Charisma in everyday life: Conceptualization and validation of the General Charisma Inventory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although both scholars and lay people are fascinated with charismatic individuals, relatively few theorists have attempted to define charisma. Much of the empirical research examining charisma has focused on leadership. Even within that literature, however, theorists have focused on charisma's outcomes, leaving unarticulated what charisma actually is. Here, we tested an operational conceptualization of charisma in the context of everyday life. Specifically, we proposed that charisma is composed of the interpersonally focused dimensions of influence (the ability to guide others) and affability (the ability to make other people feel comfortable and at ease). We validated this conceptualization in a series of studies. In Studies 1-3, we used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to construct a short 6-item measure of charisma, the General Charisma Inventory. Next, in Study 4, we used round-robin evaluations and informant reports to establish the interpersonal nature of charisma. Finally, we examined the incremental validity of the scale in the context of dyadic interactions and tested the impact of charisma on perceptions of persuasiveness from voices. We found that (a) lay people possess a consensual conception of charisma; (b) charisma consists of a composition of quantifiable dimensions; (c) charisma is distinct from other constructs of interest to psychologists and leadership theorists; (d) charisma is observable; and (e) assessments of charisma predict real world outcomes. Thus, the current work not only comprehensively conceptualizes and measures charisma as an empirical construct, but also demonstrates its potential importance for the routine interactions that people experience every day. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".