adaptive motivation to support social partners who are seeking leadership is misapplied to parasocial partners who are unlikely to return the favor. Leadership choices are often governed by rational evaluations in which followers select and continuously evaluate leaders based on traits and behaviors that are likely to enhance group performance. However, if individuals are supporting celebrities as leaders due to their affiliative qualities, the effect of a celebrity’s behavior on leadership endorsement should differ from that of typical politicians. Previous work has shown that friends are evaluated differently than leaders. People prefer impartially beneficent leaders, but they prefer friends who show partiality (Everett et al., 2018). In other words, people prefer for their friends to be partial to those close to them, but prefer impartial leaders. Hence, if celebrities receive leadership support through affiliative motivations rather than typical leadership evaluations and corresponding motivations, celebrities’ behavior that is diagnostic of partiality should differentially affect their perceived suitability as leaders.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».